When the city dropped its kindergarten to eighth grade schools a quarter century ago, it made a mistake that costs taxpayers millions of dollars, said the Board of Education member spearheading the effort to return to the old K-8 system.
Tom O’Brien, who is championing the effort to build two new schools and return to a K-8 system, said the city erred when it made the costly switch in the early 1980s to a new system that had elementary and junior high schools.
City Councilor Frank Nicastro said Wednesday that O’Brien’s admission of the wasted money is “a major thing” and helps explain why he is so wary of jumping to support what might prove the latest fad that educators are pushing.
“We did a flip-flop” back in the 1980s, Nicastro said, and are now asking taxpayers to shell out $115 million for two new 900-student schools so that education leaders can go back to the K-8 system they rejected a generation ago.
The school superintendent, Philip Streifer, said the switch to K-8 is justified by studies that have shown they are more successful in urban environments than the existing system in Bristol.
He said studies show they allow for more parental involvement, smaller peer groups for students and less transition for families. They bolster student achievement, increase extracurricular participation, improve self-esteem and decrease the sense of victimhood among middle school age children, Streifer said.
“This plan is a good step forward,” the superintendent said.
Nicastro said he remembers officials “spouting all the great reasons” for abandoning the K-8 system years ago. He said he’s concerned that educators are simply following the latest trend and that it won’t pan out.
O’Brien said that one advantage of the plan on the table now is that if the two new schools are built, half the district will be in K-8 and the other half in the existing system, offering a perfect laboratory to compare the two concepts.
“We will have the best of all possible worlds,” O’Brien said.
The entire Board of Education has backed the concept of returning to a K-8 system and only one of the 13 school board candidates has expressed public doubt about the concept.
Mary Rydingsward, the Working Families Party candidate, said she is “not totally opposed” to a K-8 system, but she is against the plan to erect two new 900-student schools rather than relying on smaller neighborhood schools.
Rydingsward also challenged the research that educators said they are relying on to bolster the K-8 plan. She said that it applies to small schools, not large ones such as Bristol intends to build.
Rydingsward said that she’s concerned that a 900-student school could trigger more violence among students and hinder education.
“Smaller is better,” she said. “I don’t want to think we’re brewing a Columbine situation here.”
City councilors this week gave their initial blessing to plans to put a new school next door to Greene-Hills School, but rejected the idea of putting the other one in a former Scalia sand pit off Barlow Street.
The Board of Education is pushing to close four older schools – Bingham, O’Connell and Greene-Hills elementary schools and Memorial Boulevard Middle School – and opening the two K-8 schools to replace them.
*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
23 comments:
I'm glad to hear Nicastro is finally questioning this travesty of a plan. The rest of the council better be paying attention as well. Tom O'Brien has finally validated what I have said repeatedly on this blog that we will have a bifurcated education system. The amazing part is his cavalier arrogant statement that by doing so the BOE can make our children into lab rats to test out the theory. That statement alone should kill this thing in its tracks. Do we have $115 million to toss around on a "lab experiment?" O'Brien and the whole lot need to go.
Unbelievable!
O'Brien didn't say "laboratory" last night, as far as I can recall. That's my word, though he's probably used it in past meetings. He has repeatedly expressed the idea that having the two systems side by side will enable officials to know whether one is working better than the other.
And when the "experiment" is over then what? Especially when the K8 miracle cure fails to materialize. Think about it. We build another Mega school right across the street from CHMS that turns out to be the wrong thing.
Absolutely amazing!
We have four schools that within 4 to 8 years two will be 100 years old and in another 10 to 12 years the other 2 will be there. Four schools over 100 years old in this community is not condusive to future growth. We need new schools. The city's part is $45 million not the full cost as a previous posted remarked. Not chump change but more manageable the $115 million. If we don't do it now it will simply cost more and we will lose tax base to raise the funds. Many pluses, many minus, but in the end it is what I believe is the right think to do for Bristol's future.
I thought it was against the law to experiment on live children.
Your mind has obviously been made up, so you don't want to be bothered with facts. Let's assume it was a mistake to switch to the middle school system 18 years ago - that's a reason to STAY with it? O'Brien says a BENEFIT (NOT a REASON!) of having both systems simultaneously for COST REASONS is that we get to compare them side-by-side - that's a reason not to do it? I had an open mind about K-8 at first, but you people who are opposed to it are so irrational, you've pushed me into the "in favor" camp. Thanks.
