Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-24-SC-min Page 13 March 24, 1981 A meeting of the Lexington School Committee was held on Tuesday, March 24, 1981, at 8:00 p.m. , at Clarke Junior High School. Present were: Swanson, Beck, Gaudet, Michelman, Shaw, and Student Representa- tive, Anderson. Also present were: Dr. Lawson, Pierson, DiGiammarino, MacInnes, Monderer, and Barnes. Mr. Gerald Abegg, Waltham Street, Lexington, read a statement con- PUBLIC cerning science courses offered at Lexington High School and recommenda- PARTICIPATION tions from Dr. Clone, Dr. Pierson, and Mrs. LCrich to reduce instructional time in basic courses and give preference to electives. He suggested a detailed curriculum analysis be undertaken before recommendations were made and voted. He also recommended that a staff review be conducted to match certification, qualifications, and experience to the needs of Lex- ington High School in the 1980's. The School Committee thanked Dr. Abegg for his comments and took them under advisement. It was VOTED: to accept the minutes of March 3, 1981, as amended. (Beck, Gaudet, MINUTES OF Unanimous) MARCH 3, 1981 Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the schedule of payments as listed on the attached sheet. (Gaudet, Swanson, Unanimous) The financial statement was discussed. FINANCIAL STATEMENT Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was NEW PERSONNEL VOTED: to accept the following new personnel as listed on the attached sheet: (Beck, Gaudet, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was PERSONNEL CHANGES - VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes (Certified) as listed CERTIFIED on the attached sheet: (Gaudet, Swanson, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was CLASSIFIED VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes (Classified) as listed on the attached sheet: (Gaudet, Swanson, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was LESA RATIFICATION VOTED: to ratify the agreement reached by LESA and the School Committee negotiators as listed on the attached sheets: (Beck, Swanson, Unanimous) Dr. Lawson said the proposed changes in Chapter 766 regulations had PROPOSED just been received with the response time being inadequate, the State Board REGULATION having voted on their acceptance prior to this evening's meeting. Dr. Law- CHANGES - son noted that Lexington approved some of the changes and recommended Lex- CHAPTER 766 Page 14 March 24, 1981 ington continue with present practices which Lexington students needed and deserved. He requested that the School Committee write to the Board of Ed- ucation to express its feelings on the matter, even if after the fact. Mrs. Swanson added that the MASC should be informed that their testi- mony did not reflect the feelings of the Lexington School Committee, since it did not have time to respond. Mr. Michelman agreed to write a letter expressing the Committee's con- cerns. The memorandum presented by Dr. Lawson and written by Jack Monderer and Paul Lombard regarding the proposed changes was reviewed. It was VOTED: that it was the sense of the School Committee to agree with the memorandum presented by Dr. Lawson and Paul Lombard. (Beck, Swanson, d Unanimous) Additional course offerings for the 1981-82 High School Program of Stud- HIGH SCHOOL ies were discussed. After review by the Committee, it was PROGRAM OF STUDIES - VOTED: to accept the Superintendent of School's recommendation that the 1981-82 1981-82 Lexington High School Program of Studies, as proposed by Drs. Clune and Pierson, with amendments dated March 17, be approved with the exception of Science Course 532. (Swanson, Beck, Unanimous) A summary of High School Teacher Weekly Schedules was presented to the HIGH SCHOOL Committee. The Committee members expressed appreciation for the information TEACHER which outlined the number of courses taught, activities with parents and stu- WEEKLY dents, and other professional duties. SCHEDULES The discussion of the High School Science Program began with a request HIGH SCHOOL by Margaret Schwartz, a High School science teacher, to have a professional SCIENCE consultation with the School Committee before the final adoption of the '81- PROGRAM '82 course schedules. Two additional High School science teacher representa- tives, Edgar Stuhr and Phillip Crosby, voiced support for the consultation and concern about the change in quality and quantity of science