HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-18-SC-min Page 25
March 18, 1980
A meeting of the Lexington School Committee was held on March 18,
1980, at 8:00 p.m. , at Diamond Junior High School. Those in attendance
were Brown, Swanson, Shaw, Gaudet , Michelman, and student representative
Dohan. Also present were: Lawson, Maclnnes , Monderer, Pierson, DiGiam-
marino and Barnes.
The Superintendent called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m, and ELECTION OF
requested nominations for the position of chairperson of the School SCHOOL
Committee. Mrs. Swanson nominated Mr. Brown to be chairperson of the COMMITTEE
•School Committee. No other nominations being received, nominations CHAIRPERSON
were closed. Mr. Michelman moved that the chairperson cast one ballot
for the election of Mr. Brown. The motion was seconded by Mrs . Gaudet.
A vote was cast by the chairperson, and Mr. Brown was declared elected.
At this point , the gavel was turned over to Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown called for nominations for secretary of the School Cosuuit-
tee. Mrs. Gaudet nominated Mrs. Swanson. Mr. Michelman moved that the
Ghanaian cast one ballot for the election of the secretary. The motion
was seconded by Mrs . Gaudet. The chairman cast one ballot for the elec-
tion of secretary. Mrs. Swanson was declared elected.
At this point , Mr. Brown on behalf of the School Committee thanked
the administrative staff and professional staff for the. preparation and
presentation of the 80-81 budget. He noted that the budget had passed
unanimously at Town Meeting, and felt that it was one of the best pre-
pared and most comprehensive presentations he had witnessed in the twen-
ty-six years as a Town Meeting Member. He extended his compliments to
all the staff,
Mr. Ciano, Coordinator of Visual. Arts, spoke on behalf of the pro- PUBLIC
posed Cluster Program. He said he firmly supported the plan as an im- PARTICIPATION
portant additive for balanced education of students . Fe noted that his
past high school experiences in another town were very beneficial but
would not have been valuable if he had not required to select some
courses that he did not prefer. He also felt that the arts were a cen-
tral point in the education of an individual and this vas reflected in
the proposed Cluster plan of the Lexington High School. He felt the
proposal was a positive move.
Miss Margaret Kinley, speaking on behalf of the High School Faculty
Voice Committee, noted that she was in attendance as well as other mem-
bers of the cua:mittee to answer any questions that the School Coumdttee
might have as to whether their questions had been answered regarding
the Cluster Proposal. She noted that the School Committee had received
a proposal from the Faculty Voice which was somewhat different than the
one proposed by the administration. Mr. Michelman asked if the Faculty
Voice Committee felt their proposal was preferable to the administration's
proposal. He also asked who did it represent? He also asked if any fac-
ulty vote had been taken. Miss Kinley responded, saying that their pro-
posal was not considered as being superior but were offering it as a com-
promise to problems that had been presented. She reiterated that it was
not a policy statement but a compromise, one that reflectedtat a major-
ity of the faculty was thinking. She said the Faculty Voice was an elect-
ed group of teachers trying to carry out the wishes of staff which she
felt they were doing. She said eighteen members were present out of
twenty at the Faculty Voice Committee meeting, and they voted unanimously
to support this particular proposal.
Page 26
March 18, 1980
At this point, Dr. Clune presented revisions in the Cluster Pro-
posal being projected for Lexington High School. He noted the follow-
ing four changes:
- A student will be required to earn four credits in a foreign
language at Lexington High School if he/she has earned credit
in a foreign language in Grade 9.
- The number of credits within the distribution will be increased
from 45 to 49 for those students who take a foreign language.
- The distribution requirement will be considered over a four-year
sequence (grades 9-12) with the understanding that if a student
feels a 9th grade course is equivalent to a course at Lexington
High School, then he/she may petition the appropriate department
head to have the 9th grade course count towards fulfillment of
a cluster requirement.
- We will continue to be flexible in accepting credit for course
taken at other accredited institutions.
Mr. Michelman said he had some concern regarding the effect of the
plan on future distribution of high school teaching staff among subject
matter areas noting that it was impossible to project exactly what the
effect might be. Dr. Clune responded that it may, but as stated pre-
viously all staffing would come from within the allocation as voted by
School Committee consistent with the contract ratios.
