Friday, April 18, 2014
Shares multiple concerns about consolidation
Published 5:17 pm, Wednesday, April 16, 2014
To the Editor:
I urge a no/no vote on Region 12's referendum.
I was at a meeting last year when I first heard the Region 12 Board of Education was once again pushing for a consolidated elementary school to be located in the town of Washington.
I asked a Roxbury Realtor at the meeting if young families would move to Roxbury if Booth Free School were to be closed. Without hesitation the answer was a resounding no.
Connecticut ranks 45th of 50 states for population growth. It's irresponsible to build a new facility at such high costs for fewer students.
It's disturbing the BOE would work so hard and waste so much money to close schools graduating students who are excelling on state mastery tests.
Burnham and Booth are the two top performing schools in our region and Washington Primary is doing well, too. Students don't need a state-of-the-art school, just the technology and teaching and they are getting that now.
Most complaints I hear from parents on the Region 12 school system is when the students go up to the Shepaug campus.
Bridgewater and Roxbury taxpayers will not only bear their share of the $50 million in bonds for the next 30 years, but will also see their property values decrease by an estimated 10 percent.
When property values decrease, the grand list for the town goes down. Now the town would need to increase its mill rate; so taxpayers taxes would go up even more.
Then there's the empty school. To bring that building up to current code for general use would cost millions more. More taxes.
Solutions have been offered, such as pre-K to grade two classes at Booth and grades 3-5 at Burnham. This would cut staffing costs and still keep the schools in each town.
Unfortunately, the BOE will not even look at that as an option.
Many seniors in town hope to downsize and sell their large homes. That will not happen if young families do not move in to buy them.
The consolidated school located in the town of Washington would not bring vitality to Bridgewater and Roxbury; it would do the exact opposite.
There is already a state Supreme Court decision; according to state statute 10-47(c), the vote would pass only if it's passed by a majority of residents -- that's 50 percent plus -- in each town.
Roxbury
Feels need to be wary of 'unwanted consequences'
Published 5:18 pm, Wednesday, April 16, 2014
We will call it "The Law of Unwanted Consequences."
The "Promise" in 1967 when the residents of Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington were asked to decide on regionalization was that each town would always have a schoolhouse.
The "Promise" has been challenged at least three times.
The region is being asked to approve an expenditure in excess of $50 million dollars, including interest at 3.25 percent, for the construction of a new elementary school and repair of the middle/high school to consolidate all education in Region 12 in Washington.
This does not account for cost overruns or interest increases. Each 1 percent increase would add $5 million to the overall cost.
Bridgewater and Roxbury primary schools are rated sixth and eighth of 810 in the state.
If the schools in Bridgewater and Roxbury are closed, the buildings would still have to be maintained by the towns at considerable costs and families in the child bearing/rearing age group would not move in.
Without young families, who would volunteer to serve on the emergency services? On boards and commissions?
Who would be the continuity and become church members?
Real estate values could tumble more than 10 percent.
The character of the towns and their spirits of volunteerism and participation in all aspects of town life would disappear.
Finally, Washington, with all of the schoolhouses, would end up paying 60 to 80 percent of construction and education costs.
I firmly believe there are several other organizational patterns for K-8 that could be implemented. Furthermore, I believe a superior K-8 program in Region 12 would draw families to us.
The wanted consequence of this would be an increase in the number of high school students.
Please vote "no/no" on April 29.
Past member of
Region 12 Board
of Education
Roxbury,
Wants to put 'distraction of consolidation' to rest
Published 6:18 pm, Wednesday, April 16, 2014
To The Editor:
The value of a local school to a small town is a major factor to consider, but one that most of the Region 12 Long-Range Planning Committee Committee and the majority of the Board of Education relentlessly chose to dismisI was a member of the committee and I sit on the Board of Education, so I'm not passing judgment second-hand here.
The superintendent once tossed the committee a list of links to studies and peer-reviewed articles, telling us half the sources said closing a town's only school was a problem and half said it was fine, so they were inconclusive.
No research necessary. In fact, the committee didn't do any research; it only focused interminably on projected expenses and savings.
The committee had a research budget, but most members didn't want to research anything; they were satisfied with us just arguing among ourselves with pure conjecture.
The board did eventually hire a real estate assessor to determine whether property values suffered when a town's school closed.
When he couldn't find a comparable town anywhere that had closed its school, the majority didn't wonder why no one else had done something that the majority was so determined to convince us to do. They just wrote the research off as inconclusive and therefore nothing that should worry our pretty little heads.
I, however, read everything on the superintendent's list and it wasn't an even split.
