In Regon 12:
Board Hears Options
for Reconfiguration
by Mike Preato
BRIDGEWATER-ROXBURY-WASHINGTON — The Region 12 Board of Education, meeting Monday, June 3, saw presentations on the eight school reconfiguration options.
To prepare for the meeting, Long Range Planning Committee members spent months researching one or two of the reconfiguration options and created PowerPoint presentations on their groups; findings.
Each group reviewed 12 categories, citing the positives and negatives effects each option would have on the educational curriculum, classroom arrangement, opportunity equality, flexibility, security, fiscal issues, logistics, student rearrangement, transportation, the community, voter support and the challenges the region faces.
Each group assigned scores to the categories on a scale of one to four.
A score of one meant that effect of the option on the category would be detrimental to Region 12; a score of four meant that the effect would be beneficial.
After presentation, Board of Education members were given approximately 15 minutes to ask questions to the presenting groups.
Board Chairman Jim Hirschfield limited the discussion time so the presentations could be completed in a timely manner.
Much to Mr. Hirschfield’s ire, a few board members decided do more than ask questions.
Washington resident Darcy Campbell discussed the effects of maintaining the status quo.
Ms. Campbell said the group determined that calling the option the “status quo” was misrepresenting the situation the region is facing and renamed the option the “current configuration.”
“We wanted to make sure we were only talking about the four buildings themselves,” she said, adding that projected population changes would impact the region heavily.
“Nothing is staying the same in the next 10 or 20 years, looking down the line, so we wanted to make sure we’re only looking at keeping the four buildings, rather than keeping the population as it is today, because we couldn’t work with that,” Ms. Campbell said.
Throughout Ms. Campbell’s presentation negatives were plentiful, while positives were scarce. Of the 12 categories reviewed, 10 received a score of two or less. No category received a score of four.
The conclusion slides at the end said that the configuration does not address the population and enrollment issues or educational equality.
Board member Susan Stumpf asked Ms. Campbell why the group determined that the declining enrollment would lead to less staff.
Ms. Campbell responded that common sense would say that when you have fewer teachers teaching the same number of students, costs would be reduced.
Ms. Stumpf responded, ”I’m asking a loaded question because I have research that indicates that it doesn’t bring down the per pupil expenditure.”
Mr. Hirschfield interrupted Ms. Stumpf, asking her if she has a question to ask.
According to Ms. Stumpf there were a lot of assumptions made about the positives and negatives.
Superintendent of Schools Dr. Patricia Cosentino stepped into the discussion and apologized for any confusion about the role of the groups.
“They were not to go out and research and find this information, they were to do it based on the knowledge of our schools, based on [their] knowledge of their experiences, et cetera, to give the Board of Education input from the communities’ point of view on each option,” Dr. Cosentino said.
“I ask that you try to limit your questions to the things that the committees were asked to do.”
Board member Kelly Lott said that she couldn’t believe that Ms. Campbell’s group couldn’t find any positives on the classroom arrangement and balance category.
Ms. Campbell said the group determined that having small classroom groups was not giving the children in all three schools an equitable education.
Ms. Lott said that there were many positives to having a small classroom.
Mr. Hirschfield cut off Ms. Lott. “This is not the time for the board to give their opinions, if you have a question for the presenter, ask a question. If you’re not satisfied with the answer, we’ll discuss it amongst ourselves, but I don’t want you to get into a debate, or any of us into a debate, with these people.
“They are here as volunteers to present the information. If you have a question, ask them a question, but please don’t get into a debate with them,” he said.
Ms. Lott said that she still couldn’t believe the group found no positives to small class size.
Ms. Campbell responded that although teachers might like to have a small class size at times, the discussion focused on the equability of classrooms.
Washington resident Peter Tagley reviewed the idea of creating a new pre-K to 5 school on the Shepaug Campus.
The positives outweighed the negatives greatly on most of the slides, resulting in nine of the categories receiving a score of three or greater; no score was below a two.
Mr. Tagley said having all of the elementary school students together would help to equalize the gender imbalance issues some of the schools have.
He said he spoke to one parent who withdrew his or her son from a class since the child was the only male in a class of 11 students.
The study of this option concluded that the single elementary school would “optimize class size and facilitate a uniform distribution of students.”
The option also provided flexibility in that the new building could be added onto to facilitate a population re-growth or further consolidation.
Michelle Gorra, who also serves as a board member, discussed the options of renovating Shepaug for grades pre-K to 12 or creating a new facility for the same grades.
The options had a balance of positives and negatives, with scores ranging from 1.9 to 3.75.
The group came to some of the same conclusions as Mr. Tagley’s group, saying that there were clear educational benefits for having all of the children in grades pre-K to 5 together.