Mrs. Gaudet said she had some concern about the arena and cluster.
She said some students might not be able to take some courses because
there was no room. What happens if it is required? Dr. Clune responded
saying that he felt the problem could be solved, and felt it would not
be a critical issue.
Mrs. Swanson asked why the Pupil Services Division seemed opposed
to the Cluster Program. Dr. Clune responded that he had asked Mr.
Jarrell, and felt that the only consideration at this time was the per-
ception of the program of inflexibility. Mr. Jarrell then responded
that there was concern that the proposed program was specialized in
particular areas and non-academic students ' needs perhaps would not be
met . Mrs. Swanson then asked Dr. Clune if he felt that was a legitimate
concern. He responded that all students needed to be challenged, and he
felt that the proposal as presented would be of assistance to them as
a matter of course regardless of what their interests were.
Marc Dohan then asked if he could petition a department head to
get a ninth grade course credit towards the Cluster Program, and he
asked for an example. Dr. Clune gave the example of Industrial Arts
course at the ninth grade level being accepted for credit and also
Albegra II.
Mrs. Shaw said it was necessary to recognize that there were non-
academic students but had to make sure that they could develop them-
selves also. She asked what role the,Guidance Department would play
under the new system and how it would feel now that the new changes have
occurred. Mr. Jarrell responded that Pupil Services felt there was enough
Page 27
March 18, 1980
flexibility built into the proposal to meet all. student needs. Dr. Clune
added that all disciplines had courses to meet the interest , needs and
abilities of all students. He was confident that the program could meet
the students ' needs.
Mr. Michelman said although he had some serious reservations , he
felt the proposal had received careful and thorough discussion. Some
of his questions, he said, were the type that could not be answered,
not because of inability to answer them, but because no one would know
until one had been through the program. With course distributions in
force whatt affect will it have on demand, in each of the fields than
otherwise would have and consequently, future staff composition? Mr.
Michelman expressed the view that student self-determination was an im-
portant educational value and felt that this concern supported his feel-
ing that there was no great urgency to go from urging, guiding, and en-
couraging a student to requiring a student to take specific courses.
He said as a school policy we do require particular courses, of course,
mostly in pre-high school years, and probably always will, but did not
feel that we should go further in that direction.
Mr. Brown said at this time that there was no mechanism built in
for evaluation, and asked Dr. Clune how corrections would occur. Dr.
Clune responded that evaluation would take place as is normal in many
programs , and corrections would occur. He did not see it as an issue.
The Superintendent noted that his had been the third meeting on
the subject by the School Committee. He then reviewed the history of
the topic. He said it had originated in 1978 in the NEASCUS Report of
the high school, and that it had received nearly two years of study.
He noted that he was not aware that the faculty had a proposal, although
he understood faculty had an input in the administrative proposal.
He said the following question. needed to be considered:
How would this recommendation of the administration parallel what
was going on in public education in the rest of the country, such as,
what had been supported by the NEASP, the Carnegie Report , etc2
He reported that if he understood the issue correctly, minimum
course requirements would be advocated nationally for students , and many
students who had been less educated were so as the result of not choos-
ing proper courses.
He added that the experience and discussion at the high school of
this plan and the initiation of a proposal was a very healthy sign and
supported the process. He felt now the discussion should come to a
close and he would recommend the School Cumaittee accent the original
proposal with the four adjustments as specified by Dr. Clune earlier in
the evening with one major change -- that the proposal be for one year
only and there be an. evaluation segment which would include:
Page 28
March 18, 1980
1. Analysis of the program
2. Analysis of what we said , we would do and if we did it
3. Particular trends regarding course sign-ups, etc. , of
sophomores .
Mrs. Swanson said she preferred an attitude that would be a full
adoption versus a one-year trial, and requested that full evaluation
take place at the end of the year. Mr. Michelman said he felt that
it would require more than a year to get valid information and a sense
of the program. Mrs. Gaudet replied that it could have an affect on
pupils knowing it was a trial program. Marc Dohan asked what would
happen after one year of the program if there needed to be changes?
Dr. Clune said he felt there was no jeopardy involved in the pilot
program and changes will occur anytime.
