The great paradox of Region 12

 Thursday, April 10, 2014 1:06 AM EDT

Let's see. Region 12 has three elementary schools and a middle/high school. The student population is decreasing. So some people want to build another school?


I'll have to think about that. 


Richard JonesBridgewater

Says Burnham School is town's 'very fabric'

Published 12:32 am, Wednesday, April 9, 2014

To the Editor:

The statisticians are quoted as saying they can't assume the complete accuracy of student enrollment projections in Region 12 schools.

One thing, I intuitively believe is clear. If we loseBurnham School, we will be destroying the very fabric of Bridgewater and creating the self-fulfilling prophecy of fewer children in Bridgewater.

I have lived in Bridgewater for 36 years, raised two great kids who went through Burnham, and fully believe the April vote, which will allow us to turn down consolidation funding, is the most important vote in all my time here.

I feel it is more important than "wet vs. dry" or even who is selectman.

Further, as a volunteer who has served more than a decade each on the Bridgewater Land Trust, Zoning Board of Appeals and scholarship committees, I am concerned whether we'll have enough young people to replace us older volunteers.

And, frankly, there are viable alternatives to this madness.

Once we turn down consolidation in late April, perhaps the school board and superintendent will put aside their one-sided agenda and view those alternatives with an open mind.

Larry Neary

Bridgewater

Concerned about impact of Burnham's closing

Published 4:10 pm, Wednesday, April 9, 2014

To the Editor:

I am a resident of Bridgewater who is gravely concerned about the impact to real estate values if Burnham School is closed.

I currently work in the field of assessment and have also been a licensed real estate broker and Realtor in this area. When I was a Realtor helping clients find a home back in 2004, they liked the small elementary school here in town but were not interested in moving into an area where their older child would have to travel to Washington for middle school.

They chose a smaller home in Brookfield instead.

This was prior to recent talk of consolidation. Now, the issue of consolidation is in the papers all the time and we are talking about shipping 5-year-olds two towns away. Real estate sales have already been impacted just by the possibility of closing our excellent primary school.

The Board of Ed hired consulting firm Kerin & Fazio to try and quell our fears about our homes losing value. It didn't work.

Mr. Kerin could not find a state town that did not have an elementary school. He had to look to sparsely populated northern New England to find any town without a school.

This was a completely different scenario involving areas that have never had a primary school.

It is a different system where it is a fact across a broad region that, if there were no school in town, the parent chooses what school their children will attend.

We won't even have that. We would have no primary or secondary school in our town and would be the first in the state with that dubious distinction.

I suggested to Mr. Kerin that he look at any towns that had closed and consolidated elementary schools and look at the home values in the neighborhoods of the closed school.

I do not know if he looked but, if he did, we not hear about it since the finding would support the decline of home values and would be contrary to what the Board of Education wants.

Putting the adverse educational impact arguments aside, the fiscal impact would be detrimental to Bridgewater and Roxbury. Combine a $35 million (plus interest) bond that would increase our taxes and decline home values.

This does not take into consideration the additional weight of operational costs each year or the problem of a vacant building in the center of town that would cost money to repurpose and potentially operate.

Consider this: If a town's mil rate goes up even 2 mils, not only would real estate taxes go up, but motor vehicle and personal property taxes would see a disproportionate increase and this would adversely affect not only the home owners but businesses as well.

I grew up on Long Island and remember when they closed an elementary school (grades K-6) and then a junior high school (grades 7-9) in our district. People moved out and the home values in those areas surrounding the school declined.

Unless you do not care about paying your bills, vote "no" to consolidation.

Kathryn

Krigsman-Devine

Bridgewater

Feels Burnham School is 'worth fighting for'

Published 4:10 pm, Wednesday, April 9, 2014

To the Editor:

As many of you know, a referendum is coming soon to Region 12, asking if we'd like to build a consolidated school building on the Shepaug Valley Middle/High School campus costing $40 million-plus, with the corollary of Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington closing their elementary schools.

The plan must be approved by all three towns, but it seems likely Bridgewater is poised to vote it down.

So Bridgewater is being cast as the party-pooper by those who wish to consolidate.

I am, proudly, one of those who is fighting to see Burnham kept open. It couldn't be more simple -- Burnham is a top-ranking school that's worth fighting for and losing it would be bad for our town. Period.

I completely understand our region has problems it needs to address. But when our enrollment is going down, I don't think a new $40 million school building is the answer.

There can and should be other options to consider, especially when you need all three towns' approval to move forward.

Bridgewater would ultimately lose, and a plan that might benefit others but would be harmful to Bridgewater will never garner my support.

In answer to the constructive criticism that's been so kindly offered to Burnham supporters, I would say the following: I don't want to keep Burnham for mere convenience; I want to keep it because it's a fantastic school that is a great asset to our town.

I don't want to keep Burnham because I'm "attached to a building; it's no architectural wonder.

And I certainly don't wish to keep it because I don't care about the quality of my kids' education; on the contrary, we all know Burnham is providing a stellar education, and apparently we didn't need a shiny, new building in order to provide that.

Equating having a new building with the quality of the education provided inside of it is a particularly specious argument.

