The Schedule below is data from Resource Schedule #9 for the Elementary Grades for combining the schools in Roxbury and Bridgewater and leaving WPS as K-5.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Elementary at Booth PK-2 and Burnham 3-5 and WPS K-5
SOS Option 6B <Click for Outline.
The Schedule below is data from Resource Schedule #9 for the Elementary Grades for combining the schools in Roxbury and Bridgewater and leaving WPS as K-5.
The Schedule below is data from Resource Schedule #9 for the Elementary Grades for combining the schools in Roxbury and Bridgewater and leaving WPS as K-5.
Elementary School Costs and Savings
SOS Option 6B <Click for Outline.
This Schedule was prepared by using Resource 15 for the sole purpose
of calculating the savings for the Option 6 Option.
This Schedule was prepared by using Resource 15 for the sole purpose
of calculating the savings for the Option 6 Option.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Region 12 CT Supreme Court Decision August-9-2009
REGIONAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 12 v. TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER
REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 12 v. TOWN
OF BRIDGEWATER.
No. 18174.
Argued May 28, 2009. -- August 04, 2009
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA and
McLACHLAN, Js.
Robert M. Shields, Jr.,
with whom were Wesley W. Horton, Hartford, and Charles W. Bauer, Burlington,
for the appellant (defendant).George J. Kelly, Jr., with whom, on the brief,
was Richard D. O'Connor, Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
The issue in
this appeal is whether the modification of the terms of the regional school
plan establishing the plaintiff, Regional School District No. 12, to delete a
provision whereby the plaintiff's elementary grade levels would remain in their
hometown schools, and to add a provision whereby those grade levels would be
consolidated into a single school, constitutes
an amendment to the plan under General Statutes § 10-47c.1 The plaintiff filed an action for a
judgment declaring that the modification did not constitute an amendment under
§ 10-47c, and the defendant, the town of Bridgewater, filed a counterclaim
seeking a declaration that the modification was an amendment and an order of
mandamus requiring the regional board of education (board) to conduct a
referendum on the amendment pursuant to § 10-47c. The trial court rendered
judgment declaring that the modification did not constitute an amendment
subject to the referendum provisions of § 10-47c, and the defendant then filed
this appeal.2 We conclude that the modification was an
amendment of the regional school plan under § 10-47c. Accordingly, we reverse
the judgment of the trial court.
The trial court found the following facts.3 In April, 1967, the
defendant and the towns of Roxbury and Washington formed a temporary regional
school study committee (study committee) pursuant to statute. In May of 1967,
the study committee issued its final report containing its findings and recommendations,
including a recommendation that “[e]lementary grades [kindergarten through
fifth grade] [are] to remain in their present home town schools.” Thereafter,
the final report was presented to residents of the three towns at public
hearings. In August, 1967, each town held a referendum on the question of
whether it should join with the two other towns “in the establishment of a
regional school district with the schools located in the towns of Bridgewater,
Roxbury, and Washington, for the purposes of providing the necessary facilities
and administering grades [kindergarten] to [twelfth grade] of the public
schools?” Each town approved the referendum. Shortly thereafter, the state
board of education approved the establishment of the district.
In March, 2007, the
board voted to enter into an option agreement to purchase land in Roxbury as a
potential site for a consolidated elementary school. On May 8, 2007, the
defendant conducted a town meeting at which it adopted the following
resolution: “Resolved, that the [defendant] requests, pursuant to ․ [§ ] 10-47c, that the
[r]egional [s]chool [d]istrict [no.] 12 plan, as approved by the [s]tate
[b]oard of [e]ducation on May 11, 1967, be amended by deleting the term,
‘Elementary grades [kindergarten through fifth grade] to remain in their
present home town schools' and inserting in its place ‘The district consolidate
[e]lementary grades [kindergarten through fifth grade] into a single
[e]lementary [s]chool ․ to be located in ․ Roxbury.’ ”
The defendant forwarded a copy of the
resolution to the board.
