HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-07-17-SC-min Page 64
July 17, 1979
A regular meeting of the Lexington School Committee was held on
July 17, 1979, at 8:00 p.m. , at the School Administration Building.
Those in attendance were: Brown, Swanson, Gaudet, Michelman, and Shaw.
Also present were: Lawson, Pierson, and Barnes.
Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, the fol- SCHEDULE OF
lowing schedule of payments was approved: (Michelman, Swanson, Unani- PAYMENTS
mous) (See attached sheet.)
Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, the fol- NEW PERSONNEL
lowing new personnel were accepted as listed on the attached sheet:
(Shaw, Swanson, Unanimous)
Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, the fol- PERSONNEL
lowing personnel changes (certified) as listed on the attached sheet CHANGES
were accepted: (Swanson, Michelman, Unanimous) (CERTIFIED)
Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, the fol- PERSONNEL
lowing personnel changes (classified) were accepted as listed on the CHANGES
attached sheet: (Gaudet, Shaw, Unanimous) (CLASSIFIED)
Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, the fol- RE-ELECTION
lowing staff were re-elected for the school year 1979-80, at the step OF STAFF
and level indicated on the attached sheet: (Michelman, Swanson, Unani-
mous)
Upon the reco.wuendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was BIDS -
DUMP TRUCK
VOTED: that the Lexington Public Schools purchase a one ton Stake Dump
Truck from the Automotive Truck Center, Inc. , based on their low
bid in the amount of $8,148. (Swanson, Michelman, Unanimous)
Mrs. Swanson expressed concern that the School Department look care- STAGE AND
fully before buying any drapes for the schools, due to the energy situa- LIGHT CONTROL
tion. She felt the Tenneco Energy Report indicated that Lexington should CURTAINS
use drapes that were energy conservers in all situations.
Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was
VOTED: that bids for stage and light control curtains be awarded as
follows, and that the bids for Fiske dark-out curtains be re-
jected due to the lack of funds, and that the Superintendent be
authorized to reject the items of Clarke and Estabrook until
additional information and evaluation were received. (Gaudet,
Michelman, Unanimous) (See attached sheet.)
Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, the SUMMER
following staff were voted for the summer workshops as indicated on the WORKSHOPS
attached sheet: (Swanson, Michelman, Unanimous)
Mr. Maclnnes presented a copy of a letter sent to the Town Manager TRANSFER OF
which outlined the recent transfer of the Munroe School to Town control. MUNROE SCHOOL
Dr. Lawson had high praise for the staff who had made the speedy tran-
sition possible. Dr. Lawson also thanked Town officials and departments
for their cooperation.
Page 65
July 17, 1979
It was TRANSFER OF
MUNROE SCHOOL
VOTED: to ratify the decision to turn over the Munroe School to Town (CONTINUED)
control, effective July 13, 1979. (Swanson, Michelman, Unanimous)
Paul Lombard presented a status report concerning the E.S.E.A. , Title SUMMER READING
I Summer Reading Program of 1979. PROGRAM
Mr. DeForest Mathews presented the annual Evening School Report to EVENING SCHOOL
the School Committee. He noted that the balance on hand, as of June 1, ANNUAL REPORT
1979 was $4,087.37. He added that the program was doing well financially,
andrecommended that teaching salaries and Director' s salary be increased
by a percentage equal to the percentage increase of the teaching staff of
the Lexington Public Schools.
The Superintendent noted that the salary recommendations would be in-
cluded in the next agenda. The School Committee thanked Mr. Mathews for
the report.
Dr. Pierson, and Ms. Zube, teacher in the pilot program in Semiotics SEMIOTICS
at Clarke Junior High School, presented a report concerning the evaluation PROGRAM
of the Semiotics Program at Clarke Junior High School. Dr. Pierson noted EVALUATION
that the program incorporated objectives of the composition program, pro-
vided opportunities for the study of fiction and non-fiction, and examined
the function and meaning of language through a variety of experiments, sim-
ulations, and readings. Ms. Zube then reviewed the evaluation of the re-
port for the School Committee. She stated that as part of the evaluation
of the pilot program, opinions of the students and parents were enlisted.
The recommendations were surveyed for possible continuation of the program
next year. She added that thirty-six returns from parents were received,
and twenty-seven parents suggested their children continue in the program.
The majority of the parents were pleased with the Semiotics course, and
looked forward to a second semester offering in ninth grade, if it were
available. She added that ninety-two percent of the students enrolled in
the pilot program had increased their understanding in their conceptions of
language by one level.