courses pro- posed for next year. Each of the representatives commented on concerns for the response of Department Head Laura Krich, High School Principal David Clune, and Assistant Superintendent Geoffrey Pierson, which would change three laboratory classes in biology, chemistry, and physics from six to five hours per week. The High School administration and Department Head said large enrollments dictated some changes in lab or mini-courses. Mrs. Schwartz responded that the teachers felt staff decisions were being made without appropriate discussion and consultation with faculty. Mrs. Krich agreed she had not discussed the issue with the Department as a whole, but had polled individual members. Dr. Clune and Mrs. Krich said the proposed reduc- tions were within the administrative guidelines. Dr. Lawson expressed surprise at the teachers' statement on the issue. He said the information he had received from Drs. Clune and Pierson and Mrs. Krich was very different. He offered to meet with the Department to discuss the entire matter. Page 15 March 24, 1981 At this point, members of the School Committee made comments and asked questions pertaining to the issue. Most members favored the suggestion that Dr. Lawson meet with the High School science staff prior to any professional consultation. Dr. Beck said that it was his impression that one of the science teach- ers' responses to class reductions was a request for more staff. He added that, while he was sympathetic, due to financial restrictions expansion was unlikely. Mrs. Swanson said the role of the School Committee was not to de- vise a Program of Studies. This, she said, was an administrative function. She also noted that the Committee always appreciated being informed about curricular problems, but conflicts should be processed between teachers and administrators, with requests for adjudication by the School Committee con- sidered as a last resort. Dr. Lawson stated that he would be in contact with Mrs. Krich to ar- range a meeting with science teachers at the High School. Dr. Pierson summarized the efforts taken or planned to review the jun- PHASING for high school programs. He began his presentation with a review of Grade 7. RECOMMENDA- The process included the institution of the Seventh Grade Planning Committee TION "B" which Dr. Pierson chairs. The second segment included a recommended evalua- EVALUATION tion procedure which included monitoring teacher reactions and experiences; a questionnaire to teachers, counselors, and administrators; a parent ques- tionnaire; inventory testing; and sample student interviews. The eighth and ninth grade programs were reviewed also. He stated that sentiment among prin- cipals, most department heads, and seventh grade teachers favored extending heterogeneous grouping into eighth grade. He recommended, and they concurred. that this not be the case until a final evaluation was completed. Ninth grade changes, he said, could include a formal but limited elective program in So- cial Studies, Science, and English in the 1982-83 school year. Dr. Lawson added that it was his opinion and recommendation that until a formal evaluation was completed, no changes be implemented. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was VOTED: that present grouping practices in grades 7, 8, and 9 be continued during the 1981-82 school year. (Swanson, Gaudet, Unanimous) The Committee thanked Drs. Lawson and Pierson for the excellent report. A brief review of the Grade 2 and Grade 4 Reading Minimum Standards for MINIMUM the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills was held. STANDARDS It was VOTED: to accept the standards as outlined in the memorandum of February 18, 1981, from Dr. Monderer to Dr. Lawson, as stated on the attached sheet. (Gaudet, Beck, Unanimous) Dr. Monderer, Director of Pupil Services, presented the results of last EIGHTH fall's 3th grade Basic Skills Improvement Program test in Reading. He stated GRADE that 91% of our 8th grade students have already met minimal standards. He TESTING added that our 8th grade students' performance on these tests was comparable Page 16 March 24, 1981 to scores obtained by high school seniors in Massachusetts on the State-man- dated test. He said that the final results were better than those reported in January, since 100 students who did not achieve well were retested, using an equivalent test. In his summary, he said teachers would now develop indi- vidual plans for each student who scored below the minimal standard set by Lexington. 