Thereafter, the board
notified the defendant and the towns of Washington and Roxbury that the
resolution adopted at the defendant's town meeting did not constitute an
amendment to the regional school plan under § 10-47c. The board then held a
special meeting at which it approved a motion to adopt a resolution to
appropriate funds and to authorize the issuance of bonds and temporary notes to
finance the construction of a consolidated elementary school to be located in
Roxbury. The board also adopted a motion authorizing a referendum on the new
school project and the issuance of bonds and temporary notes to finance the
project pursuant to General Statutes § 10-56.4 Pursuant to this motion, the board
delivered to the town clerks of the three towns a notice of a referendum to be
held on June 19, 2007. Because of technical defects in the notice process,
the referendum ultimately was cancelled.
Thereafter, the
plaintiff brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether its
plan to build a consolidated elementary school constituted an amendment to the
regional school plan adopted in 1967, and therefore was subject to the
referendum provision of § 10-47c, which requires a majority vote in each town in favor of the proposed amendment, or whether the proposal to
appropriate funds for the new school was subject only to the referendum
provision of § 10-56,
which requires a majority vote of the regional school district as a whole for
approval. The defendant brought a counterclaim seeking, inter alia, a
declaratory judgment that the resolution adopted at its May 8, 2007 town
meeting constituted an amendment to the regional school plan and an order of
mandamus directing the board to hold a referendum on the amendment pursuant to
§ 10-47c. After a hearing, the trial court rendered judgment declaring that
the defendant's resolution did not constitute an amendment under § 10-47c, and
that the plaintiff was entitled to conduct a referendum on the proposal to
obtain funding for the new consolidated elementary school under § 10-56.
This appeal followed. The defendant contends that the
study committee recommendations approved by referendum in 1967 constitute a
regional school “plan,” within the meaning of § 10-47c, and that the
modification of that plan to delete the recommendation that the elementary
grades remain in their respective hometowns and to add a provision that the
elementary grades be consolidated into a single school constitutes an amendment
subject to the referendum provision of § 10-47c, which provides: “If the
majority vote in each town of the district is in favor of the proposed
amendment to the plan, such amendment shall take effect immediately.” The plaintiff contends that, to the contrary, under this court's
decision in Atwood v. Regional School District No. 15, 169 Conn. 613, 363 A.2d
1038 (1975), a proposal to construct a new school and to obtain financing for
the school is not an amendment to a regional school plan subject to the
referendum provision of § 10-47c, but is a financing proposal subject only to
the referendum provision of § 10-56(a), which provides that the referendum
“question shall be determined by the majority of those persons voting in the
regional school district as a whole.” We agree with the defendant.
Mandamus
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
Mandamus is a
judicial remedy — in the form of an order from a superior court, to any
government subordinate court, corporation, or public
authority — to do
(or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law
to do (or refrain from doing) — and which is in the nature of public duty, and
in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an
authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot
be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have
been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a
mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.
Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to
take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal
rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally
protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A
person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by
someone who has a legal
duty to do
something and abstains from doing it.
Injunction
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
An injunction is an equitable
remedy in the
form of a court
order that
requires a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts. A party that fails
to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil
penalties and may
have to pay damages or accept sanctions. In some cases, breaches of injunctions
are considered serious criminal offenses that merit arrest and possible prison
sentences.
Rationale[edit]
This injunctive power to restore the status quo ante; that is,
to make whole again someone whose rights have been violated, is essential to
the concept of fairness (equity). For example, money damages would be of scant
benefit to a land owner who wished simply to prevent someone from repeatedly trespassing on his land.
An injunction offers a court a number of devices for managing the
parties and enforcing their compliance, including the possibility of
modification and dissolution, contempt, and the specificity requirement.[1] These managerial features are one way the injunction is
distinguished from another common remedy that does not involve the payment of
money, the declaratory judgment.[1] Another way these two remedies are distinguished is that the
declaratory judgment is sometimes available at an earlier point in a dispute
than the injunction.[1]
Friday, February 28, 2014
Art Cummings: Future of Region 12 hanging in the balance
Published 7:06 pm, Friday, February 21, 2014
.
