Discussion

One thing became abundantly clear to me at least 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 school 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?

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?

This is a long-term problem. There is not 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.

Read original blog post