Dr. Lawson noted that one improvement that the program needed was a
consistent process for the selection of students in the Semiotics Program.
Mrs. Gaudet said that she was also concerned with the selection since there
were more students that wanted to participate in the program than there was
space for presently. Mr. Hibbard added that it may be necessary to draw
lots for any course over-subscribed. Mrs. Gaudet added that one concern she
had regarding innovative programs was that only bright students participated,
and hoped that the opportunity would be offered for all. Ms. Zube then ad-
ded that the course did demand students that were capable. However, the con-
cerns expressed would certainly be considered.
The Superintendent then noted that a pilot program be conducted during
the 1979-80 year. The School Committee thanked Dr. Pierson and Ms. Zube
for their report.
Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was
VOTED: that the pilot program in Semiotics at Clarke Junior High School be
Page 66
July 17, 1979
held during the 1979-80 school year. (Michelman, Swanson, Unani-
mous) (See attached sheets .)
This item was deferred to a future School Counuittee meeting. MASC DELEGATE
Mr. Maclnnes announced that $1,189.89 was the result of the surplus MUNROE SCHOOL
sale of Munroe School articles, and had been forwarded to the Town for SURPLUS SALE
the E & D Fund.
It was announced that the counselors' grievance would not be held COUNSELORS'
since several of the counselors were unavailable to attend the hearing. GRIEVANCE
Mr. Cawley presented the introductory remarks regarding the griev- SENIOR TEACHER
ance of senior teachers at Estabrook School (Article X, Teacher Assign- GRIEVANCE
ments, Section C; Article XXXIV, Just Cause; Article XXXVI, Salary Guide) . HEARING
He stated that the remedy sought was that the positions of senior teacher
be re-instituted, effective September, 1979, and the affected teachers be
paid their stipends.
The Superintendent noted that the School Committee had decided not
to fill the position of senior teacher due to the declining enrollment,
and of recommendations of the principals in 1977 that equitable adminis-
tration was needed within the buildings. The decision not to fill the
positions of senior teachers and team leaders had been recommended by
principals, and the Superintendent had requested that the information be
shared by the principals with staff. The Superintendent said that other
positions had not been filled during the past few years due to declining
enrollment, namely assistant principals, principalships, housemasters,
Central Office staff, and department heads.
Dr. Pierson reviewed the process again, and outlined the history of
the development of the formula that 400 students in one building equalled
one full-time principal. He said that equitable administration due to de-
clining enrollment was a priority with principals, and that the information
and associated recoamiendation were known well in advance of all School Com-
mittee meetings and School Committee votes. The principals had been asked
to share such information in all cases with staff.
Mary Hardigan and Paul Loscocco, senior teachers at the Estabrook -
School, at the request of the School Committee, delineated the functions
of a senior teacher. Mr. Brown noted that the senior teachers at Franklin
School had not grieved. He asked if any detrimental effects were noted
since there were no senior teachers at Franklin. Dr. Lawson and Dr. Pierson
responded that there were none that they knew of.
Mr. Michelman referred to the contract on page 39. He noted that there
were other positions that had not been filled in the past. He also stated
that he felt the duties of the senior teachers as stated by the two speakers
were not peculiar to Estabrook and Franklin but were performed similar in
other schools by staff. Mrs. Swanson added that she preferred professional
consultationon such topics, such as, senior teachers, rather than a grievance.
She felt this type of dialogue would be most appropriate and beneficial in
such a professional consultation.
Dr. Lawson noted that the topic of equitable administration certainly had
Page 67
July 17, 1979 •
budget implications. The topic had been discussed at principals` meetings,
and :rincipals were requested by him and Dr. Pierson to discuss it with their
staff •- the plan being that if the positions were not filled, there would be
some monies available for schools on an equitable basis. Those who developed
a pian. for modification could request funds. There were none received by the
Superintendent. He noted that he would still be receptive to plans for sti-
pends for duties within buildings under the guidelines.
Mr. Brown thanked the LEA for its presentation. •
It was moved that Grievance #78-79-7' (Senior Teachers) not be allowed.
(Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous)
It was
MOVED: to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing a collec-
tive bargaining matter at 9:22 p.m. (Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous)
Respectfully submitted,
/�
Ric` art H. Bar es
Recording S retary
/c
BIDS - ELECTRICAL FIXTURES
On June 11, 1979, invitations for bids for Electrical Fixtures were
sent to ten companies. The bid was also advertised in the June 14, 1979
issue of the Lexington Minute-Man.