That's why it's been so troubling for me over the years to witness the deep and growing divisions within the district over the issue of local elementary schools versus consolidation.
Growing up in New Milford, I hung out and played sports with kids from Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington and became lifelong friends with a good number of them.
So that has made it even more difficult for me to see how the local vs. consolidated elementary school issue has pitted town against town, neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend.
To be sure, this is not a new issue. There has been grumbling in some quarters -- most notably in Washington -- ever since the 1967 regionalization plan guaranteed local schools in all three towns.
As an outgrowth of that discontent, there have been several concerted efforts -- again, centered in Washington -- over the past three decades to close the three elementary schools (Burnham School in Bridgewater, Booth Free School in Roxbury and Washington Primary School) and create a consolidated elementary school on the Shepaug Valley Middle High School campus in Washington.
A majority of Washington residents have traditionally supported consolidation -- in the interest of reduced costs and purportedly superior educational offerings -- while Bridgewater (adamantly) and Roxbury have consistently blocked the closing of their local elementary schools.
In fact, the town of Bridgewater felt so strongly about keeping Burnham School open that it took legal action and gained a 2009 state Supreme Court ruling confirming that all three towns -- not a majority of voters in the district -- would have to approve a change in the regional plan guaranteeing local schools.
I've always felt it was pretty easy for the Washington proponents to back consolidation. After all, the elementary school would be within their borders, their young kids wouldn't be the ones with the long bus rides, and it wasn't their town that would be the first in the state of Connecticut without a school.
I've always been puzzled why there hasn't been more empathy from Washington residents (and Board of Education members) for their neighbors and a greater understanding of why Bridgewater and Roxbury would want to keep their local schools open.
And I've long wondered how the vote would go in Washington if the shoe were on the other foot and a proposal were floated, for example, to close Washington Primary School and send WPS students to Bridgewater and/or Roxbury in sort of a reverse-consolidation endeavor.
But here we are again, with another consolidation plan being floated for a new K-5 school on the Shepaug Valley campus, a proposal out there to amend the regional plan to allow for consolidation, and another district-wide referendum coming up on a date soon to be determined by the Region 12 board.
To be fair, Region 12 faces serious challenges, with rapidly declining student enrollment and spiraling per-pupil expenditures casting doubt about the future of the district. And enlightened solutions have to be found.
But the residents of the Region 12 community need to be asking themselves a number of important questions before going to the polls on referendum day:
Do they really want to close the top two schools (Burnham and Booth Free) in their 39-schoolDistrict Resource Group and a third highly rated school (Washington Primary) where kids are getting excellent educations?
Do they really want to shut down schools in great, close-knit towns like Bridgewater and Roxbury where the schools are such an important part of the fabric of the community?
Do they really want Bridgewater and Roxbury to be the only towns in the state without a school -- and face the virtually inevitable threat to property values and almost-certain dramatic changes in demographics?
Do they really want to spend tens of millions of dollars on a new consolidated elementary school when the projected student population is so alarmingly low?
I guess residents will provide answers to those questions with their votes on referendum day, and the chips will fall where they may, with the future direction of the Region 12 school district hanging in the balance.
Art Cummings is editor emeritus of The News-Times. He can be contacted at 203-731-3351 or at acummings@newstimes.com
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Region 12 school district sets hearing on consolidation
Susan Tuz
Updated 8:45 pm, Wednesday, February 26, 2014
The long road to referendum is approaching an end in Region 12.The Board of Education Monday approved holding a public hearing on March 4 at 7 p.m. at Shepaug Valley Middle/High School to present the architect's design for the proposed consolidated elementary school and the price tag.
A referendum is tentatively set for April 8 on amending the regionalization plan and approving funding of $40.87 million for a new school and repairs to the middle/high school.
At the March 4 public hearing, residents of the three towns in the district -- Washington, Roxbury and Bridgewater -- will be able to voice their opinions on both proposals. Then the Board of Education will fashion the language for both referendum votes.