It was moved to accept the recommendation of a full evaluation
occuring at the end of the first year. (Swanson, Gaudet , Unanimous)
A vote was called on the original to accept the proposal with four
additional adjustements. (les, Swanso, Gaudet , Brown; No, Shaw, Michel-
man)
Marc Dohan expressed concern with the Program of Studies , mainly, PROGRAM OF
about English courses which required outside reading in the summer and STUDIES
the label, AP. He noted that no other courses required summer reading
this year, and asked if there could be a response.
Mr. Michelman said he felt that the reference of AP was somewhat
misleading since the AP probably meant Advanced Placement and was not
an Advanced Program label which had been associated with courses in
the programs of past years. Mr. Shohet said there were reading associ-
ated with the English course, and each student had the freedom to
choose whether to participate or not .
The Superintendent introduced discussion on Recuuudendati_on B. RECOMMENDATION
He noted that there had been three issues of study in the issue of B
phasing, and reviewed the three Recommendations, A, B and C that
had been voted by the School Committee. He said that B had been
the most complicated and had instituted much discussion. in the
past year. He said that he would not be making a recommendation
that evening but would do so at another meeting on the matter.
Mr. Pierson then made a statement on the Phasing Program.
He noted that there was no prevailing evidence that suggested that
students grouped homogeneously performed better than students
grouped heterogeneously. None of the research conducted between 1910
and 1978 establish any consistent advantage for students generally
or for specific groups of students.
He noted that when students who had been in the building were com-
pared with counterparts in heterogeneously classrooms, it was found that
factors other then grouping itself account for differences in achievement .
Page 29
March 18, 1980
These factors include curricular differentiation and teacher competence.
He noted that in. the absence of any evidence, it was suggested that
grouping in itself was influential. He had tried to identify factors
that do make differences in students learning and incorporate them
into the proposals.
He noted that a student 's ease and rate of learning and his level
of achievement varied considerably from one curricular area to another,
and from topic to topic and from task to task within each area.
Also these differences were noted in a way students approach tasks
and could be resulted in the enormous developmental variation of the
early adolescent .
He said the final stage of cognitive development , which permits
abstract and symbolic reasoning, occured in most people between 11
and 15 years -usually earlier in girls. He noted that because of these
variabilities, Lexington's programs needed to be particular sensitive
to the capabilities of students to deal with the activities which op-
erate at a high level of abstraction, and to adjust to differing rates
of development , rates which have nothing to do with I.Q.
He added that a set of factors which influenced learnings have to do
with the way an individual prefers to approach a task or a project , such
as, the diagnosis of these preferences, or learning styles, establish the
degree to which a student learns best through visual or aural experiences,
requires structure or options, operates best by himself or in a group,
flourishes languishes in authoritation situations.
He noted that perhaps the most useful though not surprising, find-
ing of the research in learning styles is the fact that when instruction-
al methods and activities were adjusted to learning style, students learn
more.
And finally, a set of understandings which influence the proposals
which relate expectations to performance. Those experiencing higher
expectations outperform those experiencing lower expectations. He then
reviewed the grouping practices in the Lexington Schools, and noted
that phasing as presently operates in Lexington does not produce dis-
tinctly different groups as analyzed by I.Q. scores, achievement test
scores, or teachers ' assessment of overall academic performance. He
noted that phasing contributed to stereotypes which students develop
toward one another.
Grouping practices should be a function of instructional intention.
He noted that the committee was proposing to differentiate instruction
in seventh grade English, science, and social studies classes according
to diagnosis of student capabilities , we have, as a first step, developed
a more highly specified curriculum, describing for teachers , students
and parents, the particular behaviors we are attempting to develop and
hope we will evaluate them.
Page 30
March 18, 1980
As a second step, a variety of diagnostic procedures has to be
introduced, incorporating what is known about how people learn. The
third step will be to design alternative approaches to one achieve-
ment of the curricular objectives approaches Which follow from one
diagnoses. The purpose of this would be to provide. individuals with
approaches to learning which recognize existing levels of competency
and which engage a student more fully in designing and selecting ap-
propriate activities.