Specifications were drawn for five items , (electrical fixtures and
components) with which we will be continuing the program of replacement of
incandescent lighting. The 380 fixtures purchased as a result of this
bid will provide better lighting at a reduced cost. Our estimate is that
the payback period for the cost of the fixtures will be approximately
three years. The installation of the fixtures, an ambitious task, will
be done by our own maintenance staff.
Sealed bids were received from nine companies and were opened at a
public reading at 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, June 19, 1979.
The results of the bids were as follows:
Items A & B Items C,D & E
Metal Halide Fixtures Fluorescent Fixtures
Boston Light Supply Co. NB 7367.48
Gem Peerless Elec. Supply Co. 1740. 60 7160.32
Graybar Elec , Co. , Inc. 1728.00 7416.00
Liberty Elec. Supply Co. 1800 00 7316.00
Mass Gas & Elec. Co. 1728.00 6689.80 (6834.80 adj. total)
Ralph Pill Elec. Supply Co. 1777.68 7393.04
Standard Elec. Supply Co. 1713.68 7194.20
Westinghouse Electric 1464. 60** 8709 . 60
Woburn Supply (-1712.80 'i 6899.40*(1086.40 adj . total)
*Adjusted total - due to error on bid form
**Bidding on alternate. Bid disqualified (Specs not included with bid)
We have done business with Mass. Gas and Woburn Supply and they are
capable of supplying these items.
The budget for this project is $8790. and the total of the above
award is $8547.60.
The recap for the bids received appea.s as follows :
Somers,
Lester L. Derosier Kitchen &
Burdick Plan Ensler I-
I . Student Accident Insurance Cost per student-regular 3.00 3.00 3.50
as specified Cost per student-24 hr. 20.00 19.00 18.00
Id- Student Accident Insurance covered covered covered
Sr. High Open Campus - --in basic in basic in basic
policy policy policy
III .Field trip accident coverage-blanket policy as
specified in #I 90.00 440.00 90.00
IV. Field trip-overnight cost per student covered in covered if Included in
basic under 24 hr. 24 hr. Plan
policy plan
V. Senior High Interscholastic Football (same policy $1,200. 1,260. 1,050
limits as specified under AFI
VI. Lump sum bid for Items III, IV, V as one Item $1,290. 1,700. 1,140.
Inclusions or exclusions outside of specifications :
Lester L. Burdick:- Dental care limited to 1000--Specs. $10,000.
Chiropractors or oodiatrists-ltmit %50. -Spec. Not covered.
Derosier Plan:- Dental $250.pertoo�th limit - Specs. $10,000. repair or replacement
Claim to be made within 30 days - Spec. 60 days .
Double dismemberment $10,000. - Spec. $7 ,500.
Covers csropractors
Ambulance maximum (local) - Specs . "Unlimited
Somers. Kitchen & Esler Insd-Dental 1150. per tooth for filled teeth, Specs. $10,000.
$10,000. max. limit
Double dismemberment - $10,000. Specs. $7,500.
Covers chiropractor.
Does not cover student or staff or parent in private vehicle
dri ven by drivers under 21 yrs. of age (sr. high field
trip) .
Primary Access Policy - pays 1st $100. regardless of other
insurance.
$100,000. limit under Basic policy, $300,000. under football.
Specs.. $10,000.
COST PROFILE
Item Burdick Derosier Somers,Kitch, & Essler
I & II $13,500. $13,200. $14,150.
II 90. 440. 90.
IV None None None
'7 1,200. 1,260. 1,050.
Lump Sum
III-V 1,290. 1,700. 1,140.
• Cost to Parents $13,500. $13,200. $14,150.
Cost to Town(lump sum) 1,290. 1,700. 1,140.
Total Premium -
Lump Sum $14,970 $14,900 $15,290.
i.
EXTRA DUTY STIPENDS - 1978- 1979 .,
SCHOOLNAME STIPEND FOR: AMOUNT
SETTING OF SALARIES 01' TENURED STAFF - 1979 h0
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
HOUSEMASTERS
Sala 11 Stipend
ClARbKEE
Salary Step/Level
RF.-ELECTION OF STAFF
SECOND ELECTION
These people have previously received n cen race and are being recommended for
their second election.
