One thing became abundantly clear to me at last night’s Fairfield Board of Education meeting, the Board wastes a lot of time on redistricting. It’s the hand they are dealt. During the past few decades we’ve accepted that. However, as parents, the mere thought of redistricting gets the heart rate up. I can only imagine how the board feels. So why do we continue to accept this?
At last night’s BOE meeting three different proposals for the 2010-11 school year were presented by the Committee on Facilities, Information Technology and Long Range Planning. I’ve posted the Commitee’s Plan to Address Overcrowding in two parts.
The three proposals differ in the number of elementary schools impacted and number of children moved. Plan 6 would move about 300 students, Plan 7 would impact approximately 180 students and Plan 8 would shift 80+. These are based on current projections for school enrollment in the 2009-10 school year. The space available in the plans is based on 2009-10 information, including portables.
While Plan 6 was originally put forth by Board Member Sue Brand to “operate schools at the best utilization levels”, she seemed to waver in her support of the plan due to the widespread disruption in the school district.
Plan 7 was presented by Board Member Brenda Kupchik who referred to the 2006 BOE report for support. Back then, she said, it was determined additional space was needed at Holland Hill, Riverfield, Sherman and Mill Hill schools. Her proposal not only included the redistricting of students from Holland Hill to Sherman, and Mill Hill to Dwight, it also included accelerating the planned additions at Holland Hill and Riverfield schools.
Board Vice Chairman John Mitola presented Plan 8 which was less disruptive to the Town as a whole, and included phased in migration of students. A friendly approach that impacts few, but might cost the Town more due to bus routes and clerical issues in the central office.
After the presentations, the Board asked questions and ultimately opened the floor for public comments. The first to comment was First Selectman Kenneth Flatto. He quickly pointed out that the school space estimates the BOE was using in their proposals were inconsistent. My pen had long since run out of ink, so I didn’t capture his exact discrepancies, but nevertheless, why don’t the Board and the Selectmen have the same space figures? No wonder the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Education are poles apart on the need for space. What a waste of time.
As I perused the paperwork, I noticed the entire school system’s projected enrollment for 2009-10 is 92.7% of capacity (including portables). Without the district’s 14 portables, the town has capacity for 4830 students. With projected enrollment at 4751 the district is at 98.4% in permanent facilities (bricks and mortar). Some schools are underutilized, and others are busting at the seams and teaching kids in the hallways and broom closests. This isn’t logical. If I were to open a bar, I would need a permit from the Fire Marshal that would limit the number of people in the establishment. This is for safety sake. If I go over that amount, I could be fined. Why isn’t this logic apparent to the Town Planning & Zoning Office? On the whole, the school district does not have the facilities to accommodate all the new homes the TP&Z has approved.
I heard that 42 condos are proposed (or approved, again inconsistent information) for the property where the VW dealer used to be. It was estimated, conservatively, that even if there are only 20 children in that development, McKinley school would be overcrowded. So why is this development getting approved? More to the point, does the TP&Z know of the Board of Ed’s woes? Why are we still approving additional dwellings in a town that cannot reasonably accommodate the occupants?
Ultimately the Board decided to take more time to study the issue, update their estimates and projections. They will discuss this again at the August BOE meeting.
This is a long-term problem. There is no student bubble in this town. Long range plans show student enrollment only increasing. If the Board of Selectmen does not want any more schools to be built, it’s up to the TP&Z to regulate accordingly. Otherwise, it’s just going to cause the BOE to waste more time and go through this exercise every few years.
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts 
Ed,
Excellent report! You are very correct in stating there is “no student bubble in this town,” but that a long-term trend toward higher school enrollment is highly evident.
What is needed next if you ask me is that all members of all the Town boards and commissions that can impact redistricting come out of their respective silos and truly hash out this issue.
I seriously doubt that is feasible, but if we could get individual office-holders to at lest consider looking at the challenge in this way, that might better inform some of the key decisions Town bodies must make.
And the best place to start– as you pointed out– would indeed be with one set of enrollment figures/projections that ALL parties have agreed upon to be the baseline before moving ahead with any conversations let alone any votes on this issue.
David Cullen
Representative Town Meeting, District 7
Ed,
Perfect summary of last nights too long meeting. I agree 100% with your comments about the TP&Z – why are they not held accountable for any of this? The reason our schools are overcrowding, esp. at the beach, is the constant building. I’m s sick of our kids paying the price for greed.