The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1981-11-10-SC-min Page 59 November 10, 1981 A meeting of the Lexington School Committee was held on Tuesday, November 10, 1981, at 8:00 p.m. , in the School Administration Build- ing Conference Room. Present were: Beck, Gaudet, Michelman, Shaw, Swanson, and Student Representative Splaine. Also present were: Law- son, Pierson, DiGianmmarino, Monderer, Maclnnes, and Barnes. A program proposal for an Extended Day Program from parents at FISKE EXTENDED the Fiske School was presented to the School Cuuanittee. Dr. Lawson DAY PROGRAM noted that the proposal was consistent with other Extended Day pro- PROPOSAL posals that had been approved and presented by parents in other ele- mentary schools. He added that the space planned for use was appro- priate as were all other specifications. He recommended approval of the Program to the School Committee. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was VOTED: to accept the Fiske Extended Day Program proposal. (Swanson, Gaudet, Unanimous) Mr. Murray Nicolson, President of Adventures in Music, reviewed REQUEST FOR RENTAL the history and usage of Lexington High School for presentations for POLICY EXCEPTION the Adventures in Music program. He requested an exception to the new fee policy of the Lexington School Committee. He noted that the in- crease in rental charges would be an additional cost of $500 to $1,000 for the Adventures in Music organization. He reviewed the benefits of the music program to the schools, students, and citizenry. Each of the School Committee members responded that the program did offer fine opportunities to students and citizens alike; however, they felt that the policy that had been applied and passed was neces- sary due to the change in financial availabilities. Mr. Maclnnes reviewed the development of the rental fees and the various classifications that were structured over the years. The Superintendent added that due to restrictions in school in- come, it was necessary that the School Committee have a different fee structure beginning this year. He said that it was not possible to subsidize various organizations under present financial constraints. He urged the School Cuunuittee to retain consistency in the application of its policy. Dr. Beck said that he could appreciate the feelings of the organi- zation and what they were experiencing, but due to the system's finan- cial limitations, it was necessary for the School Committee to elevate fees for those using school buildings. Mr. Michelman stated that there certainly were many benefits de- rived from the presentations of the Adventures in Music program and ex- plained that he had thought it important for the School Committee to re- view this case because of indications that other districts might be charg- ing less for activities in which Lexington students participate. Mrs. Shaw concluded the discussion by stating that when a fee was increased, it was necessary that the cost be absorbed by the group re- questing the use of the space. She suggested raising ticket prices. Page 60 November 10, 1981 She said this approach would be more sensible since it would have no impact on the school budget in these difficult financial times. It was the consensus of the School Committee co maintain the poli- cy as is. It was EXECUTIVE VOTED: to accept the executive minutes of October 21, 1981, as pre- MINUTES sented. (Beck, Swanson, Unanimous) October 21, 1981 VOTED: to accept the minutes of October 21, 1981, as amended. (Gau- MINUTES det, Swanson, Unanimous) October 21, 1981 Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was VOTED: to accept the following schedule of payments as listed on the SCHEDULE OF attached sheet. (Gaudet, Shaw, Unanimous) PAYMENTS Mr. Michelman began the discussion of the procedures to search SUPERINTENDENT for a new Superintendent by presenting a proposal as the basis of the SEARCH discussion. (See attached sheets.) He added that he and Mrs. Swanson PROCEDURES had developed and discussed the proposal as suggested by the Committee previously. The Committee agreed, after discussion, to proceed accord- ing to the following tentative schedule: 1 - Draft brochure by November 20 This would include job requirements, qualifi- cations, salary range, selection and general procedures, and other items in the announce- ment of vacancy. 2 - Disseminate brochures by November 27 This process would include sailing and adver- tisement through a variety of channels. 