If I didn't care about the quality of education I would not be fighting to hang on to one of the best schools in the state. Wouldn't you fight to keep one of the best schools in the state?

I have had the good fortune of being able to work a great deal with Burnham's PTO and am now its current president.

This has allowed me to see up close what a special place Burnham is, as well as the wonderful interactions that go on between our students and townspeople.

This is the result of a wonderful staff, a gem of a principal, involved parents and, of course, our great kids.

Who knows what all the ingredients are that make a school great? Some are concrete, some intangible.

I would venture to say some educators spend their whole career hoping to work in a school like Burnham and never get the chance.

I will not apologize for loving, valuing and fighting for this school.

I completely understand there are serious issues facing our region and I don't have all the answers.

But I know my town, I know Burnham, and I do have a say with my vote. I am being asked if I'd be willing to give up our school and my answer is no.

On April 30, I will look to the region's leaders to start working on a plan for our region that would include keeping the Burnham school open, working its magic on Main Street South in Bridgewater, where it belongs.

Bridget McKenney

Bridgewater

Region 12 vote could have dramatic impact on district

Art Cummings:

Published 7:24 pm, Saturday, April 5, 2014

When residents of the Region 12 towns of Washington, Bridgewater and Roxbury go to the polls for their April 29 referendum, they will be casting among the most important votes in the history of the district.

First and foremost, voters will be asked to set aside one of the key underpinnings of the 1967 regionalization plan that created the district -- the guarantee that all three towns would always have an elementary school within their borders.

It is important to note that, in keeping with a 2009 Connecticut Supreme Court ruling sought by Bridgewater, a majority of voters in all three towns -- not an overall majority of Region 12 voters -- must approve any change in the regional plan. That means any one town can block that change and prevent consolidation.

Second, voters will be asked to approve the appropriation of nearly $41 million -- $32.6 million to build a new pre-K-to-grade-5 consolidated elementary school on the Shepaug Valley Campus in Washington and $8.3 million to repair and renovate Shepaug Valley Middle High School.

This is obviously an important proposal, but if Question 1 -- the proposed change in the regional plan -- is defeated in any town, Question 2 becomes academic.

It is most likely a high percentage of residents will vote Yes/Yes or No/No, with perhaps a few Yes/No ballots from voters who want to change the regional plan but don't like some of the specifics of the $41 million proposal.

It is not an exaggeration to observe that the outcome of the referendum could have a dramatic impact on the future of education in the three Region 12 towns, the future of the district itself, and the future socio-economic fabric of the communities, most notably in Bridgewater and Roxbury.

Washington residents would have the least to lose from consolidation, since their children would still be going to school in their hometown. It is expected that Washington voters will support both questions, on the assumption they are willing to take on millions of dollars in long-term bonding in an era of declining enrollment and a perhaps uncertain future for the district.

Bridgewater and Roxbury would have more to lose, since they would become the only towns in Connecticut without elementary schools if Burnham School and Booth Free School were closed -- a turn of events that could have significant impact on the local business community, housing prices, demographics and the strong community bond that exists in both towns.

Bridgewater has been especially passionate about keeping its local school open, and it would be surprising if its voters did not deliver a No/No response on April 29.

Given Bridgewater's historically strong opposition to consolidation and its ability to veto any proposed change in the regional plan, it is puzzling that Region 12 school officials did not make more of an effort to come up with a game plan that would have kept Burnham School open.

The reality is that Region 12 is experiencing a downward spiral in student enrollment along with ever-increasing costs per pupil, and projections are that those trends will continue in the coming decade.

This is serious business, and it would seem to me that Region 12's leaders would have wanted to find a proposal that both made sense and had a good chance of passing. But by once again coming up with a consolidation/school closure plan that clearly has alienated many in Bridgewater (and Roxbury), those officials have taken a calculated risk.

If both questions pass on April 29, that risk may have been worth taking.

If they go down, however, the officials will regret that strategy -- as well as all the wasted time and the nearly $150,000 spent on planning -- and it will be back to the drawing board.

In the meantime, residents throughout Region 12 need to weigh all the factors, consider all the pros and cons involved in the referendum proposals, and make a commitment to get out to the polls that day and participate in decision-making that could dramatically affect the future of all three communities.

Next Sunday's "Gut Feeling" will take a close look at some of the key issues involved in Region 12's upcoming referendum.

Art Cummings is editor emeritus of The News-Times. He can be contacted at 203-731-3351 or at acummings@newstimes.com

Wants 'straight talk' about consolidation costs

Published 9:51 pm, Tuesday, April 1, 2014

To the Editor:

At the recent Region 12 hearing regarding the proposed consolidated elementary school, there were bankers, lawyers and architects, all of whom have a lot to gain from the construction of a new consolidated school and very little to gain if voters say no.

They, along with our Region 12 administration and those representing them, told the public it will save taxpayers' money to bond $35 million to pay for the new school and repairs to the middle/high school, plus another $15 milllion in interest.

People wondered how it would be possible to take on $50 million of new debt and at the same time, lower our taxes.

Here is the straight talk.