"The language has to be specific and give a clear and succinct picture of what will in fact happen if you vote for or against the question," Roxbury board member Kelly Lott said.
At this point, the question on amending the 1967 regionalization plan would be to: "Amend the regional plan eliminating (that) elementary grade k through 5 students remain in their respective hometown schools."
Lott and the three Bridgewater board members argued that the question must include that students would instead attend a consolidated elementary school on the Shepaug campus.
Architects Fletcher-Thompson presented a proposed consolidated school design Monday that will be unveiled at the March 4 public hearing.
With an estimated state reimbursement of $4.4 million, the estimated cost to the region is $28.2 million for the new consolidated school.
Repairs to the Shepaug middle/high school would cost the region $6.9 million, if an estimated $1.3 million reimbursement is received from the state.
The consolidated school building would be 59,000 square feet, located on the present western upper field on the Shepaug campus with its own driveways and parking area, playground and garden.
A one-story building, it would have a secure vestibule entrance with the administrative offices to the right and library to the left of the entrance.
The right side of the building would be the public area with gymnasium/cafeteria. The left side past the library would have two pods -- one wing of classrooms for pre-k, K, and 1st grade and one wing for grades 2, 3, 4 and 5. There would also be an art studio, choral room and band room.
"We considered common topics that came from the public presentations," said Angela Cahill, senior designer with Fletcher-Thompson. "They included a strong community feeling, safety and security, cost efficiency and sustainability."
"We're going for a modern farmhouse look in response to the comments we received from residents," Cahill added.
Roxbury First Selectman Barbara Henry attended Monday's presentation.
"I think they did a very good job," Henry said. "I was glad they had what the state reimbursements would be. However, the percentages are based on where things stand today.
"We can't stay as we are, doing what we're doing. Our population in Roxbury is dropping at a slower rate than in the other two towns. There's a lot to think about," Henry said. "The proposed school is beautiful. Now we just have to see if we can afford it."
stuz@newstimes.com; 860-355-7322
Opines 'it's time to let the dinosaur die'
Published 12:51 pm, Wednesday, February 26, 2014
To the Editor:
It's time to let the dinosaur die.
When I moved to Bridgewater in 1970, Region 12 had just been created with a mandate to provide efficient and effective education for the children of Washington, Roxbury and Bridgewater.
The future was bright, the towns were growing and kids were being born into the community.
Soon after Region 12 was formed in the early 1970s, the federal government declared the region's school board configuration to be in violation of the one-man, one-vote requirement.
I was one of three people from Bridgewater appointed to the restructuring committee.
It met once and created the current board composition.
Over four decades, I have had four children in Region 12 schools. The teachers and administration of Region 12, in my personal experience, have been with few exceptions motivated, eager and focused on their students.
For more than a decade, when my oldest kids were young, I was involved in educational facilities design and construction across North America and elsewhere.
Student enrollment in Region 12 peaked in the early 1970s at approximately 1,300 and is forecast by the region to fall to 461 in 2023.
While purposed to be an effective and efficient provider of educational service, from the beginning Region 12 has been an increasingly and excessively expensive school system.
It is now in a death spiral of cost explosion.
Region 12 currently spends an extraordinarily high $26,829 per student for 797 students.
By comparison, Brookfield spends $14,245 per student and New Milford spends approximately $13,000 per student.
A very significant problem in Region 12 is that the three towns hold widely divergent opinions and ideas about what education their children need. The internecine warfare over the past 30 years has not been pretty to see and reflects poorly on our towns.
I actually support Bill Stuart's years-long efforts to control the out-of-control regional board.
Region 12 has never been able to effectively meet the needs of the three towns. And it can never be effective and efficient as an educational system with a disastrously declining student population.
It is unaffordable and getting worse.
Region 12 is headed for oblivion based on demographics. It would seem wise to act in anticipation of the known disaster rather than wait until a crisis even worse than the current one.
Spending money for unneeded facilities is lunacy.