3 - Appoint Citizens' Screening Committee by December 2 This part of the process would include the appointment of 5-8 qualified citizens with expertise in management-level personnel re- cruitment. The Committee would select 15- 20 quarter-finalists from applicants. Ill 4 - Application deadline - January 4, 1982 5 - School Committee, in consultation with Screen- • ing Committee, would reduce number of Candi- dates to 7-10 by January 12. 6 - Two interviews would be conducted with the Page 61 November 10, 1981 7-10 semi-finalists. One interview would be with the School Committee, the other with an Interview Committee consisting of representa- + tives from administration, staff, students, parents, teachers, classified staff - to be completed by January 26. 7 - Candidates reduced to 3 or 4 finalists, School Committee would re-interview and make on-site visitations. 8 - Elect a new Superintendent by February 16 It was also agreed to consider the use of a Consultant, beginning at step number 3. To facilitate the process, the School Committee agreed to meet as follows: November 19, 1981 6:00 p.m. Interview potential consultants November 23, 1981 8:00 p.m. Brochure Mr. Michelman began the discussion regarding the appointment of an ACTING SUPERIN- Acting Superintendent of Schools, effective January 1, 1982, with the TENDENT OF SCHOOLS comment that he would recommend that the School Committee appoint Dr. J. Geoffrey Pierson to fill the position. Mr. Michelman added that he made the recommendation knowing that he had complete confidence in Dr. Pierson as someone who would do an excellent job. It was VOTED: to appoint Dr. J. Geoffrey Pierson as Acting Superintendent of Schools, effective January 1, 1982. (Beck, Swanson, Unanimous) It was added that additional financial compensation for Dr. Pierson in recognition of added responsibility would be discussed at a future time. , 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. (Beck, Swanson, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was (Classified/ VOTED: to accept the personnel changes (Classified/Food Services) as Food Services) listed on the attached sheets. (Gaudet, Shaw, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was VOTED: to accept the following staff to participate in the Holistic HOLISTIC SCORING Scoring as listed on the attached sheets. (Beck, Shaw, Unani- mous) CHANGE IN TUBER- The first reading of the recommended new policy for Freedom from CULOSIS TEST Tuberculosis Tests was held. A second reading will take place at the POLICY next meeting. • Page 62 November 10, 1981 I. The topic of teacher loads was deferred to the next agenda at TEACHER LOADS the, request of the administration. The topic K-1 Evaluation Report was deferred to the next meeting K-1 EVALUATION due to the lateness of the hour. REPORT A review of enrollments and projections was conducted by Dr. REVIEW OF DiGanr,arino. He noted that due to a census error and an error in ENROLLMENTS the, projection of Minuteman students, a revised set of enrollments and! projections had been developed. (See attached sheets.) Dr. Lawson presented a copy of his comments made from the 1981 COLLABORATIVE Management Seminar held in August, which listed potential Town-School EFFORTS WITH collaborations. He reviewed a few of the suggestions and said that TETE TOWN joint discussions on several of the items would be held with Town representatives. At this point, Mr. Michelman noted that Mr. Crain and Mr. Politi had been appointed by the Town Manager to work with the School Com- mittee and Personnel Advisory Committee on mutual personnel issues. He said that the Personnel Advisory Board remained available for sep- arate distinct consultations also. He requested volunteers who might work with the delegates. Dr. Beck and Mrs. Gaudet volunteered. Mr. Michelman asked Dr. Lawson to inform the Town Manager of the appoint- ments. Information regarding Free and Reduced Price Meals was presented FREE AND REDUCED to the School Committee by Mr. Maclnnes. PRICE MEALS An annual account of special education students was presented to SPECIAL NEEDS the School Committee for its information by Dr. Monderer and Mr. Lom- STUDENTS bard. Reviewed were in-Town and out-of-district placements. It was also noted that the Town would receive an additional State reimburse- ment of $121,947 for residential placement costs. A status report of curriculum development for 1981 was presented CURRICULUM to the School Committee by Dr. Pierson. DEVELOPMENT, 1981 A letter was received from the Recreation/Conservation Committee LETTER FROM requesting permission