xt7msb3wtf9b https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtf9b/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 19640630 minutes English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1964-06-apr30-ec. text Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1964-06-apr30-ec. 1964 2011 true xt7msb3wtf9b section xt7msb3wtf9b

Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board
of Trustees of the University of Kentucky, Thursday, April 30, 1964.

A special meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees
of the University of Kentucky was called by the Chairman, Dr. Ralph Angelucci,
for 5:00 o'clock, Eastern Standard Time, on Thursday, April 30, 1964, in
the Board of Trustees Room in the Administration Building on the campus of
the University. The following members of the Executive Committee were
present: Dr. Angelucci, chairman, Judge James A. Sutherland, secretary,
Mr. Robert Hillenmeyer, and Dr. H1 B. Murray. Mr. Smith Broadbent was
unable to attend, In addition, Mr. Floyd Wright, a member of the Board of
Trustees, President John Oswald, Dr. A. D. Albright, Dr. William R. Willard,
Mr. Robert Kerley.. and Dr. Ellis F. Hartford were present. Members of
the press and the following representatives of the parents of the University
High School, Mrs. Martha Gurnee, Mr. Harry Miller, Dr. William Maxson,
Mr. Harry Scott and Mr. Charles Rhodes, also attended,

A. Meeting Opened

Dr. Ralph Angelucci called the meeting to order at 5:12 p.m. He com-
mented on the new Board of Trustees Room, which was being used for the first
time, and expressed appreciation to Dr. Oswald for providing such a beautiful
room for use of the Board.

B. University High School Discussed

Dr. Angelucci indicated that there was no agenda for this special meeting
but that it was called to hear a statement from Dr. Oswald.

Dr. Oswald stated that, shortly after his arrival in September, the
Board of Trustees asked him to look into several matters in the University
which had been of continuing concern to the Board. Among these was the Uni-
versity High School--what function the school now served, the financing of the
school., and what should ultimately be done about it.

A committee composed of Dean Lyman Ginger, Dean of the College of
Education, Mr, James H. Powell, Director of the University High School,
Drs, Morris Cierley and Ellis Hartford, former directors, and Dr. James
Kincheloe, former Superintendent of the Fayette County Schools, was appointed
with Dr. Kincheloe serving as chairman, The following report resulted from
the deliberations and study of this committee:

Rc- tjn:.verFcitv School

"The University School was established over, forty years ago as a labora-
tory for preparing teachers. At the time of its establishment most schools
in Kentucky were small and most teachers poorly prepared. The Enrollment
in the College of Education was very small and one section of each class in
the University School was considered enough to train students in the College
of Education, The school was considered a model, with well-trained teachers,
an outstanding program and modern facilities, Educators came from over
the Commonwealth to observe it. in operation

"The University School for many years served well as both a teacher
education laboratory and model school. A superior educational program was
provided for hundreds of students over the years. Services of observation
and student teaching were provided for the College of Education. The school
served as a research base for the College.

'Great changes have occurred in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the
University, and the College of Education, The number of small schools in
Kentucky has been drastically reduced through consolidation, The University
School no longer resembles closely in size or programs most of the schools
in which College of Education graduates will teach, The University needs have
rapidly expanded. Space for classrooms and offices has become particularly
acute. The University increasingly has had to evaluate a'l phases of its total
operation in terms of their contribution to programs of excellence. The
enrollment in the College of Educat:ion has increased tremendously and the
University School, because of iAs size, has been unable to provgide the services
of observation, demonstration. experimentation, and student teaching for an
expanded College enrollmentO The size of the University School and its
limited course offerings mcre and more have restrlcts:d its urse in research.
Most of the student teachers already are performing their student teaching
in schools representing a. wir'de area, some as far as 100 miles from the
campus,

'Some changes have been made recently in the University School in re-
sponse to pressures brought about by these chan es. Th.- Kindergarten closed
in 1961 and a year later the elementary grades were discontinued,

"In 1962 and 196b, a faculty committee of the College of Education studied
the role of the University Schcol and its re`a.taons with the CoX.ll-ge of Education,
Alternative recommendations were presented to the College faculty and consid-
erable time! was spent in discussing possible courses of action, The general
conclusions were as follows:

1. A quahlnt preparat:ion program for tteache.rs recqu.res a laboratory
school.

2. A laboratory school of the scope and quality necessary is tremendous-
ly expensive for a University to operate.

3. A limited school with limited program and facilities does not achieve
the purposes for which it is established.

4. Unless the College of Education can have a quality laboratory school,
-it should explore a cooperative operation with one of the local public
schools.