The solution is to de-regionalize and terminate Region 12. Region 12 is a dinosaur and it is time to let it die.
Each town has fine local school facilities. They may not be the glass and gold that "educational professionals" seem to feel are mandatory to receive a good education.
But they serve the needs, have a long history of providing outstanding education, and can add "glass and gold" as each town desires. High school students will be able to select any of several excellent area high schools to attend.
I would support providing students with a voucher and let them pick any state Board of Education-approved school to attend.
Sell the albatross high school/middle school. It was an interesting idea based on the failed educational concept of open classrooms.
Frankly, it does not work effectively despite millions of dollars of investment for repairs and changes.
The school originally cost $2 million. Pay off all Region 12 debt with the proceeds and distribute the remaining funds to each town school system.
A win-win situation. A new future with hope and opportunities. No more anchors of facilities and disunity.
The current brouhaha about spending millions for unneeded facilities is absurd. The proponents of this approach are out of touch with reality.
I suspect there are a number of high-paying jobs with vested interests advocating this dangerous path to financial destruction.
It is time for local citizens to take back local control of the school system.
The next referendum should be to terminate Region 12, not to bankrupt our towns. I would join with those who are like minded to bring about this change and bring healthy, fresh air change to the education of our children.
It will offer a wonderful new beginning with a vibrant new future for our children.
Bridgewater
Friday, February 21, 2014
Region 12 weighs its future as enrollment shrinks
Susan Tuz
Updated 2:31 pm, Thursday, February 20, 2014
Given enrollment projections to 2023, the chances for Region 12 survival is now an open question.Voters in Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington will have to consider the school district's future as they go to the polls soon to decide whether to amend the regional plan.
At stake, too, will be whether to approve the construction of a consolidated grades K-5 school on the Shepaug Valley Middle/High School campus in Washington.
A final design plan for such a consolidated school with cost projection may be approved by the Board of Education at its Monday, Feb. 24 meeting.
A referendum question and date is scheduled for approval at the board's March 3 meeting.
Enrollment projections to 2023 predict enrollment will have declined to 460 students region-wide. On Oct. 1, 2013, student enrollment in the region was 796 students.
The last time enrollment in the three towns was below 800 students was about 1957, more than a dozen years before the regional school district was formed, according to Peter Prowda, the statistician who developed the projections.
"Is the forecast too severe?" Prowda asked. "In the five years from 2004 to 2008 (this fall's kindergarten through fourth graders), births in the region's three towns averaged 49."
"Births in the 2009 to 2013 period will average only 38," he added. "This practically guarantees a decline."
That said, Prowda noted it is critical to remember a projection is just a moving forward of recent trends.
The key assumption, he added, is those conditions would persist. It does not predict when economic conditions might change, he said.
He recommends using his projections as "a starting point for local planning."
Board of Education chairman Jim Hirschfield agreed with Prowda's caveat about using the projection solely as talking points.
"They gave me concern as far as thinking about the region in the long term. But do we know that they're correct?," Hirschfield said of the projections. "I hear a lot of things."
"A fundamental decision will be made in this region as things come to a critical point," he said. "A vote needs to be taken. It's up to the voters to decide."
Prowda looked at the region's enrollment over a 44 year period from 1970 to 2013 to give an historic perspective.
In 1970, enrollment was 1,222, peaking at 1,247 in 1974.
In 2003, the enrollment was 1,169. That figure capped a 14-year growth period for the region.
"Region 12's growth cycle in the 1990s was on par with the state-wide growth cycle," Prowda said. "Its decline cycle of the 2000s has been much steeper than the state's cycle to date."
For Bridgewater mother Julie Stuart, co-chairman of Save Our School, a group dedicated to save Burnham School, it must be "counter intuitive in most people's minds that you don't build a new, larger school faced with such projections."
"Demographics have gotten to the point where our town is working to attract families," Stuart said.
"For years, residents wanted the quality of life and our school here in Bridgewater to be a well kept secret."
"Now we've started a campaign that will be funded by the town to bring people into town," she said.
