Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-15-SC-min Page 76 December 15, 1981 The Lexington School Committee held a meeting Tuesday, December 15, 1981, at 8:00 p.m. , at the Clarke Junior High School. Present were: Swanson, Shaw, Gaudet, Beck, Michelman, and Student Representative Splaine. Also present were: Dr. Lawson, Pierson, Monderer, DiGiammarino, Maclnnes, and Barnes. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following schedule of payments as listed on the at- tached sheet. (Shaw, Swanson, Unanimous) FINANCIAL The Financial Statement was discussed. STATEMENT Dr. DiGiammarino presented the School Committee with copies of pro- 1982-83 gram descriptions and objectives for the first major section of the 1982- BUDGET 83 program budget. Mr. Michelman thanked the Superintendent and Dr. Di- Giammarino for the information and said the Committee would review them as discussions were held on the '82- '83 budget in the weeks ahead. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes (Classified) as listed PERSONNEL on the attached sheet. (Gaudet, Beck, Unanimous) CHANGES (Classified) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes (Certified) and (Clas- (Certified - sified) as listed on the attached sheets. (Swanson, Gaudet, Unan- Classified) imous) 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. (Gaudet, Beck, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was PUBLIC LAW 874 FUNDS VOTED: that the available and anticipated federal and state funds total- ing $216,312 be used to reduce the 1982-83 budget request. (Swanson, Gaudet, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was PSYCHOTHERAPY PROVIDER VOTED: To accept the following exception to the psychotherapy provider EXCEPTION policy as listed on the attached sheet. (Gaudet, Swanson, Unani- mous) Barbara Ostrom, Project Director of the Transition Program, a fed- TRANSITION erally-funded program which provides career education and work experience EVALUATION opportunities to special needs students at Lexington High School, pre- REPORT - sented the report. She commented briefly on the evaluation report pre- 1980-81 pared by Joan Wofford, Consultant to the project, and she highlighted the major aspects of the Transition Program. She noted that the Transi- tion program was in its foufth year and that it was necessary to request Page 77 December 15, 1981 funds on an annual basis. She added that the Program was available to High School special needs juniors and seniors. Students were channeled through two phases of the Program: Introduction to Working Careers had the segment where they prepared for work experiences, and then a Work Experience Class where skills were developed that could be used with em- ployers and other co-workers. Special needs students were placed by the Coordinator of the Transition Program into work sites which were for ap- proximately fifteen hours per week. Mrs. Ostrom said the Program this year accommodated forty special needs students. This was a dramatic in- crease, she emphasized, over the past two years. In conclusion, she said the evaluation report was most favorable, and she was pleased with the positive results. Dr. Beck stated he felt the Program was terrific and said that if Mrs. Ostrom wished to receive more evaluative comments from parents, phone calls should be made as a follow-up to the questionnaires. He felt this would increase responses to the Program and could provide val- uable input. Mrs. Swanson said that even though she felt positive about the Pro- gram, there was some disappointment that more parents of students who were participants in the Transition Program weren't involved. Mrs. Ostrom agreed that it would be more beneficial to student and parent to have more parental involvement. She said several techniques had been tried, and it was a constant goal of hers. The School Committee thanked Mrs. Ostrom and expressed compliments to her and others in the Program for the fine job. AUDITOR'S RE- A copy of the auditor's report of the School Lunch Program was pre- PORT OF SCHOOL sented to the School Committee for its information. LUNCH PROGRAM Mr. Michelman, on behalf of the School Committee and staff, thanked FINAL TRIBUTE - Dr. Lawson for his five and one-half years of outstanding leadership and DR. LAWSON service to the schools and Town. He wished him well in his new position of Commissioner of Education for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mr. Michelman said the School Committee would respect Dr. Lawson's request not to be present during the Screening Committee discussion of the new superintendent process and criteria. Dr. Lawson thanked all for their best wishes