There is obviuosly already enough of a ground swell to kill any idea of a K-8 school plan in this town. There just isn't enough support from politicians or the general tax paying public to put this plan in action. This will die a slow death like so many other expensive projects in this town. If I was the BOE I'd start thinking about plan B.
Tom O'Brien offered the suggestion that by running "parallel programs" the city would be able to see for themselves how things were working. He also suggested that parents might even be offered the choice of which program they want their children in, based on available space.
Tom did a great job and should be commented on his statemanship.
“O’Brien said that one advantage of the plan on the table now is that if the two new schools are built, half the district will be in K-8 and the other half in the existing system, offering a perfect laboratory to compare the two concepts.
“We will have the best of all possible worlds,” O’Brien said.” (From Blog entry)
I appreciate Mr. O'Brien's candor and recognition of the fact, knowingly or not, that this school construction plan is not being proffered without significant unknowns, even to its’ architects.
One thing that seems to be clear is that Bristol students could surely benefit from some facility upgrades. Contriving an effective plan in a heavily developed city is quite daunting. The efforts of the Department of Education, its’ Board of Education members and it's committees have been relentless over the past years to try and figure out a solution, derive a plan and make sense of a very complicated dilemma. Most citizens, it seems, as well as those directly involved in this task, recognize the need the city has to improve school facilities. And the urge to just "do something", at what seems like long last, is compelling. Lack of action is frustrating to many, as is the potential waste of time this issue might be perceived to have resulted in if the projects currently proposed are not undertaken in what ever form they can be.
LET'S GET IT DONE ALREADY!!
It appears to me that if the current proposals to improve the physical plant of the Bristol Public School System go forward, it will have been done so in an imprudent manner, despite all the efforts and good intentions of those who have undertaken to formulate the current concept.
Mr. O'Brien has essentially done a mea culpa. His comment indicates an erosion to the steadfast assertion by those making this proposal that a system of K-8 is clearly advantageous to the education of Bristol children and/or that a large facility with systemic divisions to create a differentiation between K-5 and 6-8
can work and even improve the city's education system.
This impresses me as pandering. Although I am personally convinced Mr. O'Brien and many others have worked extraordinarily hard to arrive at this proposal and I appreciate their efforts greatly, I cannot convince myself that this is the best solution to the facilities needs of the Bristol School System, even faced with the daunting task of finding a way to balance the cost benefits of renovation, construction and restructuring of what exists as well as potential land restrictions.
I personally think more effort needs to be put in to this school upgrade effort. I feel it is very important that the issue of how the schools are structured be determined with confidence before assessing what should be done. I think it is important to know what we want before deciding how we are going to get it.
One thing I am curious about, from a practical standpoint, is what consideration was given to moving the senior center to Memorial Boulevard School and possibly utilizing the current senior center as a school facility. And what input has there been from the city planner's office regarding this whole process?
Please understand that I do not mean to denigrate the efforts that have been made to date to arrive at the point we have. I only wish there could be a warm fuzzy feeling that the right thing is being done, even under the daunting circumstances we face. I do not envy anyone who has been involved in this process, and hope you will all one day feel good about the efforts you have put forth if and when we are able to create what everyone really wants: a first class school system with first class facilities. The options we are currently considering do not seem to pave the road to that destination. I sincerely hope we can all take a deep breath, reevaluate and figure out a better way to possibly get there. Let’s make the effort necessary to make this the best decision, period, not the best decision under the circumstances. And if it means a bit more effort and perseverance, so be it. We ought to not leave ourselves with any regrets – we’ve experienced far too many of those already and cleaning up the mess is very costly and demeaning. Let’s take the time to make sure we invest in something we’ll all be confident in and proud of. We are not there yet, are we?
John Cullen
Tom O'brien's statesmanship? Oh brother.
To the folks who justify getting rid of buildings because they are old. Have you thought I of making that suggest to Yale, a clearly mediocre educational institution weighed down by the burden of many century old buildings? My sarcasm aside, these old buildings are diamonds in the rough. Why don't we simply refurbish them?
Anon at 8:55 PM 10/10 - No one is being irrational. Having a passionate position on a plan that will affect my family's life is not being irrational. You on the other hand are buying the demo. The devil is in the details. Once you get past the "two new K8 large schools" the details get very fuzzy. That's usually when the plan falls apart and the costs start to escalate. John Cullen said it well
"I personally think more effort needs to be put in to this school upgrade effort. I feel it is very important that the issue of how the schools are structured be determined with confidence before assessing what should be done. I think it is important to know what we want before deciding how we are going to get it."