STEP/ GRADE/
SCHOOL NAME LEVEL SUBJECT SALARY COENTS
SPECIAL NEEDS
PLACEMENT PROGRAM
94.-142
PROJECT DISCOVER
*Subject to funding
For re-election (not working toward tenure)
(Over)
RE-FLECTION OF STAFF
(Continue I) _ a
THIRD ELECTION
MFTCC
NAME: SAIJ\ICIT COMMENTS
*Subject to funding
RE-ELECTION OF FOOD SERVICE PERSONNEL -
This list includes all of our Food Service Personnel who are to he re- ` ?
employed for the 1979-80 school year All have been evaluated and have received
ratings of satisfactory or better. Wages and number of hours are in accordance
with the current Food Service Employees ' contract _
Ars. Hrs.
School Name 10F. -Step Rite fir. day r_. week Hours.
Senior
Clarke
Dieracnd
RE-ELECTION OF FCOt) SERVICE. PER 2CINEL (Cent. ) ';>
1 Pr. Mn,
.
School Name Ice. Stan :L-.te day Dr. Hours
Muzzey
RE-ELECTION OF FOOD SERVICE PERSO J EL_(Co-nt . )
firs. tars.
School Name `"os . Rate pr.day pr. week Hours
Senior High
snpv roR su-J 1 n . ;n .i_;
Name of Teacher Worksh c, 2LLu.ber of Udys Salary
CESS ir i Si)
1..1,:.ber of flours
(Over)
KINDERGARTEN SCREENING _ U?HSR \1(O KSIU P STAFF
NAME .tfhPER. Or DAYS* SALARY
*lialf days - July 9 - 20.
STAFF FOR SUMMER 20R'0 HOPS
Name Workshop Numhcr cf Days Salary
ADDITIONS .
GLANCE
CLASSIFIED
• 78Q 78-7979-40
•
]rs, in 78-79 Salary tic BelowTJ 1
nese L.ex, pEsree ase Longevity Total Increase Max. Base n..eviey ! ?ocrAl I 1sax aaC
rerc:ent of increase includes 5. 57. Salary Adjustment
plus increase taber. Applicable
1'rs. in I 78-79 Salary Ratio Below - I L "#
;:arae 1,8x. _ , Dr})ree Fase
. T.r.;evaty Total Increase Max. Base Lohz,evity 1.0t4) I Increase
..etir�raent Incenrive Pay
*r:ynrcent of increase includes 5.57. salary adjustzenc plus increment where applicable
1978-1979 07._
# of Degree #
. Yrs. & in
- Base Stipend Wry evity Total Le:. I Step Dept. Base Stipend Lonzevity Total
,---
___ ___.
SCHEDULE OF PA 9JENTSS
The following schedu cs pavmcnn -.__ aveaIla'ble for scrutiny and approval
prior to this meeting:
SCHOOL :;I;PAF1Jft vl I ''i ni i -:
Personal Services
June 22, 1979 Classified Payroti 2?C. 8107,279.99
June 15, 1979 Prufessi_onal I'ayro'. 7 #2° 2,028,811.26
June 29, 1979 Prafossicn 1 Payroll 427 453,900.50
Expenses
June 22, 1979 Bill Schedules #285 3,359.21
June 22, 1979 C2$C 3, 117.44
June 22, 1979 4282 2q506,55
_
June 29, 1979 #288 150. 15
5
June 22, 1979 #289 2,725.78
June 22, 1979 #290 36, 174.99
June 22, 1979 4291 3,579.94
June 72 , 1979 #292 6,421.69
June 29, 1979 #293 1, 270.06
June 29, 1979 'k294 510.10
June 29, 1979 #295 2,080. 16
June 29, 1979 V296 8,302.00
June 29, 1979 4297 1,493.90
June 29, 1979 #298 387.00
June 29, 1979 #299 3,857.72
June 29, 1979 4300 12,574.94
June 29, 1979 #301 1,677. 15
June 29, 1979 #302 13,861.58
June 29, 1979 #303 1,386.86
Juno 29, 1979 #304 4,815.16
June 29, 1979 #305 1,551.70
June 29, 1979 'k306 2,379.78
Juno 29, 1979 : 307 7,093.73
June 29, 1979 0308 1, 782. 74
June 29, 1979 1309 1 , 225. 10
June 29, 1979 '" 10 312.80
July 13 , 2979 °,11 7,338. 57
61; 13 . 1979 '2 8,644.41
'u -- -State Trey
29, 1979 bill Schedus 515.78
June 2), 197 745.'20
S .ECIAl. n (JR Non-1 it:•o.r Fundi;
Adul:. Education
June 29, 1979 Professional Payroll 134. 72