He said during the summer, seventh grade classes in the three
subject areas will be foisted to insure a representative distribution
by sex and by sending elementary schools. Then., using infocuiation
supplied by elementary teachers concerning perfoiidance. conduct ,
effort and a variety of factors which could be described anecdotally,
each class will be reviewed to determine general workability, to in-
sure that students with particular needs or capabilities are not iso-
lated, and to avoid unmanageable combinations of students.
Initially, the varying instructional needs of students will be
met through differentiated approaches within the classroom. Later
in the year, it may be determined that some students need for en-
richment , advanced work or remediation can best be met through either
temporary or permanent reassignment to another of his same teacher's
classes or to a class on another team. Though most students ' needs
can be satisfied within the classroom to which they were originally
assigned, it may be more productive to make other placements when they
can be identified.
Dr. Pierson said an obvious and important question frequently dis-
cussed is the staff's ability and willingness to work in classrooms where
instruction is differentiated. He noted that from the start , staff opin-
ion and involvement in studying, recuuunending, and developing instruc-
tional improvements had been sought. There was no concensus in 1977 when
staff was surveyed to their preferences, and there is none now.
He said it must be remembered that only fourteen 7th grade teachers
are affected in this particular program, and that their supervisors
will be most intensely involved in staff and curriculum development pro-
jects. However, many staff already know how to differentiate junior
high instruction, that a methodology for this kind of teaching exists
and can be observed and taught and learned. Staff have been intro-
duced to several of these methodologies through intensive workshops
and after a decision on Recommendation B is made, their opinions will
be sought as to the emphasis for further curriculum andstaff work-
shons .
He noted that it is always true that there will be opposition to any
change. Teachers generally resist change when there appears to be a threat
to the accomodation they have worked to achieve between the demands of the
job and their capacity to respond. However, very favorable staffing ratios
and support structures exist in Lexington, and teachers here and elsewhere
face a potentially impossible job in that there is always more that could
be done; more time to be spent , finding materials, grading papers , confer-
ring with parents , etc. Each teacher must accomodate the demands within
the demands of his own personal life:
Page 31
March 18, 1980
Mr. Pierson concluded that if we agree with the goals of the school
system, that "Our free society is founded on a belief in the worth and
dignity of the individuals who make it up" and that "Its success depends
upon the actions and interactions of these individuals", then we have
responsibility for organizing instructional programs which promote si-
multanerusly self-determination and individual achievement on the one
hand and, on the other an environment , again in the worts of our school
system's philosophy, that nourishes respect for individual differences and
inhibits prejudice" .
He said even though Recommendation B would not work miracles, it
will establish priorities and promote conditions, which, many think,
would offer the best opportunity to create what we all want for seventh
graders, a genuinely student-centered education.
Mr.Michelman then asked if there were things that might be learned
through a voluntary pilot program, such as scheduling, course interest ,
grouping, etc. Mr. Pierson responded that clearly things would be learned
from a trial period. However, a sufficient sample would be needed,
The Superintendent noted that the State requirements regarding min-
imal competencies and skills testing, which would begin in the eigth grade,
would begin next September. The type of skills that teachers will need
help in are in the basic skills and are similar to help that seventh grade
teachers need. Also, the State would set up workshops . He felt there was
a strong parallel between the two. It was agreed to continue discussion
at the next meeting.
It was MINUTES OF
2/5/80
VOTED: to accept the minutes of February 5 , 1980 as corrected.
(Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous)
It was MINUTES OF
2/25/80
VOTED: to accept the minutes of February 25, 1980 as amended.
(Gaudet , Swanson, Unanimous)
Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, it was SCHEDULE OF
PAYMENTS
VOTED: to accept the following schedule of payments. (Swanson, Gaudet,
Unanimous ( (See attached sheet)
Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, it was PERSONNEL
CHANGES
VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes (certified & class- (CERTIFIED &
ified ) (Michelman, Gaudet, Unanimous) (See attached sheet) CLASSIFIED)
Page 32
March 18, 1980
Up the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, it was TRANSPORTATION
BID
VOTED: that a contract be awarded to C.& W.Transportation on a five-
year basis from September, 1980 to September, 1985 in the
amounted as noted on the attached sheet.