All the writers agreed that local schools are vital assets to their towns, towns which in turn play vital roles in the emotional, social and educational development of their youngest students.
They agreed town schools sometimes must close, but they should be abandoned only after everything else has been tried.
But nothing else has been tried in Region 12.
From the list's studies, two hair-raising statements, from no less than the National Rural Education Association: "Local school officials should be wary of merging several smaller elementary schools, at least if the goal is improved performance," and "After a school closure, out-migration, population decline and neighborhood deterioration are set in motion, and support for public education diminishes."
The majority of the committee and the Board of Education ignored all this advice to focus on the money. To save a few percent a year.
When the committee discovered the most money could be saved by closing Shepaug, suddenly other things mattered.
Now, I'm not for closing Shepaug. I'm convinced Shepaug's best days are ahead of us. But when Shepaug was threatened, money was no longer everything.
Why? Because Shepaug is a vital asset to our community. Wait... doesn't that sound familiar?
Since most of us see the non-monetary value of Shepaug, how can any of us ignore the non-monetary value of some of the best elementary schools in Connecticut?
Instead of working together to save what are vital community assets, we've spent the past three years letting people who want to close the elementary schools attempt to convince everyone consolidation is the only solution.
How can we know it's the only solution when we refuse to try anything else?
Vote no/no on April 29 to put the distraction of consolidation away so we can start work on real solutions, solutions that deal with declining enrollment and don't just gamely accept it, that take into account the fact that costs aren't actually rising much when this year's budget is flat, and that appreciate that the three schools are actually technologically up-to-date and aren't inefficient if they're giving the students the best education in the region, the DRG and the state.
Bridgewater
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Wants to Keep Schools Where They Are
To the Editor:
Region 12’s referendum, April 29, is approaching. We all have a stake in this decision, even those of us who, like me, are seniors whose own children or stepchildren went to school here years ago.
This vote will determine the future of our towns.
Consolidation is a complicated issue but I think there are arguments against it that we should all keep firmly in mind when we go to the polls.
If we want to believe that we can take on $50,000,000 of new debt (project costs and interest) and at the same time lower our taxes, well, so be it.
But do remember that enrollment numbers are cyclical and Region 12 administration’s figures are based on current projections. They don’t reflect what may be happening in future years.
Without an elementary school in two of our towns, those towns will still have the costs of maintaining and possibly retrofitting their school buildings for another purpose.
And without an elementary school, real estate values in those towns will certainly be adversely affected.
What family with young children would want to move to Bridgewater or Roxbury if there were no local elementary school?
We need new families, and not only because they invigorate our towns. Without new families, in future years how will Bridgewater and Roxbury find volunteers for their fire departments or for town boards and commissions?
I’m voting No on April 29 for the reasons listed above. And maybe for something that’s intangible, more about the traditions that give our communities their character.
As a long- time volunteer at the Burnham Library, where Bridgewater children come every week for reading programs, I believe that learning on the local level is a precious commodity that should be preserved.
Let’s keep our schools where they are and find another way to solve our problems.
Jane Bernstein
Bridgewater
Region 12’s referendum, April 29, is approaching. We all have a stake in this decision, even those of us who, like me, are seniors whose own children or stepchildren went to school here years ago.
This vote will determine the future of our towns.
Consolidation is a complicated issue but I think there are arguments against it that we should all keep firmly in mind when we go to the polls.
If we want to believe that we can take on $50,000,000 of new debt (project costs and interest) and at the same time lower our taxes, well, so be it.
But do remember that enrollment numbers are cyclical and Region 12 administration’s figures are based on current projections. They don’t reflect what may be happening in future years.
Without an elementary school in two of our towns, those towns will still have the costs of maintaining and possibly retrofitting their school buildings for another purpose.
And without an elementary school, real estate values in those towns will certainly be adversely affected.
What family with young children would want to move to Bridgewater or Roxbury if there were no local elementary school?
We need new families, and not only because they invigorate our towns. Without new families, in future years how will Bridgewater and Roxbury find volunteers for their fire departments or for town boards and commissions?
I’m voting No on April 29 for the reasons listed above. And maybe for something that’s intangible, more about the traditions that give our communities their character.
As a long- time volunteer at the Burnham Library, where Bridgewater children come every week for reading programs, I believe that learning on the local level is a precious commodity that should be preserved.
Let’s keep our schools where they are and find another way to solve our problems.
Jane Bernstein
Bridgewater
Monday, April 14, 2014
On April 29, say no to consolidating schools in Region 12
April 14, 2014
To The Editor;My family moved to Bridgewater nine years ago, before my son was born. We moved here specifically for the Burnham School, the quality of the education and the size of classes.