for success and for the support he had received during his superintendency. A discussion with the members of the Superintendent Screening Com- SUPERINTENDENT mittee began with an introduction of the membership by the Chairman of SCREENING the School Committee, Mr. Michelman. He announced that Donald Weintraub, COMMIt1=E who would act as Chairman of the committee, was unable to attend due to DISCUSSION a prior commitment, and John McLaughlin, committee member, was out-of- state. He added that both members of the committee would clear their calendars so that future conflicts would not arise. He then introduced members of the cosmittee who were present: James Crain, Richard Comings, Elizabeth Clarke, Linda Wolk, and Robert Cataldo. He also introduced Dr. Richard Goodman, Director of the Center of Field Services at the University of New Hampshire, who was the newly-appointed Consultant in I I Page 78 December 15, 1981 the Superintendent Search. Mr. Michelman said that the question of the charge to the Screening Committee was of upmost importance and the even- ing's, discussion, hopefully, would clarify this for the membership as well as the public. Mr. Michelman then reviewed the criteria listed in the brochure: 1. Earned doctorate strongly preferred 2. Experiences as a superintendent or assistant superinten- dent strongly preferred, although in unusual cases other experience will be considered 3. Sound moral character and unquestionable integrity 4. Proven capacity for educational leadership, placing first priority on quality education without sacrificing cost-effectiveness 5. Professional excellence as judged by fellow professionals, members of community boards, and other constituents 6. The ability to work effectively and build consensus with diverse persons including the School Committee, the staff, community groups, and town officials He added that after January 15 the Screening Committee would advise the School Committee as to a number of candidates, not larger than 15 to 20 and in alpha- betical order (less than that number would be more desirable) , that the School Committee should consider inviting for formal interviews. The School Committee might wish to consult further with the Screening Committee in paring down the list of possible interviewers to a smaller number. Mr. Michelman stated that School Committee members would feel free to review the applications themselves. It was agreed, however, that School Committee members should refrain from rais- ing questions or interjecting their own views until the Screening Committee had made ',its report. It was further agreed that School Committee members might raise questions about a particular candidate or candidates and that, through a discussion with the Consultant and Screening Committee, valuable insights could result, especially as to structuring the final list of candidates. He said that he did want to make it perfectly clear that the School Committee did not intend to tell the Screening Committee what to do but was available to assist it. Mr. Michelman added that additional assistance was available to the Screening Committee through the services of the Superintendent's Secretary, Mrs. Olive Calvert. She would assist in reproduction, filing, processing the applications and credentials, providing postings for meeting rooms, etc. At this point, Dr. Goodman interjected that his schedule was very flex- ible, and he was willing to be called upon at any time to meet with the Screen- ing Committee. Mr. Michelman expressed his gratitude to Dr. Goodman for mak- ing his schedule so flexible. He felt it was an asset to the workings of the Screening Committee and School Committee. Mr. Michelman stated that the Consultant, Dr. Goodman, had already used some of his available channels to place information and inquiries into circu- Page 79 December 15, 1981 lation in the search for the new superintendent. The School Department, through Mr. Barnes, had advertised in the New York Times, the Education Week, the Bay State Banner, the Boston Globe, the American Association of School Administrators' Newsletter, several other newsletters, and sent out 290 brochure packages to individuals, agencies, colleges, and insti- tutions. Mr. Michelman then said that the Committee had focused on the date of January 15, 1982, as the deadline date for the final receipt of appli- cations. Mr. James Crain asked Mr. Michelman if this date were a defini- tive deadline date or one that was flexible. The Consultant, Dr. Goodman, felt that the date probably should be February 1, and a new superintendent's selection date by March 1 was probably unrealistic. He felt that mid-April would be more likely