The superintendent said he had received a letter from the State De- DEMONSTRATION
partment of Education .noti_fying the Lexington Public Schools that they CENTER
had been selected as one of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts President 's
Physical Education Demonstration Centers for the 1979-80 academic year.
The Superintendent noted that Mr. Lord would accept the certificate and
flag from the Govenor of the Commonwealth on Wednesday, March 19.
The School Committee and superintendent expressed congratulations
to the staff for the award.
Mrs. Swanson asked if any new information was available regarding MASC QUESTION
the MASC question on athletics? The Superintendent said that he, Dr.
Clune, and Mr. Lord would be meeting to discuss questions and prepare
a proposal for the School Committee.
Mrs. Swanson said that she felt she would appreciate a report re- METCO
garding the evaluation or screening of METCO students who come into the SCREENING
system. The Superintendent said that was an appropriate comment since
a new system has been considered, and Mr. Modest would appear at a
future School Committee meeting to review the process.
It was announced that the next School Committee meeting dates SCHOOL
would be April 8 and April 15. COMMITTEE
MEETING DATES
It was
VOTED: to adjourn at 10: 16 p.m. ( Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous)
Respectfully submitted,
ter ; ,' (
N Richard H. Barnes
Recording Secretary
/mc
Tire `017. ac' ,,;u1e , of 3crttiliy e .d
approval prior to
Personal Services
February 29, 1980 C1a5F1;3,. . . IS- .`734 ,358,85
Parch 7, 1980 - :: ; -. i49,691, 55
)5
'L'":pases -
1_rch 7, 1960 2, 701. 7'
Parch 7, 1980 7 % 95,15 95
Parch 7, 1980 `P -1 3,259,64
Parch 7, 1980 99 2,062.-30
Parch 7, 1960 6110 1,51..72
Parch 7, 19E0 ill 23,657,41
Nor5h 7, 1980 : 11 99, 104,58
',larch 14, 19E0 113 2,047.51
._arch 14, 1980 79,E 189„66
1:.rch 14, 1920 '193 2,731,58
:;arch ±4-, 19E0 x196 2,954, 16
.,arch 14, 1980 1197 1,378,45.
-:h 14, 1980 3198 35,237.3..
7.Porch 14, 1960 0199 2,797,89
.(arch 1=:, 1950 '200 21.,937.52
i'-:acn.se (Carryover`,
..::ch 7, 1920 n-.1' . c'Lcdnl:rs _3u_ 55-./.2
2
4 1980
337
8
.:G.-of-State ?a --0?
..arc`, 7, 1980____-- 8+.11 :chcco_,_ 12 25.00
1-c_c11 7. 1980 41i - .:lC. 15_,70
too
: ci, 7 , 1930
.ai 7, 15, . ..
19, 1950 2 c ,:' ,
Pa "ch 7, 391 n_._.-o_ ) 1 rT) rp' 1 ,323, 32
....._Cil 14, 193220 _ _ ._ 3c11.2653La .').1 ,579. -)..
r, Hruars _9- all: .., .
7, 11,1,. L oa n.i
b iver Education
March 7, 1930 $850,71
March 7, 1980 7t111 733,53
7reicct Discover
itaarch 7, 1950 531,15
March 7, 1950 :`i i7. 6ri :--.... 5 150,02
Pro iect Asa1st.
.arch 7, 1930 ic:. . . i. 429..
ro-;acLEnhanc
ec ua_ 29 1500 _ .. ,, __..,_r. ?' ;7:151470
March 7, 1930 S;'J:,C:J".! ,.. 767,77
March 7, 1900 .. .: 1 ;.c;_. ,!U: 20,16
t'a..ah 1' 1983 ..75 154 ,15
fits Ticket
.arch 7, 1920 .i,.- -, i: . 50
p ai1 -Schco: .ia.-..
-ciarch"7, 1935 ' _ ,.ac':. - 538, 6'
cciC ndrstria'_ :lis IM -79
March 7, `.980 .. 3111 ..ch. C..'. `c,
PERSONNEL CHANCES h"I` f IED
RESIGNATION
YRS. IN LEXINGTON EFFECTIVE REASON
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
•
COACHING APPOINTMENT
PERSONNEL CHANGES S5 r ur.