0 Mr. Michelman asked for a comparison of where other towns had set their norms. Dr. Monderer said the results were not available and expressed cau- tion when comparing, since Lexington's standard was set at the upper level. Mrs. Swanson expressed concern that testing was being increased at the lower grades, since she had heard many concerns expressed. She added that she felt second graders were too young to be labeled "minimally competent." The School Committee thanked Dr. Monderer for the report and expressed pleasure at the fine student achievements. Mr. Maclnnes, Administrative Assistant for Business, presented a report COMPARA- which outlined comparative statistics of fuel, oil, and electricity usage TIVE ENERGY from 1978 to the present. He reviewed the energy saving measures implemented CONSUMPTION in the last five years. In his summary, he noted that 11 indicators confirmed STATISTICS a reduction in energy consumption and that the energy saving measures under- taken were sound investments. After a review of the report and upon the recommendation of the Super- BID: intendent of Schools, it was ENERGY VOTED: that the proposal of Cummings Solar Corporation be accepted and they SERVICES be awarded the contract for energy audits and technical assistance (ENERGY in accordance with the bid and specifications, dated February 23, AUDITS) 1981. (Swanson, Daudet, Unanimous) It was VOTED: to convene in Executive Session at 10:30 p.m. to discuss matters EXECUTIVE pertaining to collective bargaining, the character and reputation SESSION of an individual, and a matter of possible litigation. (Gaudet, yes; Swanson, yes; Shaw, yes; Beck, yes; Michelman, yes) The Chairman announced that the School Committee would not reconvene in public session. Respectfully submitted/ / / z. G l7' ems/ 'Rard H. Barnes Recording Sectary /c • SeflE i.I ,E_ PD 1 1>21t: The following schedules of payments Dere e n_. acle fof ccratiny and . approval prior to this meeting: SCHOOL DEPAR'!'ft \i' BUDGETS Personal Services February 20, 1981 Professional Payroll #17 $482,766,06 February 27, 1981 Classified Payroll #19--C 62,155,33 March. 6, 1981 • Professional Payroll #18 461,387,27 Expenses February 27, 1981 Bill Schedules #195 4,724.06 February 27, 1981 #196 2,692,72 February 27, 1981 #197 492.57 February 27, 1981 #198 20,934.91 February 27, 1981 #199 2,232.12 March 6, 1981 #200 721.39 March 6, 1981 #201 1,767,90 if, , March 6, 1981 #202 27,383,53 March 6, 1981 0203 23,633.50 March 6, 1981 #204 40,263,08 March 6, 1981 #205 1,050„00 March 13, 1981 9;206 6,065,66 March 13, 1981 #207 2,818,09 March 13, 1981 =72&8 1,360,47` March 13, 1981 #209 1,306,65 March 13, 1981 016 34,207,13 March 20, 1981 #211 1,927,03 March 20, 1981 #212 5,385.,43 March 20, 1981 #213 1,510.53 March 20, 1981 • 1#,1214 965,21 March 20, 1981 #2115 66,00 20 March 20, 1981 #216 33,392,15 March 20, 1981 3:217 36,547,15 Expenses (Carryover) February 27, 1981 Ei11 Schedules #326 17.33 March 20, 1981 #327 25,00 • Out-of-State Travel March 6, 1981 Bill Schedule #13 434,50 March 13, 1981 #14 837.95 Vocational Education March 13, 1981 Bill Schedule #4 2,325,50 SPECIAL PROGRAMS - NON-LEXINGTON FUNDS Adult Education February 20, 1981 Professional Payrolls 553.60 March 6, 1981 1,154 40 'February 27, 1981 Classified Pe roll 4$.;4 Fe ' February 27, 1981 Bill Schedule 5 36d.. .) (Over) Driver Education February 20, 1981 Professional Payrolls $ 366,03 March 6, 1981 463.01 February 27, 1981 - Bill Schedules #F10 2,78 March 13, 1981 #11 229.15 March 20, 1981 #12 43.08 Bus Tickets March 6, 1931 • Bill Schedule #f6 1,162.25 Metro Program February 20, 1981 Professional Payroll.:- 5,989.06 March 6, 1981 5,231.44 February 27, 1981 Classified Payroll. 