(Over)
•
Dr1',cr r.,,,...0LLL,,,
June 15, 1979 Professional Payroll $1 ,231.80
June 29, 1979 Professional Payroll 1,353.98
Bus Tickets
June 29, 1979 Bill Schedule ; i0 817. 60
ESEP Library
June 29, 1979 Bill Schedule #9 38. 15
'.;etco Program
June 22, 1979 Classified Payroll ;t21C 3,033.83
June 15, 1979 Professional Payroll 18,246.59
June 29, 1979 Professional Payroll 5,457.34
June 29, 1979 Bill Schedule #19 1 ,224.83
June 29, 1979 Bill Schedule #20 13,931.70
Transition to Employment
June 22, 1979 Classified Payroll ;l21C 172.04
June 15, 1979 Professional Payroll 1,078.65
June 29, 1979 Professional Payroll 5,393.33
June 29, 1979 Bill Schedule #16 377.62
June 29, 1979 Bill Schedule #17 16.45
Prolect Discover •
June 15, 1979 Professional Payroll 2,284.60
June 29, 1979 Professional Payroll 456.92
June 29, 1979 Bill Schedule #10 2,321.46
; Z 89-313 Special Education
June 15, 1979 Professional Payroll 436.90
dine 29, 1979. Professional Payroll 87.38
7ccational Training Tuition
June 22, 1979 Bill Schedule #4 72.50
Math Comnuter
J ne 29, 1979 Bill Schedule #1 861. 22
June 29, 1979 Bill Schedule 'v'2 171.83
Gift Accauh
c.ne 29 1979 Dill Schedule #9 6.85
NEW riTSLN:0W
ECON};A .Y
NAME SHI0Lois J':(% EDUCATION EXPERIENCE
(Over)
FERSONNEL CiL&N,t..}CH - YFLTIF1El)
RESIGNATION
YRS. IN LEX1NGTUN EFFECTIVE REASON
MATERNITY LEAVE OF ABSENCE
DECREE CHANGES
CHANGE IN ASSIGNMENT
SLIMMER WORKSHOPS - CHANCJIS
PERSONNEL CHAvCi.S - CERTLPI£0
(Con ti n i r d) ----
SUMMER WORKSHOP
Project Discover
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMLNT...CI =.RNANS11i_ Stipend
REAPPOINTMENT OF SCHOOL COL 1I'TTEE COUNSEL
)
(Over)
PERSONNEL i.ILNci:',:S, _ CbASSI1_IE"
RESIGNATION
YRS. IN LENiN1;1 N: E1'FLCTRE REASON
TRANSFERS
SuImIEA. WORKSHOP
New Persona 1
Sumter Employ :dent
The follc' .ug il,,ve 1„ cn tayiudytu dadi ,17, Ihd sun, der months to
;augment our custodial and unintenencn staff while they are on their
earned vacations :
',':mnlloY^r.ont Hourly
Name D:ites Rate
Maintenance
Custodial
Iu addition, we also have a yot.ng man empleyc ,1 custodial helper for the
summer whose wages are paid by the CETA program .
(Over)
yi.PSONNEI. L \NC.F. Cm,fl
TRANSFERS
R6-EL C uluN
SECOND ELECTION
;i ,. .,:r ,:r _ h� rec mmeEded for
These people have pry i(nisl;� -ec<�ic, .. :-. -
their second elaction.
SCHOOL NAME I FVTI _PhihC_[ SALARY COYZENTS
Senior High
THIRD ELECTION
These people have previously re_cived two runtroet- ani' are 'being recommended
for their third election.
,
-.
BIDS - STAGE AND T. (::15 CONTROL CURTAINS
On June 8, 1979 requests Ear bids for stage and light control curtains were
sent: to ft-se companies . The bid was also r.dverLised in the June 14, 1979 issue
of the Lexington Minute Man.
Specifications were dram for the replacement of stage and lightCvnt":{Bi a
curtains at several schools
Three bids were received and opened at 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, June 26, 1979.
The recap of the bid is as follows .
BLUE RIBBON VERNON JOHN Mm
ITEM BUDGET WINDOW COV. HEIPLER WALKER
Senior High - Stage Curtain $2900. $2480. $2750. $2476'j
Clarke - Cafeteria Curtains 1100. I3l 1123. 1364.
Clarke - CR Dark Out 3000. 2 ' 2430. 3084.