More specifically to John's point, the issue is far more easily resolved by leaving the system alone and fixing the problem which, is clearly a need for upgraded or new facilities. The approach the BOE is taking is like an airline wanting to replace airliners with new engines and seating arrangements while in flight. The Red Herring that the BOE keeps feeding us is that we need the K8 change because it fits better with an "urban" setting. If they think that we have the same issues that exist in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport then they are in La La Land. Do we have symptoms of urban areas? Yes, we probably do in certain areas of town not unlike many cities of our size. But you don't turn the whole system on its ear to fix those problems.
Education is extremely important and needs attention. This plan however needs to go back to the drawing board. At the same time it needs some new authors.
It's time the school board, the school board chairman, and school administrator stop misrepresenting key research studies on the K8 model.
The "K8 advantage" was observable in the "small" school cohort.
If one removes the "small" school cohort from comparison, there was no difference in academic achievement.
A second more sophisticated analysis by another group of researchers confirmed this. (the Philadelphia studies)
These "education leaders" need to stop IGNORING over 25 years of educational research that shows the connection between overall school size (not class size) and increased violence and decreased academic performance, decreased attendence, increased drop out rates, etc.
SIZE MATTERS.
This "system" shift to the "mega" or "large school model" for the primary grades (whether k8 or k5)
is not in the best interest of the Bristol's children.
Bristol can make the choice to maintain and rehabilitate its older smaller schools - they are architectural treasures, the anchors of neighboroods and community; and we also can make the choice to build new smaller schools.
These monster schools are community killers, and will drive the middle classes right out of Bristol!
Why would a young upcoming technical\professionals choose to subject their children to such public schools?
Why would they choose to make a life here?
Wake up, city leaders, you will lose the higher income segment of the 18-35 age group.
This age group is alreading in decline for this city. The older segment (over 50's) are increasing dramatically. In the last few years the % of those eligible for subsidized\free school lunches has dramatically increased.
What kind of city are you really creating?
Very interesting.
Let me guess.
The kind of city where the "65 retirement somethings" won't receive full value for their major lifetime investment (their homes), because there won't be a sufficient supply of "20-30 somethings" with enough $$$ to buy them up?
Who would of thought that mega schools or school conglomeration could have that kind of social ramification and impact?
AH HA! The light is finally coming on! A quality school system is a great marketing tool for a city like Bristol. Renovate or build new facilities - great! Focus on teacher and administrator quality - outstanding! Manipulate the system or vacillate back and forth with the fashionable grade structure of the moment - disaster!
Large "factory" schools that treat children like "widgets" is not a marketing message that will attract middle class or upper income citizens to Bristol.
Bad for everybody, one way or another.
But schools that are antiquated i.e. drafty in the fall/winter and stiffling in the spring/summer where we are throwing thousands of dollars in fuel costs out the window every year is going to attract middle and upper income people. Yeah, right! Wake up, people. These school are, to borrow from Mr. Rimcoski, white elephants and need to be replaced. Would you be happy if you had two new schools on one piece of land adjacent to each other but not attached? I'm just curious what people think of that idea. It seems that people have a problem with attaching the two schools. What if one school was a k-5 and the other 6-8 on the same property but not attached by offices, the gyms and cafeterias? Just a thought, but it might solve the dilemma some people have with "mega schools."
Researchers don't dispute that large school size decreases academic achievement - (just one negative outcome from a host of others).
Provide the "peer reviewed" research studies (not the sales pitch from the architects of the school construction industry) to support that large "mega" schools divided in half or "schools within a school", really won't generate the same negative outcomes for academic achievement that an undivided mega schools will.
To my understanding such large physical structures housing high numbers of students have negative impacts on learning in both the primary grades and high school settings.
Simple put the children feel intimidated, feel a greater sense of threat, feel anonymous, feel more stressed,etc. ;therefore,
learning is negatively impacted.
If adults feel uncomfortable and anxious in high density settings surrounded by a bunch of strangers, why would one assume a young child would not?
Why would we assume the immature child would behave admirably perform well under stress conditions, every day?
Is their any wonder why we observe increased violence and behavior problems in large sized schools?
Children are not ants or bees; - these creatures are genetically programmed and well-adapted to bumping into one another, and crawling over each other every day. Human beings are not built that way.
