2.         Work Session

Comments/Questions

1. Nicole Mulanaphy-asked specifics about repurposing. She asked what the best practice configuration of a middle school is. 5-8 or 6-8.

Hendriks-There are no definitive studies on grade configuration. The sweet spot is typically 6-8. However, you can have a best practice 5-8 if you design it right. If you were to include grade 5 in the middle school, we would advocate for some separation of grade 5 from grade 8, and more kid-friendly spaces and a recess yard and playground. We would look to build something new for them (grade 5 and 6 students). There was conversation that middle school sizes are all across the board in RI, with most being 6-8 and 5-8, but some are 4-8, and others are 7-8.

Robert Hendriks spoke of another district he is working in where the decision now is whether to include grade 5 with K-4 or into the high school 6-12. If you design it right, you can make it right and mitigate any negative impact. We would build and design deliberately.

2. Vanessa Paneccia-asked how SKIP students added to the elementary school would impact pick up and drop off. 

Kristen Stringfellow responded that in any SKIP scenario, the Special Education Director by law would design the special education pre-school program in the best interest of students. The transportation coordinator and principal would develop a new traffic plan for the school that included a plan for pedestrian traffic, mini bus traffic, car traffic and bus traffic.

Cummiskey commented that she would like to see us not move SKIP twice.

Benjamin reminded that the SKIP discussion would take place offline in the budget work session.

Collins commented that there is no rush to move SKIP at the cost of the quality of the program.

3. Nicole Mulanaphy asked if moving SKIP students to elementary would be difficult on students in outdoor play with less peers. 

Kristen Stringfellow will ask Special Education Director Teresa Eagan to attend the budget work session to answer questions about the relocation of SKIP.

4.  Chris Hubbard-Which one of these four options is in the best interest of students?

Robert Hendriks explained they are all best practice. The SK School Committee needs to determine which one is in the best interest of SK, as it is unique. Likely one or two preferred options will emerge. If this community determines that keeping a neighborhood school is important, I would respect that. That is an investment, however, and not as efficient operationally, so in that option you would have less opportunity to invest money in staffing and educational programs for students, because you would be investing in keeping more buildings clean, online, and in good repair.

5. April Ewing asked if we should raze CCMS, close all four elementary schools, and put one large central elementary school on that site.

Hendriks-That scenario significantly does not match our vision. A PK-5 facility would need to house about 1300 students. I'm not even sure if that site could sustain it. PK-6 would be 1500 kids if we were to avoid building on Broad Rock.  This is a 65 square mile school district; students would need to be on the bus before 6 am. It is hard to fathom centralizing one elementary school in this size community.

6. Dave Palazzetti-You did a good job in a short time. These are reasonable options. If you were going to whittle it down, I would recommend keeping grade 5 in elementary. CCMS is by far in the worst condition. Raze that site for a large park, stadium, locker rooms, and other recreational activities. 

Robert Hendriks will look into how much it would cost to raze CCMS.

7. Laura Roebuck-I would recommend K-5. If you are going to whittle down, please keep A and B on the table. She spoke about the potential to bring in new income by leveling CCMS, because the recreation center is constantly packed. 

8. Gledhill-Just as important as cost is community buy-in. Did that weigh in your decision-making? What is the taxpayer willing to bear? If a building is not being closed, are community members willing to keep it open even at the operational costs? D is the most fiscally responsible choice; maybe they are willing to do that in some circumstance

Cummiskey commented on the need to continue to provide new programs that will help attract families and will make our district unique.

Benjamin-The time is right for building and renovating facilities. The Governor is pushing a 1 billion dollar plan for renovations. Only a few school systems will be ready to take advantage of that support, and SK is one of the few that are ready.

Nicole Mulanaphy-In Option D is there potential for growth?

Hendriks-You can always build for growth on PDES and MES. You will not be razing every building, so you will definitely still have inventory if needed. But remember, the demographic study indicated that there is not going to be any surge of enrollment.

Eric Schneider-This was a very thoughtful presentation. Under B, the assumption is that most students go to PDES. It might be helpful to see folks envisioning; parents would appreciate having that in the back of their heads.

Hendriks-We will do that.

Hendriks-Within the preferred option, the School Committee could say, for example...if we close Wakefield, we want all the kids from WES to go to PDES without displacing any PDES kids.

They could take an option and say we will only do that option if grade 5 is in elementary, etc.

Abel Collins-It seems like there is a lot of pressure from RIDE to go with D. It would be good if the School Committee could choose D and also send grade 5 back to the elementary school. That could be option E.

Hendriks-We could do that. That option was on there originally, and we took it off because we thought that the school community would not want a larger school, but it can be put back on.  You could also separate PK and K into a different location if you wanted those two schools to be smaller.

Emily Totten-Two main elementary schools grades 1-5 with PK and K at a separate location is not what the community wanted; they did not want a one- or two-year grade span and transition.

Hendriks-I agree. Transitions equal trauma. If we really wanted to do an early childhood center, it should be PK-2.

Josh Daley- Are there any limitations to the sale of buildings?

Hendriks-There should be a disposition of real estate committee established by the School Committee as soon as the options are determined, and sales should be considered.

Josh Daley-What redistricting might look like would be valuable. What do we imagine the redistricting might look like? And, also, what might the school budget look like in six years?

Lisa Mellor-When you met with RIDE, were you able to suggest that busing be funded (in the funding formula). 

Stringfellow-No, this meeting was with the facility representatives from RIDE. We have, however, advocated to RIDE and the General Assembly for the past nine years that transportation be included in the market basket for the funding formula, because it is mandated by law. I believe it should be included. I have no indication that it ever will be.

Mosher-I assume transportation is not factored into these numbers.

Hendriks-No.

Stringfellow-Similar to redistricting, that would not actually happen for three years.  We need to be closer to the opening to predict transportation. Elementary families will be middle school families by then, middle school will be high school, etc.

Hendriks-We can try to guess some transportation scenarios.

Alycia Collins-It would be great to have a newly remodeled HS and an upgrade of buildings, but not if it came at the cost of laying off TAs and librarians.

Benjamin-In summary, Robert Hendriks will flesh out some operational costs, hypothetical redistricting, hypothetical transportation, housing aid, and capital deferment.

Benjamin to Zarnetske-What is a healthy asset investment for this level of spending, and what is the impact on individual taxpayers? 

Robert Zarnetske-We will get that information to the Superintendent.

All options will be forwarded to the community to vet through the second Community Summit.