5. In view of the limited program and facilities of the University School,
it might be changed to serve as a special school--for example, a
special school for the handicapped.

"The committee's report resulted in the exploration of several new direc-
tions for the University School. Expansion to such a size that would enable
the school to achieve its purposes with distinction was considered. This was
found at the time to be economically impossible. Use of the University School
as a research facility was explored and proposals prepared. This was not found
tobe feasible. Cooperative joint operation with a public school system was dis-
cussed for a considerable period of time.

"After all of this study and analysis, it appears now that immediate action
to be effective at the end of this school year would be advisable. Maintaining
sufficient enrollrentforaccreditation during an interim period of operation
would certainly be a problem. Keeping sufficient staff and securing adequate
replacements for staff members would be almost impossible. An interim
operation would, additionally, create problems of morale for staff, students
and parents. Consequently, termination seems the only plausible conclusion
to be reached.

"e In summary, the University School has had a long and distinguished
history as an integral part of the program in the College of Education. How-
ever, the advent of an expanding enrollment in the College and the University
along with several other factors has restricted the expansion of the University
School's services to the College. Exploration of new roles and functions for
the school have proved unproductive. Consequently, it now appears that the
present maintenance and operation of this school is an excessively expensive
part of the University in terms of its contribution to programs of excellence.

it Moreover, the University generally is facing mounting college enroll-
ments. These enrollments demand additional resources in faculty, physical
facilities and services. It is the University' s first and primary responsibility
to provide these college students with the best possible educational opportuni-
ties and programs that the Commonwealth of Kentucky can afford.

"it is recognized that action to close the school will be a matter of
concern to some individuals in the Lexington area, especially those who have

had a relationship to the school and those parents who now have children en-
rolled. Of prime importance, however, is that all matters relative to existing
students and staff of this school be handled equitably. The group of students
most affected will be those who would be in the senior year next year.

"'t is the purpose of this meeting to inform the Executive Committee of
the Board and, through them, the Board of Trustees that at the May 12, 1964,
meeting of the Board, I intend to recommend to the Board that the University
High School be terminated at the end of this school year. Prior to the
meeting on May 12, i shall meet with any interested persons concerning the
University High School and will also have the opportunity to explore with the
parents of next year's seniors the possibilities of some special arrangement
that might permit that class to complete their final year under the auspices
of University High, It

After reading the report to the group, Dr. Oswald commented that he
had suggested that perhaps an interim operation of the school might be pos-
sible to allow parents to make plans for their children. The committee had,
however, strongly advised against such a procedure and, as a next possibility,
Dr. Oswald said that he would be willing to explore with the parents and
students the operation of the school for one additional, year for the present
junior class in order that they might have their senior year there and be grad-
uated from the University High School. He cautioned that it would be necessary
to explore accreditation for such a plan with both the State Department of
Education and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. In addition,
he felt that at least 2/3 of the present junior class must be willing to return in
order to make such a. project feasible. He warned also that the students
should be fully conscious that this would not be a normal senior year since
there would be an almnost complete absence of any extra-curricular activities.

In answer to a question as to where the students would go next year,
Dr. Oswald rep"ied that, if the present Junior class remained in the University
School, there would be oniy l01 students to be absorbed by other school
systems and that the se would be over such a -,widely scattered area that no
system or district would suffer by an influx of additional students.