The vast majority of the alleged savings are based on staff reductions -- cutting our teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, etc.

These proposed cuts are based on predictions by Dr. Prowda, whom the region hired to predict future student enrollment out to year 2023. His latest report is available on the Region 12 website.

Here is a quote from Dr. Prowda's report summary: "This remains a difficult time to predict future enrollment... it is critical to remember that a projection is just a moving forward of recent trends... this projection should be used as a starting point for local planning."

The Region 12 administration is not using these projections as a starting point, they are hanging their hat on them.

Dr. Prowda predicts the number of elementary students in 2023 will drop nearly 50 percent to 221 students. Thus, the administration can cut loads of teachers and staff and claim this will result in $79 million in savings.

Enrollment numbers tend to be cyclical over time -- they go up and go down. If this happens, there would be no $79 million in staff savings to justify this $50 million expenditure.

More importantly, in order for the Region 12 administration to show such extreme savings, it has compared the consolidated configuration to the current three hometown schools without any staff reductions through 2023.

The proposed school budget for next year shows a reduction of a kindergarten teacher at Burnham as the plan is to combine this small class with another, therefore eliminating a teacher.

However, the $79 million in savings assumes two teachers in these classes every year forward, thus making the pitch for consolidation look all the better.

In fact, all the projected savings for consolidation are based on assumptions the region doesn't implement any other remedies for the next 30 years... none.

Not one other solution, not one plan to bring in more students, not one plan to combine classes between schools, nothing at all. This simply is not reality.

When this vote fails, new cost savings and enrollment solutions that meet the needs of all the towns must be considered.

In addition, repairs to the middle/high school only address the next five years. As a member of the long-range planning committee, I heard time and time again from Board of Ed members and administration that Shepaug Valley Middle/High School was "crumbling under our feet."

Significant improvements and repairs must be done in years five to 25. This will involve more bonds, more debt, more cost to taxpayers.

Also, each town would be saddled with the cost of the existing elementary school buildings.

Whether the buildings are repurposed or razed, there would be costs associated that would be the responsibility of the taxpayers.

In addition, studies confirm what we all suspect, that a town without a school would see a drop in real estate values.

For Roxbury and Bridgewater, which would be the first two towns in Connecticut without a school, this would be a serious and costly implication.

In summary, a new consolidated school would raise taxes. The cost savings projections are false and are based on assumptions no one in Region 12 should accept.

Who wins in this scenario? The bankers, the architects, the builders.

Who loses? The students, the teachers, the taxpayers and the communities left without their high-performing schools.

Julie Stuart

Co-chairwoman

Save Our Schools

Bridgewater

Feels Region 12 voters need 'unbiased' information

Published 11:26 pm, Tuesday, April 1, 2014

To the Editor:

I am a longtime resident of Roxbury, and a somewhat vocal opponent of the current Region 12Board of Education's proposal to amend our regional plan and close our three hometown elementary schools.

I recently obtained a copy of Region 12's "Report on the Proposed Amendment to the Regionalization Plan" from our town clerk's office.

State Statute 10-47c requires "The regional B.O.E. shall prepare a report including the question to be presented, file a copy with the (state) Commissioner of Education and the clerk of each member town, and make copies of such report available to the public."

Although it appears this report filed by the Region 12 Board Education is in compliance with the letter of the law, it misses the mark in many ways.

The purpose of the report should be to provide the people of Region 12 with the information necessary to cast a vote, insuring a well-informed electorate.

Rather than preparing such a report, the board decided to recycle its 2012 strategic plan and paste its referendum question within it.

The report does not contain any specific data relevant to the referendum question, such as enrollment projections, projected class and grade sizes, transportation costs , length of bus rides, school start and end times, transportation costs, staffing costs or building efficiency data on a building by building basis.

The report does contain, however, a two-page opinion written by Johnathan Costas, a facilitator hired to "guide the work." My expectations of receiving a comprehensive, unbiased, document have been abandoned.

In deference to the original authors of the report (a dedicated group of citizens and educators from all three towns), they probably did not anticipate their report would be "bootlegged" and presented as "The Region 12 Report on the Proposed Amendment to the Regional Plan."

At the March 13 board meeting which followed the public meeting, Superintendent of Schools Pat Cosentino stated it was ultimately her decision to submit the above mentioned report, and the inclusion of any specific data would have been" redundant," as it was already available on the board's website.

Apparently, insuring a well-informed electorate is not on Dr. Cosentino's "to do list."

In advance of the Region 14 referendum vote back on Feb. 17, 2011, the Region 14 Board of Education submitted a report to the constituents of the region. It was clear, comprehensive and unbiased, containing all of the above mentioned types data that the current Reg. 12 referendum report does not.

A condensed version of that report was mailed to every resident of Woodbury and Bethlehem.

If Superintendent Cosentino and the Region 12 board were to provide me with such a report, I would be able to make an informed decision and just shut up and vote.

Lacking that, I subscribe to the old adage "If I don't understand it, I don't like it."

My intent is to vote "no" in the upcoming referendum, and I urge the people of Roxbury, Bridgewater and Washington to do likewise.

Paul Lang

Roxbury