By Maureen McCracken and Gabe Gilman
We are two of the six current board members who voted against bringing the proposed school budget to you, the voters, and we will vote no again as private citizens on March 3. We want to explain why.
Like everyone in the district, we have watched with dismay as layoff and reassignment notices were issued, called back and issued anew from the central office – all without notice to the board. But beyond that, there are two main reasons why we voted against the budget on the ballot and the plan it represents and these reasons have been consistent for more than a year.
LESS IS NOT MORE
This budget gives less to our kids. Middle school students in core classes such as English, math and science will have to learn in a class size that is bigger than our district has seen in recent history.
Class sizes for grades five and six will go from 15-18 to 21-23. Grades seven and eight will go from 15-20 to 21-25. These class size numbers are pushing the limits, and beyond, of what is defined as “optimal” in our own district’s policy.
Art, physical education, sustainability and language classes will also be large and students will get less time in them. This is because the same one art teacher will now be teaching 454 kids instead of 300. The same two physical education teacher positions and teachers in the 1.5 sustainability positions will be teaching 454 kids instead of 300. The same Spanish/French teachers will be teaching 150 more kids, and likely be doing it out of rolling carts instead of having their own rooms. The schedule to accommodate this extra load will mean kids getting less time in the classes which are often the most beloved in a student’s time in middle school.
Thankfully, there are extra resources going to the music program, in the form of a part-time music teacher and our Harwood music staff going to Crossett Brook for the equivalent of a part-time job, but there is no extra space for these new teachers to teach. Apparently the plan is for those instructors to be teaching in the cafetorium – let’s hope it is not during lunchtime.
Acknowledging the shortage of space at Crossett Brook for the added enrollment, the proposed budget includes $315,000 to install temporary classroom pods for the coming school year; rent for the structure will cost $75,000 a year.
But the long-term fix would be a permanent addition currently estimated at $3.5 million, and what no one so far seems to be talking about is whether that will be enough, much less whether the expense will be approved by our communities.
$3.5 MILLION ADDITION TIED TO $40 MILLION BOND
Lost in all of the din surrounding the budget proposal and the middle school merger are the real details of the new costs that this plan will set in motion.
Our colleagues supporting the budget claim it saves money. On the contrary, this budget and the steps it calls for start us on the road to what may be over $40 million in debt obligation to finance multiple construction projects at four schools. While the school board has not yet finalized the scope of work for the construction bond it aims to bring to voters on June 9, it will be hard to avoid this path if we allow relocation of grades before the comprehensive plan is decided.
We are hopeful the board will reconsider this all-in-one notion for the bond, if for no other reason than that the roughly $3.5 million earmarked for Crossett Brook deserves some thought and consideration on its own. For example, the Crossett Brook addition discussed calls for adding just four classrooms and a bathroom. There is no new space for music, language classrooms, physical education or anything else. It certainly will not be enough space if we actually wanted to add art or sustainability teachers to provide robust programming in those areas, or if we wanted to bring back our sorely missed tech ed program or to add additional STEM programs. The other portions of a districtwide bond deserve the same thoughtful attention, such as how much space we really will need at the high school if we send more kids out of the building and serve fewer students there than ever before.
We encourage you to review the current materials related to the scope and timeline for this all-in-one bond at the district website, https://huusd.org/prek-12-bond-plan. Look for the link labeled “2019-12-18 TruexCullins Presentation.”
Our community has not weighed in on launching into the multilayered, costly effort that starts with moving students from two schools into Crossett Brook this fall. The board has yet to finalize its construction plans and its bond request to the community. Moving now to add more students to Crossett Brook signals we are committed to a broader program that we haven’t finished planning and deciding and which voters have not yet consented to financing.
It surprises us to hear current and past board members describe the budget up for approval March 3 as a means of enhancing programming and saving money. It appears to do neither. Instead, it offers less for more: larger class sizes, cramped and unsustainable classroom arrangements, and few choices for voters but to borrow millions in the very near future to finance the new construction necessary make all this “savings” possible.
We hope you will join us in voting no on the current school articles and encouraging the board to stop pushing us to accept less.
McCracken, Waterbury, and Gilman, Moretown, are two current HUUSD Board members. Gilman was chair of the district’s Act 46 committee. Gilman’s and McCracken’s terms end on March 3.
