Report Inappropriate Comments

Mr. Jansson is correct, the SCRs provide guidelines for total educational space, which are actually standards, for reimbursement. The reason for the recommended guidelines, and the reason the state will reimburse based on these numbers, even in difficult financial times,, is that when analyzing the functional space in a school facility, these are the modern day standards for educational space. When using the classrooms times the number of allowable students per class (either by union contract or fire code), you leave out all the educational programming and support functions needed (appropriate classrooms, classroom sizing and need for technology, project planning) level groupings, special services, special use areas such as library, gym, music, art, science, cafeteria, auditorium, storage, custodial space, technology, staff offices, meeting areas, parking, traffic circulation, guidance and assistance space, sports programming, medical space, etc.) These are the spaces required to make a building, a modern day school, and not just a single classroom environment. As South Kingstown school district's Long Range Facility Plan, developed by the same consultants that Warwick has used for its enrollment projections, concludes after their analysis of Current Operating Capacity (COC) vs. Planned Operating Capacity (POC), "Thus it is not enough to "count classrooms". The plan also outlines some of the programatic changes in education over the past fifty years that have led to the need for more space in our schools(hence, the RIDE SCR standards), examines each facility based on these modern day needs, and outlines deficiencies for each building. This long term approach to analyzing and planning for every school district facility at the same time is critical, even when the immediate focus is at the high school or junior high school level because changes in kindergarten or a junior to middle school model, or overcrowding/substandard space at any one level of education or school building, impacts the entire system. Cedar Hill is a perfect example of the need to look at all levels of education. Enrollment at the school over the past four years has been roughly between 400-450 students, at those levels, I have witnessed fire code issues, significant privacy concerns for both students and staff, and continued worries each year that the art or music room would not exist. There is one all purpose area used for grade level assembly, school assemblies, lunch, and gym. When you have a grade level of 75 students, and they have a project or performance, you cannot safely house the students, their projects, and invite both parents to view the grade's efforts at one time. School wide events cannot take place inside the school and there are constant scheduling issues trying to coordinate with Toll Gate and Winman events. There are no areas to get a grade level together during the school day without interrupting gym or lunch periods unless students go outside, to safely have a school music or instrument assembly and invite participating students parents to attend, you would need 3-4 assemblies to accommodate everyone, which interrupts gym for the day and creates issues around lunch. The traffic circulation at the school includes all the buses, parents cars, and pedestrians, and until three years ago when parents began volunteering everyday at the school to cross students in front of the bus lane and a substitute principal assigned a staff member to this post last year, small children were expected to cross in front of buses each day to enter the schoolyard. The teachers, staff, and parents at Cedar Hill put tremendous effort into managing these difficult space and safety issues everyday but it does not allow for the same educational experience as in other schools and takes valuable time away from everyone involved. The thought that the school could house up to 525 students, as the administration insists, is not feasible in present day education unless we, as a city, determine that our principles for education and the programming will be at standards set decades ago. As we embark on a facilities planning process, one of the first tasks should be an honest discussion of our educational values and their the space implications and those should be clearly defined before developing solutions. Bandaid, short term solutions should not be implemented without a long term plan for all the schools in Warwick. One critical principle that should be embraced throughout all planning is educational equity across all programs and school buildings in the city. I thought that the directive from the school committee was to develop a long term facilities plan but it seems we are continuing in the direction we have followed for decades of crisis management and short term focus. We need to follow our neighboring district's leads (South Kingstown, Newport, East Greenwich, etc.) and plan for our city's future through embracing city wide values for education. Warwick will not be sustainable in the future without updated school infrastructure and we will not obtain it unless we stop focusing on short term, 1-2 year focus and plan for the 20-30 years needed for significant change.