To John Cullen:
The 2005 NESDC feasibility report to the BOE regarding the K8 transition, indicated that the city could take back Westwoods.
How seriously this option was considered? Who knows?
To the man concerned about drafts in the old schools - the city installed energy efficient windows in the mid '80's.
A new furnace is a new funace - same in old building as new building.
A solar collector is a solar collector - same in old building as in new building.
If it's too expensive for the city to put in better furnaces, what makes you think a private investor can afford to do so AND make a profit?
Abandoned buildings aren't going to attract the middle class either.
Abandoned, unkept buildings = slum.
That will attract the middle class?
I believe those buildings would be torn down. I don't think they would leave them up. In fact, the Greene Hills school would be torn down. A new furnace in an old school like O'Connell will not work as efficiently. As far as the windows, the operative word here is '80s and we're talking the early '80s. That building is not tight. The whole point is moot anyway. There is not enough land to expand O'Connell to cover the zoning requirements of a larger cafeteria, gym and library not to mention ball fields. I'm not understanding the comment about a private investor. The state is picking up most of the tab for the project. If you could educate me on the private investor part, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Well, in many cities the old school buildings are converted into apartments; and in many cities the old buidings are upgraded with another uses are found for them,; and in many cities the old school buildings are upgraded and expanded.
They are not torn down.
Some of this rehab activity is conducted by the municipality - Go look in New Britian on Arch street- observe their old High School which has been converted to senior housing.
In Bristol, the Patterson School was converted to market rate housing.
In both cases, it could be argued the buildings were "drafty", not air tight, crappy old furnaces,
unsuitable.
However, these old building were adaptively rehabilitated to productive use.
People are saying it's impossible to put in a new furnace in an old building.....too much money, won't work efficiently...
Well, my point is this.
If it's too much money and won't work efficenctly how is it that both private investors can do it, and municipalities have done it.
Buy the way, if rehabilitation is done by private investors for apartments .... more new pipes,drains toilets, sinks, wiring for electricity,telephone, cable TV,and internet, more new walls, closets, kitchens, laundry rooms, etc are installed per square foot than IF the building were kept and rehabilitated for a school.....AND the investor still MAKES A PROFIT.
PS..These places aren't drafty. And yes, they are properly insulated with asbestos abatement.
Also "air tight" modern buildings" are the ones that cause "sick building syndrome". People get more allergies and illnesses in those modern "energy efficent" glass boxes. Give me a building with windows that OPEN. Those modern glass boxes where no one cleans out the air ducts are dirt bag buildings! YUCK!
Only an idiot would tear down old school building of the era of Bristol's school buildings.
But in a place like Bristol, which tore down its downtown, and it's Old Post Office....this thinking is par for the course.
The town is run, and has been run by spendthrifts with no sense of resource conservation, in my opinion.
----------------------
One more thing, CT is a wasteful state with spendthrift public policies regarding school construction.
On the other hand, Mass. has got a good hold on their school construction policies and does not let their municipalites and their BOE's run wild with taxpayers dollars.
I am now posting their law:
Education Laws & Regulations
603 CMR 38.00
Section 38.03
(10)" Projects calling for new school construction shall be approved and funded ONLY where the feasibilty and cost of renovating an existing school building, or acquiring an existing building or buildings which are structurally sound, available within the community or district and adaptable for school purposes, has been studied and the applicant demonstrates the the proposed new construction is the best available alternative to meet the projected need based upon the educational programs to be housed, total cost effectiveness, and the public interest.
One more point, in the 2005 NESDEC report for EACH old school, it was shown what is needed to be changed to accomplish the educational goals....
If this were Mass....our old school buildings would be getting the furnaces and some minor additions....not dumped.
And Westwoods would be taken back!
Ballfields?
The Park Department should take care of the ball fields.
There is no requirement that a school must have "ball fields" to be a respectable school.
With Bristol schools failing Adequate Yearly Progress, the big concern is the size and number of ball fields?
In 2003, US 15 year olds ranked 24th out of 29 countries in math literacy and problem solving.
We're no better than some 3rd world countries, and worse than most developed countries.
I thought the main purpose of Bristol's schools was education - reading, writing, and math, etc.; not extra curricular activities or ball games.
Shameful. What a mixed up sense of priorites. Spend all that money to get more ball fields while the students are flunking math.
Such is our public school system.
Post a Comment