to investigate a well site on the Bridge School RECREATION/CON- property. It was noted there would be no danger from the testing. The SERVATION COMMITTE Recreation Department requested permission be given by the School Com- mittee so that they could proceed with investigation of the well. It was VOTED: to authorize the Superintendent to inform the Recreation. De- partment that they could proceed in testing the deep well water supply on the Bridge School site. (Swanson, Gaudet, Unanimous) A letter was received from the Chairman of the Board of Select- TOWN MEETING ment, Mr. Alfred Bus, which stated that the Town Meeting date would be March 22, 1982, and that the warrant articles would close Decem- ber 30, 1981. Page 63 November 10, 1981 A letter from Carol Hess requested that the Citizens' Advisory ADVISORY GROUP Committee be authorized to conduct an audit of communication channels LE11'ER in preparation for work they were undertaking for the School Committee. At this point, a motion was made to appoint the following members to the Citizens' Advisory Group and implement the first item in its task: the audit of communication channels. (Swanson, Beck, Unanimous) (See attached sheets.) Mrs. Swanson said that the Accounting Manual received by the School ACCOUNTING Committee from Mr. Maclnnes was extremely helpful, and complimented all MANUAL those who were responsible for its production. It was VOTED: to adjourn at 10:50 p.m. (Swanson, Gaudet, Unanimous) Respectfully submitte ,ec tr and H. B es / Recordin, ecretary /c r a SCHEDULE OF PAY EN:S The following schedules of payments were available for scrutiny and approval prior to this meeting: SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services October 16, 1981 Professional Payroll #8 S460,203. 72 October 23, 1981 Classified Payroll #9-C 73,709.96 October 30, 1981 Professional Payroll #9 460,975.06 Expenses October 23, 1981 Bill Schedules #59 15 623.28 October 23, 1981 #60 10,247, 10 October 23, 1981 #61 91.20 October 30, 1981 #62 19 126.30 October 30, 1981 ##63 88,404.52 October 30, 1981 64 455,76 October 30, 1981 • #65 20,762.3+ October 30, 1981 #66 9,411.04 October 30, 1981 #67 9,369.49 November 6, 1981 #69 1,752,08 November 6, 1981 # 69 32,252.40 November 6, 1981 #70 4,767.33 November 6, 1981 #71 8,005.21' November 6, 1981 1=72 6,650.64 Expenses (Carryover Account) November 6, 1981 Bill Schedule #311 519.80 Out-of-State Travel October 23, 1981 Bill Schedule #2 59.00 October 23, 1981 3 176.50 November 6, 1981 #4 143.18 Vocational Education October 23, 1981 Bill Schedule #1 1,119.50 SPECIAL PROGRAMS - NON-LEXINGTON FUNDS Petco Program fi October 16, 1981 Professional Payroll 5,663.71 October 23, 1981 Classified Payroll 2,416.05 October 30, 1981 Professional Payroll 5,940. 25 Protect Mainstream October 16, 1981 Professional Payrolls 872. 79 October 30, 1981 872.79 (Over) J1 • Transition to Employment October 16, 1981 Professional Pa) rolls $902.35 October 30, 1981 902.35 October 23, 1981 Classified Payro. 1 637.88 October 30, 1981 Bill Schedule 018 600.00 November 6, 1981 #2 79.00 Adult Education • October 16, 1981 Professional Payrolls 2,092.50 October 30, 1981 1,206.50 November 6, 1981 Bill schedule #2 48.75 Project Discover October 16, 1981 Profersionai Payrolls 921.94 October 30, 1981921.94 October 30, 1981 Bill Schedule #1 72.00 Project Assist October 16, 1981 Professional Payrolls 995.75 October 30, 1981 • • 753.50 Project Enhance October 16, 1981 Professional Payrolls 595.38 October 30, 1981 730,94 October 23, 1981 Classified Payroll 592.90 Bus Ticket Acct. November 6, 1981 Bill Schedule #2 48.75 Pupil-School Matr. Rec. November 6, 1931 Bill Schedule #1 465.27 Prosect Munch October 30, 1981 Bill Schedule #11 95.65 Art. 44 Energy October 23, 1981 Bill Schedule #2 5,100.00 Art. 43 Renovations October 23, 1981 Bill Schedule #24 706.00 November 6, 1981 #25 1,178.69 Other Grants November 6, 1981 PDCO 55,237.00 • November 9, 1981 • TO: School Cow::.ittee Members, Dr. Lawson (for information) FROM: Frank Michelman RE: Superintendent Search What follows is intended, with your approval, to serve as an agenda and discussion plan for our deliberations on Tuesday evening, November 10. It reflects discussions between Pat and me, and also a discussion. I have had with Prof. Jerome Murphy (see p. 6 of my November 2 memorandum). Pat and I hope to have made some additional inquiries before our meeting. When- ever I write "we" below, I mean P. Swanson and F. MicheLman. I. GENERAL PLAN OF SEARCH We recommend using the 1975-76 search-and-selection