We have grown to love Bridgewater, but my son's education takes priority over where we live. If the schools are consolidated, we will either send him to private school, or move.
The Burnham School sits next door to the Bridgewater Fire Department, of which I am a member.
I and several other Bridgewater Volunteer firefighters live less than 1.5 miles from the school and can respond within 90 seconds.
The proposal to construct a centralized PK to Grade 8 school so far away from existing first responder resources is irresponsible and completely unacceptable.
Furthermore, there are plans to move the Bridgewater Resident State Trooper to be located with the Burnham School.
This would enhance the capability to respond efficiently and effectively.
With regard to the April 29 referendum on consolidating Region 12 elementary schools, I encourage everyone to vote no.
A no vote would keep the three existing elementary schools, with one in each town.
Dirk Feather
Bridgewater
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Art Cummings: Region 12 would be better off with a No/No vote on April 29
Published 9:19 pm, Saturday, April 12, 2014
Art Cummings:
Last week, in Part I of a two-part "Gut Feeling" column series, Art Cummings wrote about the historic importance of the upcoming Region 12 referendum for the district and its three member communities. Today, in Part II, he discusses some of the key issues at play in the heated debate leading up to the vote.
Nearly a half-century ago, the Washington, Bridgewater and Roxbury communities decided to form a regional school district for their children.
In a 1967 vote, the three towns agreed to a regional plan that would lead to construction of Shepaug Middle High School in Washington, a facility that would house grade 6-12 students from the whole district.
A key underpinning of the plan was the guarantee -- of particular importance to the two smaller towns, Bridgewater and Roxbury -- that there would always be elementary schools in all three communities.
The marriage has worked quite well. The three idyllic towns have generally fit well together, and the four schools in the district have provided excellent educational experiences over the decades.
The biggest stressor, especially since the 1980s, has been the unrequited call, primarily from Washington, to close the local schools and build a consolidated K-5 school on the Shepaug campus.
Now, in an era of sharply declining student enrollments and escalating costs per pupil, the proposal is back and will be voted on at a district-wide referendum on April 29.
Region 12 residents will be asked two questions:
1) Do they approve waiving the guarantee of three local K-5 schools in favor of constructing a consolidated elementary school on the Shepaug campus?
2) Do they approve appropriation of nearly $41 million -- $32.6 million for a new school and $8.3 million for improvements and renovations at the middle high school?
All three towns must approve Question 1, while Question 2 can pass with a majority vote in the district.
As residents prepare to vote, there are several key issues to consider:
COSTS: Proponents point to operational cost savings, while opponents argue that the long-term bonds will increase taxes and that claimed savings don't take into account the costs all three towns will need to assume for maintenance and possible repurposing of the closed local schools.
One key question is this: Do Region 12 residents want to take on tens of millions of dollars in long-term bonding when projected enrollment is staggeringly low and the future of the district could be in doubt?
Other proposals would also reduce operating costs -- and would do so without such excessive debt.
SPACE: Region 12 has four school buildings, and kids are rattling around in all four of them.
Key question: With so much excess existing space, is it wise to be building another school?
EDUCATIONAL QUALITY/WELFARE OF CHILDREN: The district's three K-5 schools are all outstanding. Bridgewater's Burnham School and Roxbury's Booth Free School rank 1-2 in the region, based on state mastery test scores, and Washington Primary isn't far behind.
How much of a factor in the success of those schools is their local presence, the short bus rides for the kids, and the active involvement of parents in the schools?
Would a consolidated elementary school really improve educational quality -- or be better for the emotional growth of the children -- when many students would be away from their hometown, many would have lengthy bus rides, and parents inevitably would not be as closely involved?
I think those questions answer themselves.
IMPACT OF CLOSING THE THREE LOCAL SCHOOLS: If both questions pass at referendum, Bridgewater and Roxbury would become the only towns in Connecticut without elementary schools.
No one knows for sure what would happen to those two wonderful, close-knit communities, but there would certainly be a negative impact on local businesses, housing prices, demographics and the social fabric.
And I have a hunch a lot of Washington parents don't want to lose their own local K-5 school, either.
Given all the issues involved, and weighing all the factors, I sincerely believe the Region 12 school district would be better off by voting No/No on April 29 and then going back to the drawing board for a more enlightened, more harmonious, less expensive, more common-sense solution.
Art Cummings is editor emeritus of The News-Times. He can be contacted at 203-731-3351 or at acummings@newstimes.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)