Bowman - Stage Curtains 1200. 1540. 1840. 134
Estabrook - Aud/Gym, Library, /7550-9-$\ 831 . 995.
Teachers Area Light
Control 1000. 1255.
radl
s.
Fiske - CR Dark Out Curtains 650. 1660. 1839. 2240.
TOTALS $9850. $10035 . $10813. $11293, .
The low bidders as indicated above have submitted samples and they met our
specifications . John M. Walker Compan,, has wo'.:Led for us before and has performed
satisfactorily. Blue Ribbon Window Coverngs is new to us, but a reference check
with another school would indicate that they are also capable of completing the
contract to our satisfaction.
We are recommending that the items circled above be awarded. The curtains
at '.stabrock are over the budgeted a,-,,runt for this school, but we will make a
transfer of funds to cover the difference. We are recommending that the bids for
dark out curtains at Fiske School be rejected. due to lack of funds. The bid
included three rooms and the amount budgeted was only enough for one room. We
can get separate quotations for this school at a later date.
BID - ONE TC?d dUAKE :1i1N9 TDTcN.
On June 8, 1979, requests for bids for a One Ton Dump Truck were sent
to eight companies. The bid was also advertised in the June 14, 1979 issue
of the Lexington Minute Man.
Specifications were drawn for a one ton stake dump truck to replace our
present maintenance truck. Our present truck was purchased in 1969 and has
approximately 110,000 miles .
Three sealed bids were received and op ncd at 12:00 Noon on Tuesday,
June 26, 1979.
The recap is as follows :
Make & Cost of Trade In Delivered
Model Year Vehicle Allowance Price
Automotive Truck GMC-1979 $10,856. $2,208. $8143.
Centers Inc.
Belmont Auto Sales, Inc. Ford-1980 8,994. 500. 8494.
Powe Chevrolet Chevrolet-1979 10,780. 1,681. 9099.
The low bidder is the same dealer that we purchased our present vehicle
from. They are bidding the vehicle which meets all specifications . The
budgeted amount for this vehicle is $8500.
STAFF FOR SU0'.;1R l!OR;:SIInPS
Name Workshop Nurn .er old Days Salary
ADDITIONS
CHANGE
)
CLASSIFIED
EVALUATLON OF SEMWL _S rm"tt,,H i_.. �, - r ,�l�i WR 111.Ai SCoCi.
Components of Evaluation
Three components were used to evsle to the course : a student' s
questionnaire, a pretest-posttest On the C uvient , s conception of
language, and a brief opinion/rueommendatton survey to parents. Each
of these components is described below ts , e1Hgr with a summary of
results.
Student Questionnaire
A student questionnaire was prepared by the Project Semiotics
Office in Brookline and administered by uc at the end of the semester
to all students . Of the total of 66 individual responses sought, the
breakdown of the questions was as follows :
-Assessment of textual content of femieetics 1 Signs , Language
and Realitt, plus assignments ( 57 recy,oreer ;
-Reading (4 responses )
-Writing (5 responses)
-Miscellaneous ( 5 responses)
1 . Assessment of textual content
Students were asked to assess -each item -of etextualecontent on a
scale cf 1 to 4 ( 1 -poor,
3-good , 4-excellent) . Additional spaces
were also included for qualitative comments . The number of responses
in each category for each item were added and a percentage calculated.
A collective score for each item was then calculated. To sharpen the
general assessment of materials, students were asked to select the "best"
and the "worst" from the 66 items . For the "best, " we stipulated that
they should indicate the "most memorable and/or important" item, whereas
for the "worst, " we asked them to indicate the "least worthwhile" item.
This selection of items could include a Bingle reading (such as The
Miracle Worker) , a unit of sctivities (such as Experiments, Language
Games) , or an assignment.
Results from these questions were f'lirly predictable. Students
tended to favor the easiest and more familiar reading sections--The
Miracle Worker, The Phantom Tollbooth, Flatland. The Experiments were
rated the highest of any item. ?or the least worthwhile, the dialogues
by Plato and Berkeley were most often mentioned, no doubt because they
were the most difficult to understand and involved methodical explication.
2 . Reading
We asked four questions relating to read.an ': the difficulty (dif-
ficult, hard but understandable, average , easy) , the difficulty compared
to that experienced in other English courses , and the learning experienced.
Students rated the readings used in semiotics generally harder than those
encountered in other courses and the comparative quantity of reading as a
bit more. The perceived learnirgs about reeding tended to focus on
increased accuracy and on the ability to get through difficult reading.