plan as a point of departure for planning this year's effort (subject, of course, to modi- fication as the School Committee may determine). That plan, in outline, is as follows: A. School Committee adopts job requirements and standards, selection criteria, salary range, and general goals of search. . B. School Committee oversees preparation of announcement of vacancy, supporting materials (brochure, e.g.) , and application form. C. Announcement, etc. , mailed and placed so as to prompt applications from broadest reachable pool of potentially qualified candidates. D. Screening Committee (with School Committee participation, see be- low) , examines applications as received, reviews and checks ref- erences, etc. , and rec.r.mnends 15-20 "quarter-finalists" to School Committee. E. School Committee (in consultation with Screening Committee) reviews quarter-finalist pool, reduces it to 7-10 "semi-finalists." F. Semi-finalists each have two interviews, one with Interview Com- mittee, one with School Committee. Interview Committee reports its impressions and opinions to School Committee. G. School Committee reduces pool to 3-4 "finalists." School Committee re-interviews all finalists, follows up references and other leads, • makes site visits (?) . • H. School Committee elects new superintendent. II. USE OF PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT The preceding outline makes no mention of possible use of a professional consultant. As of the time of our last discussion, Pat and I had not final- ly decided what to recommend to the School Committee on that question. What follows are my thoughts about the pros and cons, as of Sunday morning, Novem- • ber 8 (with most or all of which I think Fat is in general agreement) . We hope to have completed some further inquiries before the November 10 School Committee meeting, which may help us to a decision. In my mind the principal - 7 - • • considerations are as follows: A. We can perfectly well handle the "take-off" stage (steps A-C in the outline above) without a consultant. Therefore, a de- cision to use a consultant need not slow us down at this stage, which crucially determines the rest of the timetable. B. Consultant would be most helpful in one or more of three areas: 1. Attracting candidates and assessing applicant pool. Someone "in the network" who knows the national population of school administrators and has credibility with them, can encourage applications from good prospects who might other- wise not have an accurate picture of Lexington, and also can make an informed judgment about whether our applicant pool is as rich in quality as we ought to expect. 2. Appraising resumes and references in the screening process. Someone who really knows the field and its recruitment prac- tices can interpret resume data and give informed judgment as to value of reported experience, level of reported respon- sibility, reliability of references; can talk with references on person-to-person basis; can help size up oral responses of recommenders; can help develop and check with sources of in- formation not named by applicant. 3. Assisting with interviews and post-interview appraisals. Experienced and knowledgeable consultant can ask appropriate follow-up questions, help get beyond interviewee's initial facade, help appraise depth of candidates's understanding and command of field (i.e. , expose glib comments and responses) . C. With respect to purpose (2) above, a consultant could help ex- pedite the entire search process, since running down and checking out references, etc. , is laborious and time-consuming. From the standpoint of expedition, consultant would have to be someone who is locally based and conveniently available. D. Apart from the time factor, the chief grounds for reservation about using a consultant would seem to be the dollar cost (1'd roughly estimate something between $4-8 thousand) ; the possible unavailabil- ity of anyone we feel comfortable with; and the risk of our losing control of the selection process. The School Cuuuittee should dis- cuss all of these factors. III. TIMETABLE The School Committee should, as promptly as possible, decide and public- ly announce either that (I) the search will adhere to a timetable that will allow completion prior to March 1, or (2) the search will adhere to a time- table that postpones steps F-H in the above outline until after March 1. One way or the other, we have to avoid having School Committee members parti- cipating in the final selection who haven' t been in on the earlier