They also noted that elementary school teachers would be able to collaborate and coordinate curriculum more effectively than before.
However, the group concluded that there would be some issues with the logistics of creating a new building and the school’s planning and construction phases would take significant time.
Jennifer Pote of Washington chaired the subcommittee to keep the Burnham School and consolidate everyone else to a new facility on the Shepaug Campus.
The scores for this option ranged from two to four, and there was a balance of positive and negative comments amongst the categories.
The group concluded that there were some severe drawbacks to this option, such as resentment over which towns got to keep their schools, unequal instruction programs and the costs associated with having one elementary school open for a student population of less than 40.
Allyson O’Hara, director of the Pupil Personnel Services, discussed the option of tuitioning out the middle and high school students while maintaining the elementary schools.
Ten of the scores were of one or less, and the option was plagued with negatives.
The group concluded that the option would result in the towns having no athletic teams, theater or other programs; no control over the educational planning; a lack of control over the cost; and the loss of the district’s culture.
Dr. Cosentino reviewed the option of making Booth Free School K to 2, Burnham School 3 to 5, and keeping all of the other facilities as is.
The option, which was reviewed by a group of ten administrators, received nine scores of 1 or less, and had a lot of negatives listed.
The conclusions were that the option addresses some socialization issues, but ultimately does not address the decreasing enrollment issue.
Additionally, the option does not address the infrastructure issues the aging facilities have, according to the conclusion.
The region’s principals researched a themed elementary schools option and it did not appear to be a well-received idea based on their scoring.
The option received eight scores of one or less, the highest score was a three.
The group concluded that although the themed schools are innovative and can make the region stand out in some ways, the option left the region with several problems such as new training for the teachers, meeting state common core standards, providing an equitable education and giving students an option to not go to a themed school.
Following the presentations, the board discussed issues such as new school policies and an increase in next year’s lunch cost from $2.50 to $2.60.
The board approved of policy 5118.2, a policy which allows the children of staff members to attend the Region 12 school system for 5 percent of the region’s cost per student.
Dr. Cosentino said she had four staff members who were interested in sending their children to Region 12 and four other staff members liked the idea, but lacked children.
Board member Greg Cava said that it shouldn’t be a a problem financially as the students would be spread out amongst the classrooms, meaning the schools shouldn’t require any extra faculty or see an increase in facility costs.
Mr. Tagley said that approving of the policy was a bad idea as the towns were picking up the bill for outside of region students.
He called it a “bad public relations move” for the board, saying that although it helps to fill holes in the classroom, it would add costs to the region.
To prepare for the meeting, Long Range Planning Committee members spent months researching one or two of the reconfiguration options and created PowerPoint presentations on their groups; findings.
Each group reviewed 12 categories, citing the positives and negatives effects each option would have on the educational curriculum, classroom arrangement, opportunity equality, flexibility, security, fiscal issues, logistics, student rearrangement, transportation, the community, voter support and the challenges the region faces.
Each group assigned scores to the categories on a scale of one to four.
After presentation, Board of Education members were given approximately 15 minutes to ask questions to the presenting groups.
Board Chairman Jim Hirschfield limited the discussion time so the presentations could be completed in a timely manner.
Much to Mr. Hirschfield’s ire, a few board members decided do more than ask questions.
Washington resident Darcy Campbell discussed the effects of maintaining the status quo.
Ms. Campbell said the group determined that calling the option the “status quo” was misrepresenting the situation the region is facing and renamed the option the “current configuration.”
“We wanted to make sure we were only talking about the four buildings themselves,” she said, adding that projected population changes would impact the region heavily.
“Nothing is staying the same in the next 10 or 20 years, looking down the line, so we wanted to make sure we’re only looking at keeping the four buildings, rather than keeping the population as it is today, because we couldn’t work with that,” Ms. Campbell said.
Throughout Ms. Campbell’s presentation negatives were plentiful, while positives were scarce. Of the 12 categories reviewed, 10 received a score of two or less. No category received a score of four.
The conclusion slides at the end said that the configuration does not address the population and enrollment issues or educational equality.
Board member Susan Stumpf asked Ms. Campbell why the group determined that the declining enrollment would lead to less staff.
Ms. Campbell responded that common sense would say that when you have fewer teachers teaching the same number of students, costs would be reduced.
Ms. Stumpf responded, ”I’m asking a loaded question because I have research that indicates that it doesn’t bring down the per pupil expenditure.”
Mr. Hirschfield interrupted Ms. Stumpf, asking her if she has a question to ask.
According to Ms. Stumpf there were a lot of assumptions made about the positives and negatives.
Superintendent of Schools Dr. Patricia Cosentino stepped into the discussion and apologized for any confusion about the role of the groups.