"There are parents to the south who like the small classes that Burnham School has to offer."
stuz@newstimes.com; 860-355-7322
Questions future of Shepaug middle/high school
Published 12:20 am, Wednesday, February 19, 2014
To the Editor:
At the Feb. 11 information meeting in Roxbury, a number of points were stressed by the superintendent of schools and Greg Cava, the chairman of the Region 12 facilities committee.
1) The student population is decreasing rapidly.
2) The forecast for the next ten years shows significant enrollment decreases.
3) The superintendent stated the demographer's recent forecasts have been very accurate.
4) Greg Cava stated "people are voting with their feet," implying parents are pulling their students from the public schools.
A few observations can be made from the student population summary distributed by the superintendent that evening.
Today, 23 percent of the students in the region do not attend the public schools.
In 10 years the middle school is forecast to have 112 students, a 44 percent decrease.
In 10 years, the high school is forecast to have 161 students, a 45 percent decrease.
In 10 years, the elementary schools are forecast to have 188 students, a 35 percent decrease.
This is a serious situation.
Can we continue to operate a middle/high school that was built to handle 1,200 students, when we will soon have less than 300 students using the building?
Bridgewater
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Bridgewater Tells Region 12 Officials ‘No’ to School Plan
by Loumarie I. Rodriguez
BRIDGEWATER — Tensions were running high between the Region 12 Superintendent of Schools Dr. Patricia Cosentino and residents at an information session on Thursday, February 6, regarding designs for a consolidated Pre-K to Grade 5 elementary school.
Residents piled into the gymnasium at Burnham School to see a presentation from Fletcher-Thompson and ARCADIS about designs for a proposed consolidated elementary school for the region.
The companies’ representatives also did a presentation on repairs that need to be done at Shepaug Valley Middle High School.
Dr. Cosentino explained to residents that the region’s population is decreasing and its education costs per child is three times the state average.
“I will never dispute our elementary schools are excellent,” said Dr. Cosentino. “There is no doubt, but we are not cost-efficient.”
An earlier plan to address the region’s high costs was to make Booth Free School in Roxbury a kindergarten through Grade 2 facility and Burnham School a Grades 3 through 5 building.
Dr. Cosentino said that plan was set aside because it did not address the decreasing population issue.
When a few residents accused Dr. Cosentino of personally dismissing that plan, she clarified she does not have that kind of power.
The superintendent repeated that the earlier option did not meet the Region 12 goal of “maintaining a well-balanced classroom population…and efficient, appropriate and cost effective facilities and space usage…”
“You would still have all three buildings, all the staff and now you have an increase in buses; then you have to go back and forth in between towns,” said Dr. Cosentino. “That is why it was not an option.”
She explained a new consolidated elementary school will be state of the art and 15 minutes away from Bridgewater.
However, residents would not hear about the advantages the new school could bring, insisting they want to keep the doors open at Burnham School.
Residents kept asking for numbers and estimates for the cost of the new school.
Both Dr. Cosentino and board member Peter Tagley clarified the information session was only to show potential schemes and design plans for the consolidated school.
Dan Casinelli, a principal at Fletcher-Thompson, told residents the firm is currently trying to gather information to create a design that will satisfy everyone’s needs.
But residents wanted to see a side-by-side comparison of running one school versus three schools.
Others urged region officials not to fix a system that is not broken.
“What I’m trying to do is represent the Board of Education, share the facts and do what’s best for the kids,” said Dr. Cosentino. “We will have the numbers. We need to go through this process [the design information session].”
Julie Stuart, co-chair of Save Our Schools, said residents of Bridgewater were trying to be respectful, but they are not interested in the designs.
Ms. Stuart said Burnham School is a school of distinction and the community needs to talk more about how good the education is in the region in order to attract people.
“We are sweeping all of the good things under the rug because you want this,” said Ms. Stuart. “That is very upsetting.”
Many residents at the presentation made it clear to Dr. Cosentino and Board of Education members they are not interested in a new, consolidated elementary school for the region.
They accused the superintendent of attempting to push her own agenda for the region.
