Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
PINE PLAINS — With school already a couple of weeks in session, the Pine Plains Board of Education (BOE) has been researching methods for improving students’ academic success by changing the start times for the school day.
After its research, the BOE has determined that by having younger students come into school at an earlier time and older students arrive at a later time, they’ll be more on task with their school activities, resulting in a dramatic improvement in their academic performance.
Recruiting individuals from the district to aid them in arranging a new schedule for the students, the board formed a Start Time Committee comprised of Pine Plains administrators, Director of Transportation Drew Weaver, facility staff members, teacher representatives, support staff representatives and parents from the Pine Plains Central School District. Altogether, there are about 16 people involved in this committee.
Along with the research the board obtained from the American Pediatrics Association, Superintendent of Schools Martin Handler referenced the information provided in Daniel Pink’s book, “When: The Scientific Secrets of Perfect Timing.”
Pink’s book explains the impact a schedule shift could have on a student’s academic development. Handler made sure that every member of the committee received a copy of the book for reference purposes.
One issue the district has foreseen in initiating this kind of schedule change relates to transportation, particularly with the elementary school bus routes. At this time, the elementary school buses have to travel 140 square miles around the district to pick up all of the students enrolled at Cold Spring Early Learning Center in Stanfordville as well as students enrolled at Seymour Smith Intermediate Learning Center on Academy Street in Pine Plains.
“We’re looking for ways to cut down on the elementary transportation time, so that it would not be overly burdensome to have those kids coming in before the older kids,” Handler said. “Obviously, the later we can have the Stissing Mountain Junior/Senior High School kids come in, the better. The key aspect right now is all of the elementary routes are right around an hour. We need to find a way to cut that down if this is going to work.”
With a mission focused on developing a way that a new system can be implemented in Pine Plains, Handler anticipates that the committee will come up with a recommendation before the end of December so that the BOE can look into implementing the system in the 2019-20 school year.
“That’s why we’re starting early,” he explained, “because if we’re going to do this, we need to make a decision by the first of February so the people can plan for the change.”
To date, the committee is conducting additional research and evaluating other school districts to determine how the system operates and how the students benefit. This year, the North East (Webutuck) Central School District moved to a one-bell system, citing improved academic performance among all ages by moving younger students to an earlier start time and older students moved to a later time.
There are no specific times in mind currently for changes to be considered in Pine Plains, according to Handler. But it would be likely the district would mimic the changes made at neighboring Webutuck, he said.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.