Judge Sutherland questioned whether this was a school in which students
from all, over the state might enroll or whether it merely served the immediate
area, Dr. Oswald replied that, in theory, any student from Kentucky would
be eligible for admission but because there was no housing in connection with
the school only those living within commuting distance actually attended,

Dr. Angelucc ; a sked for a cost analysis and the following information
was given. The operation of the University High School costs approximately
$192,000 a year $i5A?.000 direct cost for teachers, $5,500 for social security
taxes, and $1)8, 000 for operation of the plant. Of this amount only $15, 390
of income is received from tuition fees, leaving $177, 000 paid from state
appropriations. The cost per pupil is $i, 040 in comparison with a figure of less than

$400 per student in pu.bl-c high schools of the state. When the cost of the
University High School is figured per college student using the facilities for
student teaching it amounts to approxinr tely $7, 000 per student At present,
approximately 25 student teachers are trained at University High, only 6%
of the total being trained. The other 94% are trained in nearby public schools.

In reply to questions relative to space needs, Dr. Oswald indicated
that the investment in the building was $800, 000, It would cost $40, 000 a
year debt service on a similar building at this time. Since there are many
substandard buildings on the campus being used for college classes, it is
considered unwise to continue to use such a building for the education of
high school students, the value of which s now only peripheral to the Uni-
versity' s function.

When questioned as to the desirability of continuing the University
School for research puarposes, Dr, Oswald responded that this had been
seriously considered and would not be feasible without the expenditure of
additional money to expand the plant and modernize it and double the enroll-
ment, Neither is it feasible to attempt a possible training program for
persons from Eastern Kentucky areas, financially or research-wise.

Mr. Hillenmeyer indicated that he had received many phone calls
and that most of the questions which had been raised with him had been an-
swered but he would like to know what plans were being made for the present
teaching staff, Dr. Oswald replied that this was one of his most serious
concerns and that, while they did not have actual tenure, the University had
a moral obligation to those who have served the school for many years. He
felt that this latter group could be used in the present College of Education
program and those who were relative newcomers to the staff would have no
difficulty in finding employment in other schools and that every effort would
be made to assist them in finding such employment.

The space which would be released with the closing of the school would
be studied by the Building and Campus Development Committee and recom-
me-ndati.ons would be made by this group for the best pos sible use in view of
the enti re University- -not just the College of Education. The utilization of
this space by college classes might mean the difference between quality
programs and mediocre programs for certain divisions of the University.

Parents have expressed the wish to discuss the closing of the school
prior to any final decisions being made and Dr. Oswald and Dean Ginger have
arranged for a meeting on Tuesday evening} May 5, with parents and students
so that the entire picture, may be presented to them and they may have an
opportunity to present their arguments against closing the school.

When the representatives of the parents who were present were asked
if they wished to raise any questions, Mr. Harry Miller expressed the feeling
that it was difficult to dispute the arguments presented by Dr. Oswald but that
it was his feeling that the University School had been an outstanding school

through the years and had trained many of the leaders of the community, calling
particular attention to Dr. Angelucci as one of the graduates of the school. He
felt that it was a shame to close a "quality" school at a time when secondary
education was so important. Dr. Oswald responded that he was not closing the
school of ten years ago but the present school which could no longer be con-
sidered a "quality" school because of limited enrollment and limited course
offerings.

When questioned as to why the school was no longer considered a "quality"
school, Dr. Oswald responded that it was an evolutionary process and it was
happening in other parts of the country. Dr. Albright indicated that the movement
has been away from uiliversity connected schools unless the school could per-
form' at least three functions: demonstration, experimentation and research.
Studies indicate that smaller proportions of good students come out of small
schools than large ones. Dr. Angelucci indicated that he remembered a study
made several years ago which showed that the graduates of Henry Clay High
School did better in college than the graduates of any of the other local high
schools.

C. Meeting Adjourned

Dr. Angelucci thanked the parents for their interest and for attending
the meeting. Since no action was necessary on the report presented by
President Oswald, who indicated that the meeting was called for the purpose
of informing the Board of Trustees and the public that he would recommend
the closing of the University High School at the May 12 meeting of the Board,
Dr. Angelucci declared the meeting adjourned at 6.20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

James A. Sutherland
Secretary