Dr. Cosentino defended herself, reminding there are only about 64 students at Burnham School, the smallest elementary school population in the region.
“My agenda is to do what’s best for the children of this region and the communities of this region,” said Dr. Cosentino. “I have no other agenda. I’m trying to help you for the next 40 to 50 years and that’s what I’m trying to do.”
She said when she originally started in Region 12 (in July, 2012), there were 860 students in the region. By 2014, the region has lost 60 students, showing the decreasing enrollment is happening fast.
“The way we are right now we are not attracting families to the region,” said Dr. Cosentino. “There is too much uncertainty. I can tell you families do not want to move in to schools with six to seven kids in a class.”
According to a study done for the region, projections for 2023 to 2024 report 26 students at Burnham, 56 at Booth Free, 78 at Washington Primary, 112 in the middle school and 161 in the high school.
The September 2014 kindergarten class shows 11 students registered at Booth Free, nine at Washington Primary and four at Burnham School.
Residents questioned Dr. Cosentino regarding the placement of the elementary school; they did not like the fact their children will be on buses for a longer period of time.
The superintendent explained the new school would be built on the Shepaug campus because the region already owns the property, which costs less than buying other property.
Another problem addressed was linking together the Shepaug repairs and the consolidation under one question for the ballot.
Dr. Cosentino said the idea behind that was to solve the goal for the region.
“If people just vote to fix the high school and not build a new school, then you now have increased your costs and have the same problems,” Dr. Cosentino said.
Board member Alan Brown asked if the subject could be discussed at the next Board of Education meeting. He is worried a link question could lead to trouble and the possibility of having two referendums to repair the high school.
Dr. Cosentino responded that the region is on a very tight schedule, but suggested bring up his concerns to the board.
She said the Board of Education is aiming to have the referendum on Tuesday, April 8.
Carolan Dwyer, co-chair of Save Our Schools, said SOS is confident that the people of Bridgewater are not going to change the regional plan. SOS would like to see creative solutions for the decreasing population.
In order to market the town better, Burnham School is starting an after-school program in order to bring kids in.
“It’s the heart of the town and it’s key to the town’s viability,” said Ms. Dwyer. “It’s very important as a draw for families to keep it in the center of the town.”
She said residents are concerned about their property values. She said the talk of the state stepping in is an idle threat. She wants to see other options and the group does not respond to threats.
Ms. Stuart said they have hired a videographer who could help market the town better and are looking into partnering with Booth Free School to make classes more equal.
“We have an outstanding, highly educated group of kids here,” said Ms. Stuart. “We don’t have a plan for re-purposing.
“We already have a senior center, town hall, so it would be another burden on taxpayers. It would cost too much to build a new school when we already have declining enrollment. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
The information session was to be on Tuesday, February 11, at Roxbury Town Hall.
Residents piled into the gymnasium at Burnham School to see a presentation from Fletcher-Thompson and ARCADIS about designs for a proposed consolidated elementary school for the region.
The companies’ representatives also did a presentation on repairs that need to be done at Shepaug Valley Middle High School.
Dr. Cosentino explained to residents that the region’s population is decreasing and its education costs per child is three times the state average.
An earlier plan to address the region’s high costs was to make Booth Free School in Roxbury a kindergarten through Grade 2 facility and Burnham School a Grades 3 through 5 building.
Dr. Cosentino said that plan was set aside because it did not address the decreasing population issue.
When a few residents accused Dr. Cosentino of personally dismissing that plan, she clarified she does not have that kind of power.
The superintendent repeated that the earlier option did not meet the Region 12 goal of “maintaining a well-balanced classroom population…and efficient, appropriate and cost effective facilities and space usage…”
“You would still have all three buildings, all the staff and now you have an increase in buses; then you have to go back and forth in between towns,” said Dr. Cosentino. “That is why it was not an option.”
She explained a new consolidated elementary school will be state of the art and 15 minutes away from Bridgewater.
However, residents would not hear about the advantages the new school could bring, insisting they want to keep the doors open at Burnham School.