for appointment. Mr. Michelman stated that even though the School Committee was not com- mitted to the February 28 date for appointment, it was its focus and the priori- ty of the Committee to try for this date if it could be achieved without undue haste. Dr. Beck stated the School Committee certainly was not going to trade quality for speed but was also not going to focus on an alternative time frame which would ensure not reaching the original goal set by the Committee. Mr. Michelman said that due to the change in membership of the School Committee on March 1, some members might not be intimately connected to the process of the selection of a new superintendent, which would be unfortunate for all. Mr. Crain said that he was uncomfortable with the suggestion that the closing date of January 15 was not significant. He felt that it was a most important point of the discussion. Mrs. Swanson commented that the School Committee should establish a clos- ing date, and if the candidates that had applied were not of the quality that the School Committee and Screening Committee felt were acceptable, the date should be waived and additional candidates sought. She stated that more than likely the Screening Committee could decide prior to the closing date as to the quality of the candidates. She said the main focus in the search for a new superintendent was the recruitment process, facilitated through the talents of the Consultant. Mr. Cataldo, who had served on the Screening Committee in 1975, added that the 1975 Committee had considered applications that were received after the deadline date. In fact, he noted, two of the better candidates' appli- cations were received after the cut-off point. He supported the idea that the January 15 date should not be strictly enforced. Mr. Michelman asked each School Committee member if he or she could ex- pand on their ideas as to the virtues and qualities sought for in a new super- intendent. Mrs. Gaudet stated that she felt Dr. Lawson was a combination of many tal- ents - a good manager and educational leader who had an understanding of stu- dents who did not do well within the system, which made him unique and special as an educational leader. She felt that someone who had these qualities would be what she looked for in a candidate. Mrs. Shaw stated that Dr. Lawson was an educator in the best sense of the word because he placed a great importance on quality education. She added that Page 80 December 15, 1981 he had strengths of character to make educational decisions that focused on equal opportunity for all students. She cited as an example the de-phas- ing program and school closings. Mrs. Swanson said she admired Dr. Lawson for several reasons: He was a strong person, ethical, talented in administrative skills, an educational leader, and stood by his convictions when he knew that he was correct. She said a perfect example of his strength of conviction, regardless of the popu- larity of an issue, was his strong stance in the school closing program, even though it was a very difficult position for him. She said the School Com- mittee should look for a person with these attributes. Mr. Michelman said that even though it was impossible to find someone exactly like Dr. Lawson, he felt the School Committee certainly should focus on a new superintendent who should be able to administrate well, handle legal and financial matters, and be able to work under limited resources that one has in school systems today. He said the system certainly needed a person who believed in quality education, could use his/her skills wisely in using resources in the Massachusetts environment, had a strong commitment to learn- ing, focused on the values of education, and could inspire staff and commu- nity. Mr. Crain asked members of the School Committee to explain what they meant when they said they were seeking a "good manager," such as Dr. Lawson had been. Mr. Michelman responded that a good manager should have realistic viewpoints, should be someone who is positive, articulate, forthright; a per- son who was seasoned and knew how to deal with the combinations of limited resources in the Massachusetts environment without sacrificing quality educa- tion. Dr. Beck added that even though he was the least experienced member of the Committee and had less time to work with Dr. Lawson than the rest of the Committee, he felt that the Lexington Public Schools were better managed than any of the public institutions in the state he had been familiar with. He said that Lexington was unique. He felt that the School Committee should look for the best possible person who was capable of learning to do the job rather than