1,013.74 March 6, 1981 Bill Schedules ##13 35,25 March 13, 1981 #14 80,75 March 20, 1981 #15 61.05 Transition to Employment February 20, 1981 Professional Payrolls 1,377.66 March 6, 1981 1,377.66 February 27, 1981 Classified Payroll 109.92 Project Discover February 20, 1981 Professional Payrolls 790.12 March 6, 1981 790.12 March 6, 1981 Bill Schedules #10 58.00 March 20, 1981 #11 84.00 Project Enhance February 20, 1981 Professional Payrolls 939,69 March 6, 1981 939,69 February 27, 1981 Classified Payroll 233.10 March 6, 1981 Bill Schedules #.10 14.60 March 13, 1981 411 24,00 Graphic Communications February 27, 1981 Bill Schedule #1 2,084.00 March 13, 1981 42 15,56676 Expanding Horizons February 27, 1981 Bill Schedule 41 370.70 Project Combine February 20, 1981 Professional Payroll 9225,00 February 27, 1981 Bill Schedule #3 60.00 Project Mainstream February 20, 1981 Professional Payrolls 654.31 March 6, 1981 654,31 Project Assist February 20, 1981 Professional Payrolls • $ 553,61 March 6, 1981 279.61 Smoking Prevention March 13, 1981 Bill Schedule ;r5 60.00 March 20, 1981 V6 180,00 ESEA Title IV-B Mr_rch 13, 1981 Bill Schedule 14,400„00 ENO March 13, 1981 Bill Schedule 157,405.00 Offset Lithography (79-80) Marc: 13, 1981 16.50 Art. 43 Renovations March 13, 1981 Bill Scheduic 4t21 2,401. 2: • NEW PERSONNEL SECONDARY NAPE SCHOOL/SUBJECT EDUCATION EXPERIENCE • PERSONNEL CHANCES - CERTIFIED RESIGN?aTIONS YRS. IN LEXINGTON EFFECTIVE REASON LEAVE MATERNITY LEAVE OF ABSENCE EXTEND MATERNITY LEAVE OF ABSENCE CHANCE: EXTRA DUTY STIPEND - 1980-1981* SCHOOL NAME S'i1PENF FOR: A.10C1,E CHANGE EFFECTIVE DATE OF RETIREMENT PERSONNEL CHANGES - CLASSIFIED TRANSFER EFFECTIVE RESIGNATION YRS. IN LEXINGTON EFFECTPE REASON *Subject to negotiations for 1980. DC.loofc. LEXINCD1i<, HiV.:SA•di111::1; 1 TO: Dr. Lawson FROM: R. H. Barnes Strild'ird.CT: Ratification of 1 ESA Contract On Tuesday , March ID, LLy Pte negntiatorF atr. Tne secret...cies/aLULt. : • LA( HhLv, :Car.ch i . be...r. not if ied tct. ri f nYT.Ocr- nPCuii3, Hi . LPL 6 ' • . 1 refiusc char yna :•,- 1.11%2 3 : L • • LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS March 10, 1981 • The following items have been agreed to by the negotiating teams representing LESA and LSC. Extension of the present contract for two years for the years 1980-81 and 1931-82. • WAGES 1980-81 - 6.5% 1981-82 - 6.8% LONGEVITY 10 - 14 years continuous service $150 15 - 19 years continuous service $200 20 years or more continuous service $250 VACATIONS 1 - 5 years 10 days After completion of 5 years 15 days After completion of 10 years 20 days Part time to be pro-rated as in the past. New part time employees hired after 6/30/81: 1 - 8 years 5 days More than 8 years 10 days OTHER LEAVE PROVISIONS LISA - legal days Up to 2 days per year for a raxim+m of 2 people each time for legal purposes pertinent to contract matters. • Administration agrees to send Memo to staff regarding issues raised in request for memo of agreement, i.e. , water plants, personal typing, etc. LESA Negotiating Team LSC Negotiating Team Marie T. Walton /s/ Richard H. Barnes /s/ Gloria Jean Lord /s/ Frank P. DiGiammarino /s/ Theresa 3. Leslie /s/ James R. P Laclnnes !s/ Vivian Burns /s/ Yat Murphy /s/ • r c; f • gosep/i. Sstabroob Ozfivoi • it7 cm.e &free! £esingt n. Meinanitaseitz 02.73 • Jous [t. LA.vsc'.. WI; i.: C. TL.t.ic . }'ritb'ia>4} ,Jrl47ri'inrondCia J: Schools March 16 , 197a. • Mr . Richard Barnes Central Office Dear Dick : Please inform the School Coamtttet , Mr. i-1,:cInnes , Dr. DiGiammarino and Di'. Lawson that the membership of L.E.S.A. accepted • the negotiating package as presoc tL to them on Friday, March 13th. Sincerely . Marie Wait0n7,. Pres . Pat Murphy, Ne:3c . • Teals. Le:eder • LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS LEXINGTON: MASSACHUSETTS 02173 • Proposed Regulation Change: 4 Jack Lawson SUBJECT Chapter 766, Feb. 24, 1981 MEMO TO _ _ FROM Jack H. Monderer DATE 3.10/81 Paul Lombard and I have met to consider whether the proposed recommendations should be opposed or supported. We have each had a chance individually to consider each item, and Paul has also had an opportunity to meet with a group of special ed staff to solicit their ideas and opinions. Below is the list of the items and the action that we recommend. Chapter 3 -- Identification Referral Evaluation 307. 0 Identification.: Early Childhood an:: Kindergarten entry screening; parent involvement We find the proposed change and the iangu;i?,e acceptable. in Le>:ic,gtcn, we would. wish to continue to ask kindergarten teachers to share the results of the kindergarten screening, with parents at their regular conferences in November. Of course, there would he much more involve- ment of parents in the evert that special. needs is suspected for their child. 310 Evaluation - Administrator of Special Education; duties We support this. 311. 0 Evaluation; TEAM' s composition for writing the IEP Ide support the proposed language for 311.0, 311. 1, 311. 2, 311.3, 311.4, 311. 5, 311.6, 311. 