Residents kept asking for numbers and estimates for the cost of the new school.
Both Dr. Cosentino and board member Peter Tagley clarified the information session was only to show potential schemes and design plans for the consolidated school.
Dan Casinelli, a principal at Fletcher-Thompson, told residents the firm is currently trying to gather information to create a design that will satisfy everyone’s needs.
But residents wanted to see a side-by-side comparison of running one school versus three schools.
Others urged region officials not to fix a system that is not broken.
“What I’m trying to do is represent the Board of Education, share the facts and do what’s best for the kids,” said Dr. Cosentino. “We will have the numbers. We need to go through this process [the design information session].”
Julie Stuart, co-chair of Save Our Schools, said residents of Bridgewater were trying to be respectful, but they are not interested in the designs.
Ms. Stuart said Burnham School is a school of distinction and the community needs to talk more about how good the education is in the region in order to attract people.
“We are sweeping all of the good things under the rug because you want this,” said Ms. Stuart. “That is very upsetting.”
Many residents at the presentation made it clear to Dr. Cosentino and Board of Education members they are not interested in a new, consolidated elementary school for the region.
They accused the superintendent of attempting to push her own agenda for the region.
Dr. Cosentino defended herself, reminding there are only about 64 students at Burnham School, the smallest elementary school population in the region.
“My agenda is to do what’s best for the children of this region and the communities of this region,” said Dr. Cosentino. “I have no other agenda. I’m trying to help you for the next 40 to 50 years and that’s what I’m trying to do.”
She said when she originally started in Region 12 (in July, 2012), there were 860 students in the region. By 2014, the region has lost 60 students, showing the decreasing enrollment is happening fast.
“The way we are right now we are not attracting families to the region,” said Dr. Cosentino. “There is too much uncertainty. I can tell you families do not want to move in to schools with six to seven kids in a class.”
According to a study done for the region, projections for 2023 to 2024 report 26 students at Burnham, 56 at Booth Free, 78 at Washington Primary, 112 in the middle school and 161 in the high school.
The September 2014 kindergarten class shows 11 students registered at Booth Free, nine at Washington Primary and four at Burnham School.
Residents questioned Dr. Cosentino regarding the placement of the elementary school; they did not like the fact their children will be on buses for a longer period of time.
The superintendent explained the new school would be built on the Shepaug campus because the region already owns the property, which costs less than buying other property.
Another problem addressed was linking together the Shepaug repairs and the consolidation under one question for the ballot.
Dr. Cosentino said the idea behind that was to solve the goal for the region.
“If people just vote to fix the high school and not build a new school, then you now have increased your costs and have the same problems,” Dr. Cosentino said.
Board member Alan Brown asked if the subject could be discussed at the next Board of Education meeting. He is worried a link question could lead to trouble and the possibility of having two referendums to repair the high school.
Dr. Cosentino responded that the region is on a very tight schedule, but suggested bring up his concerns to the board.
She said the Board of Education is aiming to have the referendum on Tuesday, April 8.
Carolan Dwyer, co-chair of Save Our Schools, said SOS is confident that the people of Bridgewater are not going to change the regional plan. SOS would like to see creative solutions for the decreasing population.
In order to market the town better, Burnham School is starting an after-school program in order to bring kids in.
“It’s the heart of the town and it’s key to the town’s viability,” said Ms. Dwyer. “It’s very important as a draw for families to keep it in the center of the town.”
She said residents are concerned about their property values. She said the talk of the state stepping in is an idle threat. She wants to see other options and the group does not respond to threats.
Ms. Stuart said they have hired a videographer who could help market the town better and are looking into partnering with Booth Free School to make classes more equal.
“We have an outstanding, highly educated group of kids here,” said Ms. Stuart. “We don’t have a plan for re-purposing.
“We already have a senior center, town hall, so it would be another burden on taxpayers. It would cost too much to build a new school when we already have declining enrollment. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
The information session was to be on Tuesday, February 11, at Roxbury Town Hall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)