The Greenfield School Committee is being asked to take a vote next month that will most likely have a huge long-term effect upon the children of Greenfield. A research firm presented the committee with four potential options for how to best reconfigure the district’s schools, with a focus on educational, social and racial equity.

Given that two of the three Reenvisioning Our School Facilities Subcommittee members, a majority of parents who attended public forums on the reconfiguration, and elementary teachers who attended a meeting with the subcommittee overwhelmingly favored a model that converted the three current elementary schools into K-5 schools, it is surprising and troubling that the subcommittee has eliminated that favored option without providing any research to support her decision.

In a Feb. 10 Recorder article, “Subcommittee shares plan for grade-level configuration,” the chairwoman of the reconfiguration subcommittee, Jean Wall, made the statement that they could not present the K-5, Option 4 for a vote by the whole School Committee. This is because the superintendent and mayor have informed them that this favored option would require significant construction on the schools, and there is no money available.

One would think that removing this favored option would come after much fact-finding. However, when members of the subcommittee asked the superintendent why Option 4 required construction and Option 1 that she desired would not, they received an email from her stating that she didn’t know the details of what type of construction was needed and how much it might cost for any of the options. Likewise, the mayor gave no details when asked for the same information.

So what are these two options? For both Option 1 and Option 4, the fifth graders would be brought from the Middle School back to the elementary schools, and the eighth graders would be brought back to the Middle School from the High School. No differences here.

Option 1, which had the worst feedback from parents, teachers, and the majority of the subcommittee members, would take the three current elementary schools that are each currently configured for grades K-4, and make one of them a K-1 school, another a grade 2-3 school, and the third a grade 4-5 school. There are currently classrooms and other facilities in each school made for kindergarten through fifth graders. Those would need to be reconfigured and constructed to fit only K-1, only 2-3, and only 4-5. Loads of physical reconfiguring necessary.

Option 4 would have the same number of students divided into the same three schools, except the schools would each be K-5, locally situated schools. How in the world would more construction be needed for schools that were originally configured for these grades K-5? Can everyone stop saying this option would take “significant construction,” when no one can supply any evidence for that assertion, and the opposite is likely the case.

It would appear that the best educational option for the students (a local school, younger siblings traveling together with older siblings on the bus, continuity between grade level teachers, etc.) is likely the least expensive of the two and the easiest to implement. In addition, this Option 4 (K-5) would likely have fewer students traveling further on buses, while we would still be able to make sure where a student goes to school is equitable, unlike how the schools are unfairly configured now.

I am a resident of Greenfield, and also have 46 years of experience both teaching and collaborating with school districts in Massachusetts and around the country. Therefore, I say with some informed skepticism that it appears that just the opposite of what the superintendent and mayor are stating about construction costs would be the case.

Why are the superintendent and mayor forcing a model upon the School Committee and ultimately upon our children that is less desired by parents, and less educationally sound, and thus rejected by the teachers?

As much as I want to see the schools have equity as soon as possible, I strongly urge the School Committee to not take a vote on this issue until the subcommittee is supplied with details of why the Option 4 (K-5) configuration would require significant construction costs and the Option 1 (K-1, 2-3, 4-5) model would not.

These details of one compared to the other should not only show what would need to be done, but what the approximate costs would be. Otherwise, the School Committee will be making a decision blindfolded that will affect our children for decades.

Paul Jablon lives in Greenfield.

]]>