“They were not to go out and research and find this information, they were to do it based on the knowledge of our schools, based on [their] knowledge of their experiences, et cetera, to give the Board of Education input from the communities’ point of view on each option,” Dr. Cosentino said.
“I ask that you try to limit your questions to the things that the committees were asked to do.”
Board member Kelly Lott said that she couldn’t believe that Ms. Campbell’s group couldn’t find any positives on the classroom arrangement and balance category.
Ms. Campbell said the group determined that having small classroom groups was not giving the children in all three schools an equitable education.
Ms. Lott said that there were many positives to having a small classroom.
Mr. Hirschfield cut off Ms. Lott. “This is not the time for the board to give their opinions, if you have a question for the presenter, ask a question. If you’re not satisfied with the answer, we’ll discuss it amongst ourselves, but I don’t want you to get into a debate, or any of us into a debate, with these people.
“They are here as volunteers to present the information. If you have a question, ask them a question, but please don’t get into a debate with them,” he said.
Ms. Lott said that she still couldn’t believe the group found no positives to small class size.
Ms. Campbell responded that although teachers might like to have a small class size at times, the discussion focused on the equability of classrooms.
Washington resident Peter Tagley reviewed the idea of creating a new pre-K to 5 school on the Shepaug Campus.
The positives outweighed the negatives greatly on most of the slides, resulting in nine of the categories receiving a score of three or greater; no score was below a two.
Mr. Tagley said having all of the elementary school students together would help to equalize the gender imbalance issues some of the schools have.
He said he spoke to one parent who withdrew his or her son from a class since the child was the only male in a class of 11 students.
The study of this option concluded that the single elementary school would “optimize class size and facilitate a uniform distribution of students.”
The option also provided flexibility in that the new building could be added onto to facilitate a population re-growth or further consolidation.
Michelle Gorra, who also serves as a board member, discussed the options of renovating Shepaug for grades pre-K to 12 or creating a new facility for the same grades.
The options had a balance of positives and negatives, with scores ranging from 1.9 to 3.75.
The group came to some of the same conclusions as Mr. Tagley’s group, saying that there were clear educational benefits for having all of the children in grades pre-K to 5 together.
They also noted that elementary school teachers would be able to collaborate and coordinate curriculum more effectively than before.
However, the group concluded that there would be some issues with the logistics of creating a new building and the school’s planning and construction phases would take significant time.
Jennifer Pote of Washington chaired the subcommittee to keep the Burnham School and consolidate everyone else to a new facility on the Shepaug Campus.
The scores for this option ranged from two to four, and there was a balance of positive and negative comments amongst the categories.
The group concluded that there were some severe drawbacks to this option, such as resentment over which towns got to keep their schools, unequal instruction programs and the costs associated with having one elementary school open for a student population of less than 40.
Allyson O’Hara, director of the Pupil Personnel Services, discussed the option of tuitioning out the middle and high school students while maintaining the elementary schools.
Ten of the scores were of one or less, and the option was plagued with negatives.
The group concluded that the option would result in the towns having no athletic teams, theater or other programs; no control over the educational planning; a lack of control over the cost; and the loss of the district’s culture.
Dr. Cosentino reviewed the option of making Booth Free School K to 2, Burnham School 3 to 5, and keeping all of the other facilities as is.
The option, which was reviewed by a group of ten administrators, received nine scores of 1 or less, and had a lot of negatives listed.
The conclusions were that the option addresses some socialization issues, but ultimately does not address the decreasing enrollment issue.
Additionally, the option does not address the infrastructure issues the aging facilities have, according to the conclusion.
The region’s principals researched a themed elementary schools option and it did not appear to be a well-received idea based on their scoring.
The option received eight scores of one or less, the highest score was a three.
The group concluded that although the themed schools are innovative and can make the region stand out in some ways, the option left the region with several problems such as new training for the teachers, meeting state common core standards, providing an equitable education and giving students an option to not go to a themed school.
Following the presentations, the board discussed issues such as new school policies and an increase in next year’s lunch cost from $2.50 to $2.60.
The board approved of policy 5118.2, a policy which allows the children of staff members to attend the Region 12 school system for 5 percent of the region’s cost per student.
Dr. Cosentino said she had four staff members who were interested in sending their children to Region 12 and four other staff members liked the idea, but lacked children.
Board member Greg Cava said that it shouldn’t be a a problem financially as the students would be spread out amongst the classrooms, meaning the schools shouldn’t require any extra faculty or see an increase in facility costs.
Mr. Tagley said that approving of the policy was a bad idea as the towns were picking up the bill for outside of region students.
He called it a “bad public relations move” for the board, saying that although it helps to fill holes in the classroom, it would add costs to the region.
No comments:
Post a Comment