7. This is almost identical to our cur- rent model in use in Lexington of those who may be present at the writing of the IEP. (Our interpretation of the "composition for -writing the IEP" is that group of personnel who can, because of their evaluations, and knowledge of the child contribute to the writing of the goals, activities, and amount of special needs staff time needed. This group would meet with the parent to discuss such a program. The actual writing would take place after the meeting, considering all inputs. The end result IEP would be submitted to the parent for approval. ) 312.0 Evaluation : TEAMS: composition; specialists fi We support this. The determination for the use of additional specialists on the TEAM should he mads by the Administrator of Special Ed with parental consent. • 317. 0 Evaluation: Referral, notice to parents; parental consent We support this. • Page 2 • 319.0 Evaluation: Full and Intermediate • 320. 0 Evaluation: Intermediate 321.0 Evaluation: Full Assessments We oppose. Every placement that reculres as much special needs help as a 502.3 - 502.6 should have a comprehensive evaluation that includes psychological, medical and home assessments as is now required for "full evaluations." To place a student from 25% - 100% out of a mainstream instructional setting should not occur without a review of all significant areas of development. Even if this regulation change were approved, we would reconrnend that the current procedures continue as a safeguard for the student and parents, and the assistance it provides for developing the IEP. It is possible that many other communities would find it too easy to sacrifice comprehensiveness at the expense of a child' s welfare. While we support a change in the 6 mos. limitation on accepting assessments, we prefer a change to a ]2 mos. limitations rather than eliminating the "age" of such evaluations. 324. 0 Evaluation : IEP and notice to parents 326.0 Meeting after the completion of the IEP 328.0 .Evaluation: Independent Evaluation 333. 0 Review of the child's progress: Ten-month and annual reviews 334.0 Re-evaluation. of the child 335.0 Review or re-evaluation : New IEP We support changes. 337. 0 TEAM Liaison: Ongoing progress reports, re-evaluations, and modifications of IEP We oppose. Quarterly reports are preferred to semi-annual. The 1st quarter assures parents that program is in place and having some positive effect - before too much time has elapsed. Further quarterly reports may encourage shifts to lesser prototype during a school year (because of continual assessment. ) • 400. 0 Appeal to the Bureau of Special Education Appeals; Parent/School' Conference; Notice to the Bureau of Special Education Appeals 401.0 Appeal to the Bureau of Special Education Anneals : Request far hearing; Rights of parents and schools; Notice to parties We support changes. Page 3 502.2 Regular education program with no more than 25% time out 502.3 Regular education program with no more than 60% time out We oppose. Eight special needs children to be served by one pro- fessional in any one instruction group, 12 by One professional and an aide, 16 by professional and 2 aides (as in current regular regu- lations) seem high as it is. The proposal would increase each of the above by two. Most students, even if provided help in a group with other students are working on an individualized program. The supervision and individual attention end time needed would he further diluted if the increase in group sf>,e is permitted. 502.4 Substantially separate program We support the Intent and language rs it applies to the junior and senior high levels. We oppose the encouragement it might give some systems to group together at the elese.ntary school level students widely disparate in needs, behavior and ages . It may create an inadequate learning environment. Current language permits a waiver when students beyond the 3 year range can fit into group. 502.5 Day school program 504.2 Procedures for day school or residential school placements We support changes. 505.0 Parent involvement 505.2 We oppose. See 337 .0 505.3 802.0 Application for approval: Required information We support elimination cf current 802.12 We oppose new 802.16. Sae 337 .0 803.0 Apolication for apuroval: Further Information required 804.0 Requirements of contracts between school committees end private schools 7 We support. 804.2 Proposed Language We oppose. Same as 337 .0. 905.0 Requirements with which school committees must comply We support. V