School board may take reconfiguration for 2010-11 off the table

Written by Kate Czaplinski and Macklin Reid, Press Staff
Friday, 06 November 2009 05:46

Enacting any school reconfiguration models in the next school year, 2010-2011, may be taken off the table.

“I don’t think anything could happen for 2010-11,” Board member Kathy McGerald said Monday night. “I don’t think you could close a school. I don’t think you could reclaim Children’s Corner — I don’t think you could have it ready...”

The board took no action Monday night. With several members’ tenure subject to the next day’s election, there wasn’t even much discussion.

“I guess I expected an hour or two discussion on this,” said a dismayed Irene Bugress as the meeting adjourned after half an hour.

Superintendent Deborah Low said Tuesday a proposal to take any major reconfiguration steps off the table for next year would be on the board’s agenda Nov. 9, the last meeting with the out-going board.

“The board’s trying to take it in little steps. One question was: Do you need to do anything next year?” Ms. Low said. “I don’t know what their decision will be. They can decide anything they want, but it will be on the agenda.”

Monday night Ms. Low also presented a classroom availability chart showing 116 potential rooms in the six elementary schools: 17 at Veterans Park; 18 each at Barlow and Farmingville; 19 at Scotland and 24 at Ridgebury. Of the 116, 108 are now being used as classrooms.

This math caused Ms. Low to state flatly that she didn’t believe there was room to close any of the schools next year — even the smallest, Veterans Park. “You cannot take 17 rooms off-line next year and have enough space,” she said.

At least three school board members advocated at Oct. 26 that they act to remove the possibility of a configuration change in the elementary or middle schools for the 2010-2011 school year.

“There’s no way to get it done physically or politically,” board member Lyn Merrill. “...Unless we screw it up completely.”

The discussion came after two public hearings and other meetings at which many parents urged the board to make a careful and studied decision on any “configuration” changes.

This factored into some members instinct to take configuration changes next year off the table.

“History tells us you can’t do it that fast,” Dr. Merrill said.

Vice Chairman Joseph Buczek believed it was possible to implement some of the models, but it would be premature “and you’d make mistakes.”

Faced with projections of dwindling enrollment over the next five years and possibly beyond, others on the board were reluctant to take options away before the new board begins work Nov. 23.

“I don’t think we can take anything off the table right now,” John Palermo said. “...I’d like to visit the schools and take a look at the space. We haven’t done that yet.”

The Nov. 2 and Oct. 26 discussions followed public hearing Saturday morning, Oct. 24 — the second on the topic.

Again, the vast majority of speakers were opposed to a school closing, doubtful of “paired school” options that would place grades K-1-2 and grades 3-4-5 in separate buildings, and not eager for dramatic changes. Many pointed out that history has shown enrollments that decline eventually rebound. Many urged the board to move slowly, and cautiously.

In all, 16 people spoke at the Oct. 24 hearing, and only two seemed to favor giving a school closing a more serious look this year.

One was Keith Miller, a former chairman running for the board again. Board members may regret not having at least a contingency plan for closing a building “if the budget is shot down and you need to cut $2 million,” Mr. Miller said.

“The choices at that point are eliminating all sports programs ... eliminating a dozen teachers,” he said. “It’s a disaster.”

For the first time at one of the hearings or meetings, a voice from the general public urged the board to look at closing a building.

“I don’t want to advocate closing a school,” the man said.

But if closing an underutilized building could save a lot of money, it shouldn’t be dismissed.

“ ‘Closing a school means bad education’ — I don’t think that’s true,” he said.

“...I’d rather spend the money on languages, other things than infrastructure.”

Most speakers at the Saturday morning hearing were opposed to or skeptical of a rush to reconfigure the schools.

Longtime Ridgefielder Elizabeth Sganga recalled the long history of opening, closing, and reopening both Branchville School and then Barlow Mountain.

“Here we are, talking about closing a school, restructuring the whole system,” she said. “The school population will always fluctuate.”

Heidi Lockwood reiterated a point she’d made at previous meetings — and one some board members are beginning to echo in discussions.

The Children’s Corner — owned by her mother, Nan Howkins, she noted — provides day care for some 435 individual children, with between 170 and 250 kids there a day.

“Ninety percent are Ridgefield children,” Ms. Lockwood said. “...There’s a community roughly the size of an elementary school who rely on Children’s Corner.”

She said the board shouldn’t adopt any option that required the Children’s Corner move out of the Barlow Mountain space it now occupies, without providing ample time for the operation to relocate without having to close.

The sentiment most speakers seemed to agree with was expressed by Peter Furfaro.

“You have an absolute jewel,” he told the school board. “It’s not because you have a pretty Main Street — that’s part of it. You have these beautiful little neighborhood schools.”

Discuss this issue on The Ridgefield Forum.