Board fails to reach consensus on school restructuring plan

WINSTED — Amid expectations that the Winchester Board of Education would vote Tuesday, Feb. 10, on a plan for restructuring the town’s school system, an exasperated board voted to table the decision after more than three hours of debate.

With a roomful of teachers and community members in attendance, the school board reviewed the particulars of two proposed plans, described in documents as Plan A and Plan B, which would shuffle kindergarten through eighth grade between buildings. Both plans were presented by an ad hoc school restructuring committee, and specifics of each plan were outlined in a PowerPoint presentation.

The plans

Under Plan A, Batcheller Elementary School would change from a pre-K through grade five system to pre-K through grade two, and would house the school system’s Family Resource Center. Hinsdale Elementary School would house grades three through five and Pearson Middle School would continue to house grades six through eight. The Board of Education’s central office would remain on Elm Street.

In Plan B, Batcheller would house pre-K and kindergarten. Hinsdale Elementary School would house grades one through four and Pearson would house grades five through eight. The central office on Elm Street would be closed and administrative offices would be moved to Batcheller.

Board member Christine Royer, who chaired the restructuring committee, was unable to attend Tuesday’s meeting, but indicated her support for Plan B in a letter to board. Royer noted “a disparity of educational opportunities� between the town’s two elementary schools, which she said amounts to “enough ammunition to begin the discussion that validates reconfiguration.�

After two months of committee meetings with parents, teachers and members of the public, Royer said major changes to the school system are sorely needed.

“The only responsible approach we can take as a board is to streamline our system both financially and educationally,� she wrote. “Restructuring allows us to do both.�

Royer said both plans are “educationally sound, financially viable and fiscally responsible,� but made it clear she was in favor of Plan B. “The opportunities afforded to us in the second scenario are greater, both educationally and financially,� she wrote.

Superintendent of Schools Blaise Salerno also made it clear that he was in support of Plan B, but discussions throughout the evening revealed that board members were not unified in their opinions of the plan.

The problem of isolation

Several teachers also spoke out during the public comment portion of the meeting to express their opposition. The majority of Batcheller teachers said they opposed to Plan B because it would disrupt the transition from kindergarten to first grade.

Batcheller kindergarten teacher Maryann Burbank pleaded with the board to reject the plan.

“I sincerely hope you equally appreciate how very important it is not to isolate pre-K and kindergarten from the rest of the community,� she said. “Kindergarten is the bridge to first grade and beyond, and without the daily ongoing connection we have between teachers and students, I fear we are in danger of becoming Winsted’s very own bridge to nowhere.�

Burbank said pre-K and kindergarten students currently receive appropriate care at Batcheller, where even the toilets are designed for smaller bodies.

“I follow up with all my former kindergartners and they all stop by regularly to visit me. Again, this could not happen if we were isolated from all the other grades,� she said.

Teachers also expressed concern that language arts and special services would be reduced at Batcheller.

“Would we have our own nurse, psychologist, social worker, etc.?� Burbank asked. “How would lunch and breakfast work? How about music, art and physical education?�

Teacher Donna Serafini cautioned board members not to make “a knee-jerk reaction to a financial problem,� particularly in light of teachers’ concerns about transitions between grades.

“We’re a small community and we’re all family, so I think you need more time to really look at the options and even perhaps start the next school year as-is,� she said. “It may not be the right answer in the long run, but at least it would allow all of you to examine every option.�

Looking at the money

Former selectman and school board member Kathleen O’Brien disagreed, saying a decision needed to be made quickly.

“Time’s up, gang,� she said. “We can sit here and talk about this over and over again, but the reality is there is no money out there. We’ll be lucky if we get the same amount of state funding as we did last year. It’s going to cost us a lot of sacrifices.�

O’Brien said she expects to see another budget battle for the 2009-10 fiscal year and that the schools need to start seeing savings now.

“I really urge this board to make a decision tonight, no matter what the decision is. You have to get a budget together, present it next month and then start referendums all over again. I don’t think we have time to talk about it any more.�

After hearing the entire proposals for both Plan A and Plan B, board members chimed in, questioning the benefits of both plans in terms of cost savings and educational value.

“I was kind of shocked to see that the total cost savings were so abysmally low,� said board member Susan Hoffnagle. “When you first started this process, you were talking about scenarios where we might have to come up with a million dollars, and now we’re sitting looking at something that brings $83,000 to the bottom line. I know that’s supposed to be the start of a long cost savings going forward, but it’s a dramatically small number for the amount of disruption and future layoffs and other results. It’s a pretty dismal savings.�

No consensus

Board member Karen Beadle said she was leaning toward Plan A, but still had questions about both plans.

“I know that a lot of thought and research went into both of these proposals. I still believe in listening to the teachers who are in the classrooms, who live this every day. That’s where I’m basing my decision.�

With no clear majority evident after the proposals were made, board member Paul O’Meara noted a discrepancy in the numbers relating to staffing reductions. With consensus falling apart, Superintendent Blaise Salerno pleaded with the board to table a vote on restructuring until next month.

“This is too important a decision, I think, to have a split board,� Salerno said. “This really has got to be as close to a unanimous decision as it can be. As a result, I would recommend that we move to table until the next meeting. This is too important and too highly charged a decision to end up with a close vote on either side and have this turned around in November.�

Board members voted to table discussion and possible action on restructuring until a special meeting, which they scheduled for Friday, March 6, at Town Hall.