SHERMAN – As April showers continued into May, the Sherman Board of Education (“BOE” or “BOARD”) met for its regular board meeting on Wednesday, May 3, and after two plus hours, moved to Executive Session before adjourning the meeting close to 9:30 p.m.
Just about half-way through the long meeting, the Board continued its discussion regarding the school, including potential regionalization and its costs and renovation options. Board Member Tim Laughlin led the discussion, presenting to the Board, and audience at large, the findings of the Board since the last meeting, noting that a variety of factors must be weighed when considering regionalization, including other impacts to the community and the value of taxpayer owned property. Beginning with a recap of the history of the Sherman School and past regionalization discussions, Mr. Laughlin noted the Board does not believe any of the regionalization options discussed during its period of analysis and due diligence are beneficial to the community, and, neither the BOE nor school administrators have “endorsed or recommended any modification to the existing educational model.”
The educational option models presented were: “Keep What We Have,” Local PK-5 school with all students in grades 6-12 attending Shepaug Valley School, or No local school with all students attending Region 12. The latter two would increase bus times for students requiring an additional 70 minutes of travel as well as a transfer at Sherman School. Regionalizing the upper grades may be permissible via “a tuition based interdistrict cooperative arrangement,” which is authorized by Connecticut General Statute (“C.G.S.”) 10-158a, but “would set a new precedent in tuition arrangements for middle school students.” Mr. Laughlin pointed out that the district’s current cooperative arrangements allowing for high school choice are specifically permitted by C.G.S. 10-33; however, a tuition based cooperative arrangement for middle school is unprecedented with no direct statutory authority for the same.
Under the current model, required spending per pupil equates to $24,321 for the coming fiscal year. If the district were to “tuition out” all students in grades 6-12, the estimated spending per pupil would be $25,315 – a difference of $995 per pupil. A regional study plan providing a detailed analysis of staffing and facility needs to accommodate all Sherman students is needed before the Board can provide an estimate of spending per pupil if Sherman were to regionalize. However, one thing is certain in such a scenario, transportation costs would be significant – upward of $720,000.
He went on to say the Board’s cursory analysis of regionalization did not identify significant cost savings from adopting an alternative model over what currently exists. Further information is required to confirm the Board’s assumption, which will be presented at its next regular meeting. Regardless, as previously discussed, adoption of total regionalization would result in Sherman being the only town in Connecticut without a local school – C.G.S. 10-15 mandates, “Public school(s) including kindergartens shall be maintained in each town for at least one hundred eighty days …”
Prior to the meeting, the BOE and School Building Committee received from the architect comprehensive floor plans detailing several different options on the table for renovation of the school – a new Option 1 (a-c), which contains 3 different scenarios for utilizing existing built space and how “we get there”, Option 2, which is a fourth option that reserves space downstairs, Option 3 – a fifth option, considers a “community center” component, Option 4, a sixth option, envisions demolishing both the D and K wings, maintaining grades 6-8 upstairs, moving offices to the front of the building, and constructing new spaces; and Option 5, a seventh option, in lieu of new construction, keeps a portion of the K-wing and envisions doing the same as Option 4 but by utilizing existing structures.
Mr. Laughlin briefly went through the various options received. Discussion and questions ensued, with other members chiming in, including state reimbursement for construction. Proposed renovations of the K-wing are costly. Any scenario in Option 1 would require the need for portable classrooms/spaces, which are costly; Option 5 would not and has a more compact timeline. Mr. Laughlin opined that Option 4 provides all specifications/needs asked for. He stressed the importance of meeting the district’s educational needs when deciding on the best option; cost is not the only consideration. The proposals include summer work. All options, including the architect’s recommendations, will be discussed in depth at a joint meeting of the School Building Committee and the Board, then again at the BOE’s next regular meeting.
In other news, the Board voted to move the Awards Ceremony to Wednesday, June 14, and Eighth Grade Graduation to Thursday, June 15, 2023. A brief discussion was had regarding a first reading of policy related to Title IX Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (Personnel). Other Policies on which there was a first reading, but no discussion, were those relating to: Automatic External Defibrillators, Pesticide Application on School Property, School Security and Safety, and Sexual Offenders. Second readings of the above will return to next month’s agenda. Dr. Leekin delivered a visual presentation on the NESDES Special Education Trend Report and provided a brief explanation of its components.
Unlike the last meeting, only one resident spoke during public comment.
The next regular Board of Education Meeting is scheduled June 7, 2023, at 7:00 p.m., in the LMC and via Zoom. At publication, the School Building Committee will have met, jointly with the Board of Education, on May10, 2023, to discuss updates received from the architects.
By Michelle L. Santoro