Students said that they now read with more purpose and greater attention
to detail. Many thought that they learned to think about what they read
more critically by calling into nuestion what the author said and by
concentrating their attention more fully :._rid probing the main ideas of
the reading.In general they agreed that rereading a single piece several
times was a skill t. ' r adopted as pracLice, as well .
3 . Writing
Questions about writing assignments used in the course were similar
to those asked about readings We ached about t"".e comparative difficult„ _
and quantity of writing assignments . !.e also " : kc d students what they
thought they had learned aboutrr?tin , . Most thoi v;ht the amount of
writing assigned was about the same as that required in regular English
classes, but that the kind of writing used in semiotics was more difficult.
In general, students concurred that they ,thought; they achieved "greater
clarity, " "better organization, " "increase=] awareness of critical analysis, "
in their writing. They said they saw a closer fit between their thinking
and writing. The experiment write—ups , in particular, called for separ •
—
ating observations from conclusions from generalizations which helped
students see and make the connections between specific details, abstract
concepts, and the applications these have to the purpose of their writing.
4 . Miscellaneous
The miscellaneous questions asked on the questionnairefocused on the
balance of reading and writing in the course, the uniqueness of instruc-
tion in how to ask questions , and the willingness of students to recom—
mend the course to others . Finally, we asked for an overall opinion of
the course. Answers to these questions were as follows. Nearly all the
students felt that there was an even balance of reading and writing in
the course . None of the students said they had received previous train—
ing in how to ask questions . All of the s.;tucents said that they would
recommend the course to others. Below ,arca several student evaluations
of the semiotics course in genera]
"It is difficult and frustratins, but nevertheless succeeds in
getting the point across which, I believe, is to show us how
incredibly complex our language
system is . Semiotics keeps us
wondering about language and its properties . It also teaches us
about reality and how experience part of our reality and that
the only way we can learn about those is through our language."
"Semiotics is a geed courser to take ; it madey� me learnthatthe
answers are not always going to be right there in front of me.
I learned to look beyond what 1 already know, and to really dig
to find the answers . Semiotics taught me how complex simple
things really are, and, how many different meanings something
can have. "
"`Tis course was excellent because you can learn so much more
about- language and how to use it . The experimenting was fun
and you learn not to depend on your teacher and other people
so much. "
":.t first I said that I didn' t think I could do it. But when
:�e got into the course . I found it to be fun, interesting, and
sometimes difficult. I would recommend semiotics to everyone
because it does so much more for yaw thinking and understanding, "
"I thought it was interesting and a groat experience in English.
I would do it again. I dvn' t thick i : :.issed anything by being it
Semiotics ; in fact, I 'think ] have been lucky to be able to try it_
Try it, you ' ll like it ? "
Pretest-Posttest : Conception 7.,i .nt -_
? . Description of test
At the beginning_ and t,t.c'i of the aiivter, each student was asked
to submit his/ her conception of BineuYb . ',',y f onception vie mean the
way in which students thinb .about 1nzigu: what it is, what it does
or doesn't do. Although a conception any include a definition of
language, a definition alone--especially a dictionary definition--
•
cannot replace a conception. Couception aro personal and open,
whereas definitions are public ond olosml . hone is the assignment
students were given:
Write an essay which describes your present conception of language.
The essay should be long enough to cover what you have to say. Do
not say anything about language th.0 t :/ou do not believe, and do
not believe anything about Iangus.;: : that von leave unsaid.
Besides an essay, students. ware r''er:1. to ssbmt a list of questions
about language . They were in�r touet' . not to ask about anything that
they did not want to lnow, nor to 0:ad .1 question whose answer they
already thought the: new, Initial afd final conceptions were received
from a. control group of eigbth rr ' l i dh :; tuecnt.n who were not
enrolled in the ferietdcs course . ': l . conceptions were
momhed o3^_ a reale Oi' five lev iD o: utd,f t r ,i�irr,, This scale Was
based strictly on the content of .. ,; .i. ' lig tnri ':'I, tf' .,t+id., The concep-
tions wore secre_, ty Ai: .rt 5 ind nt. t t seertr:: . We never five dis-
cussed the
- rye : with the sty. ;nti l after the post-test
_
_
was admi�nistoreo =I o alunt:c' y :10T.' '• t e i1 ; explicitly addressed
in the curriculuf. lurinj t'.... coursJ or 1 •- • homtstes. In the past ten
years
that , oti has p 1 l _ i` t J dents
-`
conceptions o.. l ...:. Live iSCresy.i ' 1 - I of rrmierstanding for
every semester of semiotics inftructicui , 1'.'' th s a� yu1deliner
the results of oar pac- and po t eedieeftifils for both the control
and experimental. up.s are as ' 0l is our :
(� L T
V Vnw rL i�l?:'!.`�1.�i _ Cr;, ,p�111] tl :��l Control/Final. !;X pt.�Y'111a1
Level 1 r^i`' , 95% %i7
Level z f,,.. 17 4, 54%
Level 3 0 e.., 0% 29%
Level 4 CII CV 0% 7%
Level 5 C'; 0'4 2%
As these data reveal , our pilot ern .1 in semiotics was successful.
