Consolidation proposal irks Springfield parents

A new proposal to organize the town's elementary schools — the third in as many years — is causing concern for parents.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100421/NEWS02/4210356/1003/NEWS02       # # # # Consolidation proposal irks Springfield parents  •  Rutland Herald  •  By Josh O'Gorman STAFF WRITER - Published: April 21, 2010  •  SPRINGFIELD — A new proposal to organize the town's elementary schools — the third in as many years — is causing concern for parents.  •  For two hours Monday night the School Board discussed a proposal that would split the town's elementary population, with kindergarten through second grade attending Elm Hill School and grades three through five at Union Street School.  •  Both schools have been expanded as part of a plan to close Park Street School and consolidate the town's three schools down to two. Originally, plans called for both schools to house pupils in kindergarten through fourth grade, with fifth graders moving over to Riverside Middle School; however, those plans were scrapped and the revised plan called for students in kindergarten through fifth grade to be divided between the two schools.  •  Park Street School Principal Martha Potter made a presentation Monday night explaining why that configuration might not work. Under the Act 250 permits granted for the renovations, capacity at each school is capped at 300 pupils. However, there is no way to evenly divide the roughly 590 K-5 pupils without splitting up families, Potter said, and any plan ended up with roughly 350 pupils at Union Street and 240 at Elm Hill.  •  Board Chairman Scott Adnams said he has spoken with a permit specialist and learned the district could file to amend its Act 250 permits, but it is not clear if approval would come before September.  •  Under the new proposal, Elm Hill would contain 298 pupils in kindergarten through second grade and Union Street would house 291 pupils in grades three through five. Friday afternoon, teachers sent letters home with their pupils to notify parents of the proposal. One of the parents, Bill Otis, addressed his concerns to the board and administration Monday night.  •  "I'm angry and I'm disappointed and I feel nobody's listening," said Otis, who has two elementary-age children that he would have to bring to two different schools under the proposal. "I'm bothered by the last-minute changes and I'm bothered that the teachers are talking with the kids about it before the parents hear about it."  •  Board member Sam Coleman sympathized with the public's uneasiness over yet another change.  •  "We've gone from K-4 to K-5 to this, so I'm on board with people being a little unnerved," Coleman said.  •  Director of Curriculum Development Vincent Hawkins said studies have shown there are advantages and disadvantages to the proposed model. On one hand, it provides true equity for all students in the district, but, on the other hand, it increases the number of transitions a child has between schools and eliminates collaborations between older and younger pupils.  •  Potter noted many schools across the country are adopting the proposed model as a way to pool resources and save money.  •  The board tabled the discussion and will address the topic again at its next meeting May 3.  •