process of - 3 - appraisal. I t is a certaintythat there will be some turnover in School PP Committee membership. .p Arguing in favor of completion before March 1, if that can be done in 11 a responsible way without compromising the quality or seriousness of the search, are the following considerations : (i) pre-election completion thenquestion wouldi avoids any risk that_ superintendency y q s be "politicized" tics-ed" as an election issue; (ii) at least two other well-reputed districts in our neighborhood--Newton and Wellesley--are going to be searching for su- perintendents at the same time, no doubt examining overlapping applicant pools, and it would be a shame to lose out on a "best" prospect because our offer came too late; (iii) postponing steps F-H to beyond March 1 could delay final selection until well into April, which may not be ideal from the standpoint of staff/community morale and smooth transition. Considering all these factors, Pat and I now believe we can responsibly plan on finishing before March 1. The key is our view that the "take-off" ste s A-C in the outline above) , which ir. myNovember 2 (p. 4) memo I sug- gested ( donefinished would take until December 7, can well be in-house and at least a week earlier. Thus my revised roughh estimate of a timetable (referring to the steps in the outline above in this memo) would be: Step A, done by November 20 Step E, drafts approved by November 20 Step C; completed by November 27 Screening Committee appointed by December 1 Consultant (if any) appointed by December 1 Application deadline January 4 Step E, completed by January 12 Step F, completed by January 26 by February 16 completed Step G, H, p To my eye, such a schedule doesn' t look unrealistic or frenzied, but it does assume things will go quite smoothly. It allows for 13 days of "spare time." We should discuss this matter carefully at our November 10 meeting. TV. SCREENING COMMITTEE -- ROLE, COMPOSITION, SELECTION It's important to note that the proposed plan involves two distinct community-based baced committees. The Interview Committee (step F) is a broad- based, representative group, with parents, students, administrators, teach- ing staff, classified staff, and maybe other "constituencies" very possibly nominating their own representatives. (The specifics of this group's com- position, selection, and procedures are important matters, but not immedi- ately urgent ones.) The Screening Committee, which operated at steps D and E, is a different body having a different membership and different function. Defining its role, composition, and method of selection are matters of more immediate concern. Here are some recommendations about these matters. A. of Screening Committee is to make a preliminaryevalu- The role the Scr ei ig C ation of application materials, references, and other available in- formation, and to reduce the application pool to about 15-20 "quar- ter-finalists," using criteria supplied by the School Committee. Screening Committee members are expected to follow up references, talk with recommenders, and develop independent sources. - 4 - B. Members of the Screening Committee will be selected by the • School Committee and appointed by vote of the Committee. There • will be approximately 5-8 members. The School Committee will designate a chair. C. Members of the Screening Committee will be chosen on the basis of special qualifications for its task, such as management-level recruitment experience, expertise in personnel administration, or experience and knowledge of the world of educational administra- tion and educational policy. Subject to these criteria, the Screen- ing Committee membership should reflect a broad spectrums of the com- munity's varied interests, concerns, and views regarding public ed- ucation. D. The Screening Committee will be appointed no earlier than Novem- ber 24 and no later than December 1. Such a schedule will allow time for the community to learn about the Committee and suggest names of possible members for our consideration. E. During the screening process, it will be expected that School Com- mittee members will examine application materials as received. School Committee members will be free to express their views and put their questions to the Screening Committee. A School Committee member may specifically suggest that a particular application be carried forward to the "quarter-final" stage. • F. The Screening Committee will make progress reports to the full School Committee as it deems necessary and appropriate. V. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF There will, at times, be some substantial clerical and administrative work associated with the search. In addition to steps B and C in the out- line, there is the important function of "secretary to the Screening Com- mittee" -- handling application correspondence, receiving and routing ap- • plications, maintaining application files, recording appraisals and discus- sions of the Screening Committee and its individual members, etc. Finally, there is the major task of arranging the logistics for steps F and G. • If we decide to retain a consultant, s/he will assume at least some of the foregoing responsibilities, and the question of staff assistance will be worked out with the consultant. If we proceed without a consultant, the question will be whether to rely on C.O. . personnel for the tasks described above, or to hire a part-time staff assistant to the search. VI. JOB QUALIFICATIONS AND CRITERIA As a way of expediting steps A and B in the outline above, I have taken a preliminary stab at proposing for the School Committee's consideration some possible qualifications and criteria. These are very rough drafts, but they may be good enough to get some first reactions and stimulate your own thoughts : - 5 - qualifications and Selection Criteria IN GENERAL, we seek candidates who -- possess strong administrative leadership and management ability • -- earn confidence by thorough analysis and fairness in decisions • • -- hold, and inspire others with, high academic standards and a commitment to educational excellence -- effectively represent and advocate the humane values of educa- tion that engages the varying interests, talents , and needs of • the community's young people DEMONSTRATED ABILITIES WEIGHING HEAVILY IN SELECTION include -- ability to perceive current and plan for future policy issues in public education • -- ability to define problems clearly and call forth proposed solu- tions to aid School Committee's policy and priority setting role • -- ability to work effectively and build consensus with diverse con- stituencies including faculty, students, parents, administration, town government agencies, other citizen groups -- ability to manage under financial limits without compromising cen- tral educational objectives EXPERIENCE and CREDENTIALS preferred include • • -- earned doctorate -- certified or certifiable as Massachusetts Superintendent -- sufficiently broad experience in both teaching and administration to ensure wide and thorough knowledge of public school operations * * * * • • NOTE TO COMMITTEE: The above format is nothing I'm recommending -- it's just a way of getting out some basic ideas so as to get some guidance • • for whoever will do further drafting. QUESTION: Do we want to include • • some particular areas of substantive concern and deployment of staff • that we expect new superintendent to deal with -- such as computer, • evaluation, demographic and enrollment change, relations with town eov- • ernment? • /c PERSONNEL CHANGES - CERTIFIED COACHING RESIGNATION ADDITION: EXTRA DUTY STIPEN? - 1981-1982 '= SCHOOL NAME STIPEND FOR: AMOUNT RETIREMENT YRS - IN LEXINGTON EFFECTIVE COACHING APPOINTMENTS @ _ DECREE CHANGE • • PERSONNEL CHANCES - C'lASS !FIB0 RESIGNATION YRS. IN LEYINGTON EFFECTIVE REASON • RESCIND APPOINTMENT NEW PERSONNEL Effective . CHANGE EFFECTIVE DATE OF RESIGNATION • PERSONNEL CHANCES - FOOD SERVICES RESIGNATION YRS. IN LEXINGTON EFFECTIVE REASON I — 11 I . STAFF FOR HOLISTIC SCORING iI'i (Writing Basic Skills Improvement Tests) II II SCORERS DATES RATE AMOUNT" A 11I (Over) 1 I : STAFF FOR HOLISTIC SCORING I (Continued) CONSULTANTS DATES RATE AMOUNT* .J I, II • 'Illi ILII *To paid at the successful conclusion of the activity. A Lexington- Public Schools Lexington, Massachusetts October 30, 1981 To: Jack Lawson From: Frank DiGiammarino Re: Enrollments/Projections - Grades K and 9 The discrepancy at the ninth grade level was due primarily to three factors: . difference in actual enrollments (Clarke Junior High School) Grade 9 -13 Grade 7 - 1 -14 . difference in Planned and Actual MMRVTS -15 . difference in Planned and Actual Metco - 5 A revised enrollment comparison sheet (see enclosed) would indicate the new difference between projected and actuals to be less than 1%. The discrepancy between projected and actual enrollments at the Kindergarten level has been a source of concern in past years. This inability to provide more accurate data resulted in our investigating why this should be. It has been discovered