having specific experiences in one's background. Mark Splaine said that he felt that Dr. Lawson had the ability to relate and understand students' feelings. Since he was able to do that, Dr. Lawson had the great admiration of many students. Mr. Michelman thanked the Com- mittee members and felt that the Screening Committee and Consultant should ar- range a meeting as early as possible so the process could begin. It was sug- gested by the School Committee members that Mr. Michelman discuss with Dr. Lawson what he had done to notify individuals of the vacancy, as well as tap any specific ideas he may have. It was MOVED: that the School Committee make use of the wise judgment of Dr. Lawson in regard to the possible candidates for the new superintendency now and after -he commenced his new position on January 4. (Beck, Swanson, Unanimous) Mr. Michelman, on behalf of the School Committee, thanked members of the Page 81 December 15, 1981 Superintendent Screening Committee. Mr; Michelman suggested that similarly to the Interview Committee of 1975, SUPERINTEN- the committee should consist of two teachers, two administrators, two students, DENT INTER- two PTA representatives, two classified personnel, and one Town government of- VIEW COMMIT- ficial. Each of the School Committee members then commented as to their feel- LEL Ings about the composition of the Interview Committee. Mrs. Swanson suggested that someone knowledgeable about learning disabi- lities be on the committee. Dr. Beck agreed with that assessment and felt that if a special needs teacher or someone knowledgeable in special needs was not named as one of the eleven members, the School Committee should consider 11 appointment of a twelfth member. Suggested methods for the selection of committee members were reviewed by the School Committee. After discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Michelman would contact the Lexington Education Association, PTA boards, Lexington Ed- ucational Secretaries Association, National Association of Goveiuutent Employ- ees (custodians' union) , Food Services' union, student representatives' groups, and the Town Meeting Members' Association for nominations to the In- terview Committee. Mr. Michelman said the appointments would be made by Jan- uary 15, 1982, and that additional procedures to be followed by the Interview Committee would be discussed at a future date. It was 1 ' VOTED: to convene in executive session at 10:22 p.m. to discuss matters per- EXECUTIVE taining to collective bargaining. (Yes, Swanson; yes, Gaudet; yes, SESSION Shaw; yes, Beck; yes, Michelman) The Chairman announced that the School Committee would not be coming out of executive session. Respectfully submitted, r : tchard H. rnes ,� Recordingretary /c • SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS The following schedules of payments were available for scrutiny and approval prior to this meeting: SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services December 11, 1981 Professional Payroll #12 $462,398.95 December 4, 1981 Classified Payroll #12-C 74,350.43 Expenses December 4, 1981 Bill Schedules #90 38,750.73 December 11, 1981 #91 3,822.72 December 11, 1981 #92 19,439.89 December 11, 1981 #93 236.16 December 11, 1981 #94 20,993.63 • December 11, 1981 095 2,01.6.94 ' Out-of-State Travel December 11, 1931 Bill Schedule 06 300.00 SPECIAL PROGRAMS - NON-LEXINGTON FUNDS Metco Program December 4, 1981 Classified Payroll 2,437.05 December 11, 1931 Professional Payroll 6,878.29 December 11, 1981 Bill Schedule #5 150.00 Project Mainstream December 11, 1981 Professional Payroll 1,079.79 December 11, 1981 Bill Schedule #1 10.47 Transition to Employment December 4, 1981 Classified Payroll 637.88 December 11, 1981 Professional Payroll 902.35 Adult Education December 11, 1981 Professional Payroll 750.00 December 11, 1981 Bill Schedule #4 237.28 Driver Education December 11, 1981 Professional Payroll 595.88 December 11, 1981 Bill Schedule #1 7.56 Bus Tickets December 4, 1961 . Bill Schedule #3 1,210.45 Project Discover December 11, 1981 Professional Payroll 921.95 December 11, 1981 Bill Schedule #3 18.36 Ptoiect Assist December 11, 1981 Professional Payroll $813.50 Project Enhance 29.90 December 4, 1981 Classified Payroll 5 529.90 December 11, 1981 Professional Payroll 202.546 December 11, 1981 Bill Schedule 02 Project Combine December 11, 1981 Bill Schedule #2 1,000.00 { PERSONNEL CHANCES - CLASSIFIED RETIREMENT YRS, IN LEXINGTON EFFECTIVE END OF 90-DAY PROBATIONARY PERIOD/SALARY INCREASE 4 • PERSONNEL CIL",NCES - CE'211FIED RETIREMENT iFS, IN LEXINGTON EFFECTIVE • • • 1 • • NEW PEFSO TNEI. ELEMENTARY NAME SCHOOL/SUBJECT EDUCATION EXPERIENCE 5