NEW PERSONNEL
EFFECTIVE
RETIREMENT
YEARS '_N J Xi',;Ci EFFECTIVE
RESIGNATIONS R. ASOd
1
3
RECAP OF TRANSPORTATION BIDS
Present 1980-81
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85
! Cf V'
Contract C&W WT C&W WT C&W 'AT C&W WT L„!.
gular Transportation
2-2hr. reports (1700) 57.92 109.82 130.00 109.82 136.00 192.82 143.00 130.79 150.00 138.64 187.00157 .00
2-2hr. + 1% hr. (123O) 69.94 129.32 155.00 129.82 162.00 129.82 170.00 141.00 178.00 145.00 187.00
8 hr. report (10) 128.50 200.00 250.00 200.00 262.00 200.00 275.00 234.00 289.00 248.00
.t. Cost Public 176,218 330,252 392,700 330,252 410,586 330,252 431,355 376,533 452,080 393,642 474,035
' Non Public 9.557 18, 120 21 450 18,120 22,440 18,120 23,595 21;580 24,750 22,876 25,905 .
TOTAL 185,775 348,372 414,150 348,372 433,026 348,372 454,950 398,113 476,830 416,518 499,940
ss Tickets - 13,000 13 000 13 000 13 000 13 000 13 000 13,000 13,000 13.000 73.000 13000:.
.RAND TOTAL
172,775 335,372 401,150 335,372 410,026 335,372 441,950 385,113 463.830 403,518 486,940'.
-dget-Public 170,165 185,000
" Non Public 10,500 11,500
_OTAL BUDGET 180,665 196,500 _ -
,ded chgs. traffic
delays,detours,etc.
1-15 min. 3.50 6.00 7.50 6.00 8.006.009.50:8.50 6.75 9.00 7 .00 .50!
16-30 min. 8.00 12.00 14.00 12.00 14.75 12.00 15.50 14.00 16.25 15.00 1197 .05;
31 min. & over 16.00 20.00 25.00 20.00 26.25 20.00 27.50 23.00 28.75 24.00
iel Escalation
Per Gal. price None 1.039 1.20 265 gal @ SOq per gal.')
Est. Annual Cost None $24,698. (assumes 1200 miles per day @ 4.5 mpg =
iditional Funds
aeeded if no
change in operation 163,570
RECAP OF TRANSPORTATION BIDS (Cont.)
FIELD TRIP & Present 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983•-84 1984-85
ATHLETICS Contract C&W WT C&W WT UM WT C&W WT C&W iu'T
Vans w/Drivers
Rate per mile .78 1.10 1.25 1.17 1.30 1.24 1.35 1.31 1.40 1.39 1.45
Waiting Time 4.80 8.00 9.00 8;48 9.50 8.99 10.00 9.53 10.50 10.10 11.00
Min. Chg. 16.00 40.00 45.00 42.00 47.25 45.00 49.50 47,00 52.00 50.00 54.50
Vans w/o Drivers
Rate per mile
Min. Chg. < --- -NO BIDS _
{
Coaches wheys.
Rate per mile 1.04 1.30 1 .38 1.46 1.54 1.63
Waiting Time 5.40 30.00 N.B. 31.80 N.B. 33.71 N.B. 35.73 N.B. 37.87 N.B.
Min. Chg. 40.00 100.00 105.00 110.00 115.00 120.00
School Buses
Rate per mile .82 1.20 1.30 1 .25 1.35 1. 30 1.40 1.35 1.45 1 .39 1 . 50
Waiting Time 4.95 9.00 12.00 9.50 12.50 9. 75 13.00 10.00 13.50 10.25 14.00
Min. Chg. 35.00 45.00 60.00 47.00 63.00 50.00 66.00 53.00 69 .00 56.00 72.00
I . _ _ i 4
Increased Costs
Expended Budgeted Budgeted Based on
78-79 79-80 80-81 This Bid
Field Trips* $7,743 $14,368 $12,371 Unknown
P,E. Intramural Program 3,345 4,200 4,000 None
Athletics 14,136 14,699 14,690 $5, 140
*Can include costs other than transportation (i.e. admission charges, speakers-reverse field trip) .
0