that during the past three years the survival ratio has not been applied to the pre school population. The current procedures indicate the following: Take Spring Promote Run Census Data--- +—Students ;. Projections in Fall This process results in using false original data. One of the strengths of the Cohort Survival technique is to take advantage of the coaLiunity's history of mobility. To compensate for this it is proposed that the following change be made: Take Spring Promote and Run Census Data > Apply Survival -___*.,Projections Ratio A test on last year's data was done to validate the procedure. If we had included this new step into the process the final kindergarten projected , figure would have been within four of the actual kindergarten enrollment. The enclosed revised enrollment projections reflects the new procedure and the changes at Clarke Junior high. 1981 9th Grade Analysis of Difference Between Projected and Actual 9 `MRVT MET Actual 337 7 12 Clarke Projected 315 15 16 Difference +22 -8 -4 Actual 239 3 15 Diamond Projected 227 10 16 Difference +12 -7 -1 Actual 576 10 27 Total Projected 542 25 32 Difference +34 -15 -5 • Revised October 28, 1981 • 1981/82 Actual Enrollments October 1, 1981 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Bowman 43 36 45 54 71 64 96 409 Bridge 28 44 46 47 51 71 63 350 Estabrook 37 35 42 45 48 59 62 326 Fiske 34 30 41 41 52 60 67 325 Franklin 29 28 43 29 45 65 59 298 Harrington 32 42 48 50 55 63 65 355 Hastings _ 37 _ 42 45 _4 63 61 53 325 240 257 310 310 3h5 443 465 2390 7 8 9 Clarke 262 293 337 892 Diamond 255 206 239 700 517 499 576 1592 10 11 12 PB High School 521 548 626 3 1698 Elementary School Total 2390 Junior High Total 1592 • High School Total 1698 5680 ;'f • • Revised. November 2, 1981 1982/83 Projected Enrollments October 1, 1981 R 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Bowman 61 47 36 46 54 71 64 379 Bridge 40 29 44 47 47 51 71 329 Estabrook 29 43 35 43 45 48 59 302 Fiske 27 40 30 42 41 52 60 292 Franklin 33 30 28 44 29 45 65 279 Harrington 37 38 42 49 50 55 63 334 Hastings 34 44 42 46 44 _ 43 61 314 266 271 257 317 310 365 443 2229 7 8 9 Clarke 257 262 266 785 Diamond 199 255 187 641 456 517 453 1426 10 11 12 High School 564 519 546 1629 Elementary School Total 2229 Junior High Total - 1426 High School Total 1629 5284 s • Revised October 28, 1981 11 1981 Enrollment Comparison Proj Actual 10/1/80 10/1/81 Difference Change Elementary 2356 2390 34 1.4 L. Junior High 1554 1592 38 2.4 Senior High 1715 1698 -17 - . 1 Total 5625 5680 55 .98 1982/83 Projected Enroi !r.ents Actual Proj ' 10/1/81 10/1/81 Difference Change Elementary 2390 2229 -161 -6. 7 Junior High pa'? 1426 . -166 -10.4 Senior High 1698 1629 - 69 - 4. 1 Total 5680 5284 -396 - 7.0 lr yy I • 1 .y ROBERT M. HUTCHINSON, JR. To=n ° October 27, 1981 Mr. Frank I. Michelman, Chairman School Committee 43 Buckman Drive Lexington, NSA 02173 Dear ti,C,,.as,' iette_man: Selectmen Stephen Politi and James Crain have been appointed to work with the School Committee Members and the Personnel Advisory Board on mutual personnel issues. Could you designate School Committee Members to work with the Selectmen. The Personnel Advisory Board further remains available for any separate and distinct issue that the School Committee would like to embark upon. i I Sincerely yours, `1 Robert M. Hutchinson, Jr. Town Manager RMH:bc cc: John H. Lawson, Superintendent of Schools Richard Daggett, Personnel Advisory Board /P,? yy' . 1625 M..99ACMu9ETT5 AVENUE • LEXINGTON. nw59ACMLI5ETT5 02993 • TELEPHONE (6171 s62-0500 ykEOYO� 4PUBLIc � , SCHOOLS JOHN IL L:AFVSON.Suprrinsenjcu; ri.}, ;,nd; Arca Code 117 862.7500 LEXINGTONMASSACHUSETTS0 2 1 7 3 i�ho,l adnn;:iu urim Au,iirag, 1557 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE November 12, 1931 Ms. Robert M. Hutchinson, Jr. Town Manager 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 Dear Bob:' Please be advised that the Lexington School Committee has unanimously voted to appoint Jean A. Gaudet and Dr. James C. Beck to work with Select- men appointments, Stephen Politi and James Crain,on de;relopisg solutions to mutual personal issues. His. Gaudet and Dr. Beck look forward to work- ing with Messrs. Politi and Crain in the interests of developing better per- sonnel practices and in seeking solutions to some of the problems affecting school personnel. Sincerely yours, ` a John H. Lawson Superintendent of Schools JHL:OC c.c. Alfred Busa, Chairman of Selectmen Richard Daggett, Personnel Advisory Board School Committee Members