Of Gi1e 46 eighth graders enrollcH in Lhc ' Im;1•a.ny, 92/o increased one
level of unde:stnndin: in their conte::,tii :; or language , All of the
students passed the course ; the majority f', ''rived grades of A and B.
opinion/Recocmend�tti on Survey from, _'rcn 'ta
As part of our evaluation of hi:• , i 1 - i. orrwrhm , we enlisted the
opinions of our tu . i'tttnt • :t' _':. ; , 1 ti:sir recommendations
for the possible c.oLti .on r . r 1 , next year.
Page 4
Of the 36 returns received, 27 parent-s parent-soeted for having their
children continue in the program, whi.] e ° chose not to continue.
The majority of parents were pleased with the semiotics course
and looked forward to a second semester offering, in ninth grade
if it were available . The students , as well , are eager to
continue in the program.
Thank_ you for your con:ideratiom ,
Sincerely,
n Pep
Peggy A. Zube
Average Rating for Textual 61:eterial
A. EXPERIMENTS
3.105 1 . r-`1 Naming and communication-fractured "T"
2 !648 2. #2 Naming and perception-12 slides
2 .230 3. #3 Naming and conception-wires in boxes
3 .750 4. #4 Whirling windows
3 ,486 5. #5 Anamorphic room
B. DIALOGUES
2 .450 6. the Allegory of the Cave--Plato
2 .205 7. Cratylus-Plato
2.029 8. Alcilihron-Berkel ey
C. ESSAYS
2 ..800 9 . A.gassiz Plays a :came-,Shales
2 !,121 10, Develgpment of a Passable Question-Fayre
3 .047 11 . The Story of My Life-Keller.
3.200 12 . Lettefs from the Miracle Worker-Sullivan
2 .714 13. Do We Have to Learn How to Sc.,:!?-Gregory
3 . 162 14. Wild Victor of Averyon-Itard
2 .769 15 . The House Seen From Nowhere-Mu:_leau-Ponty
2 .542 16. What Is a Sign-Peirce
3.000 17. Discursive and Presentational Forms-Langer
D. FICTION,
FICTO`'
2.972 18. Ik ' s All in How You Look at Things-Custer
3.400 19 . The Miracle Worker-Gibson
3. 210 20. Flatland-Abbott
3,464 21 . Outside Reading
3, 347 22. The Country of the Blind-Wells
3,032 23. Funes the Memorious-Borges
F. LANGUAGE GAMES
2 ,558 24. Wow I Learned to Speak-St. Augustine
2 .526 25 . L.G. #1-The Shopkeeper
3.000 26. L.G. #2-The Builders
2 .727 27. L.G . #3-"This-There"
2 .424 28. L.G. #4-Insignia
2,615 29 . L.G. #5-Broken "Bam"
2 „72.5 30, L.G. #6-"Gavagaii "
2.588 31 . L.G. #7-"Pain! "
2 . 645 32 , L.2, #8-Lithium
2.600 33. L.G . #9=Butterfly
G. SIGNS AND SIGNIFICATION
2 , 592 34. Intimations of Realzty
2.945 35. The Black Box Revisited
2.741 36. Three Elements of Experience
2. 653 37. Meaning at the Middle Distance
2..391 38. A Model for What Is
2 .566 39 . Toward a Theory of Signs
2 .571 40. Five Major Types of Signs
2.791 41. The Semiotic Function
Ho ASSIGNMENTS
2.368 42.. lab Reports
3. 162 y L 2 i3® The Miracle in The Miracle Worker -.
2 ,439 44. A.lciphron
2 .974 45 , Language Games
2.866 46. Book Review
2 .647 47. Reference Reading
3. 108 48. Conception of Language
3. 115 43. Overall rating of materiui for the course
Average for all items : 2 7q3