As I’ve previously posted, the Neary Building Committee scheduled two public forums for this week to pitch to the public about why they think the project is the right path for the Town’s educational system.
This week’s meetings aren’t offering a hybrid or virtual option for participating. So, if you have questions you want to ask, you’ll want to make plans to attend in person.
One was scheduled for this morning at Woodward School. But if you missed that, there’s another chance this Thursday night, April 10th at 7:00 pm. The event will be held in the Trottier Middle School auditorium.
(I asked if the Trottier event would be recorded to share on YouTube. The committee’s Chair responded that he hoped it would be, but didn’t have confirmation from Southborough Access Media yet if they will be able to do that.)
The committee’s agenda describes this as a “Presentation to community on educational benefits and schematic design of proposed new Grades 2-5 School”.
The flyer specifies that they will address “grade configuration”. So, expect the committee to address (directly or indirectly) why they disagree with a “Plan B” that project opponents have floated.
Plan B advocates argue against the need for an expensive new four grade school building. The alternative pitch is to make better use of our existing schools. They recommend closing Neary School and moving grades 4-5 to other schools. The reconfiguration of grades includes shifting 5th grade students to Trottier Middle School.
The Southborough School Committee has supported the assertion of the NSBORO Schools administration that there are educational reasons that 5th graders shouldn’t be incorporated into the middle school.
Some residents have pointed to other Massachusetts communities where the middle schools are grades 5-8 to argue against the schools’ position.
On the Neary Building Committee’s website, the following explanation was posted under FAQs to explain why they are against combining grades 5-8:
The Public Schools of Southborough’s leadership team does not support the inclusion of fifth-grade students at the P. Brent Trottier Middle School. The Statement of Interest (SOI) submitted to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) did not include the study of moving grade five to the P. Brent Trottier Middle School, and therefore, it was not an option outlined in MSBA’s invitation to the Town of Southborough to enter its Core Building Program. The rationale for not supporting a five through grade eight configuration is as follows:
- Developmental Responsiveness: Fifth-grade students are significantly younger—both socially and emotionally than their middle school peers. Fifth graders may not be ready for a middle school environment. Research* supports the importance of keeping fifth grade as part of the elementary experience and is further reinforced by research that suggests that even sixth grade is better suited to remain at the elementary school level. Furthermore, there is not widespread support from elementary parents to have fifth graders be a part of the middle school.
- Academics and Teaching and Learning: Academically, the fifth-grade curriculum is closely aligned with kindergarten through grade five in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies, in terms of curriculum, assessment practices, and instructional models designed specifically for elementary learners.
Educators in Grade Five participate in professional development and collaboration with their colleagues in Kindergarten through grade four, who use the same curricular resources, which are different from the resources used in grades six through eight. Integrating fifth grade into a middle school structure would compromise developmental appropriateness and program quality in the core academic disciplines.- Educator Licensure: The middle school educator license is typically content-specific and covers six through eight. The elementary educator license is typically for grades one through grade. Each year the number of sections at each grade level is evaluated and educators shift grade levels to accommodate the number of sections required.
Operational Challenges: Adding fifth-grade students to the middle school model does not align with the carefully planned transitions, such as intentionally separating bus schedules to segment younger students from older peer influences.
- Challenges with scheduling
- Four lunch periods
- Scheduling specials
- Students on buses with students in grades six through twelve
- School design does not allow for a separate grade-five wing
Lastly, adding Grade Five to the P. Brent Trottier Middle School was studied In 2021-2022, by the Capital Planning Committee – School Research Subcommittee as part of its evaluation of grade-level configuration options. The subcommittee, which included ex-officio school leaders, an Advisory Committee, a School Committee, and a Capital Planning Committee member, evaluated several grade configuration options, including moving fifth grade to the P. Brent Trottier Middle School. As a result of its work, the Capital Planning Committee – School Research Subcommittee did not recommend the option for further consideration/study. The work of the Capital Planning Committee – School Research Subcommittee was the foundational document to create the SOI that was submitted to the MSBA.
*School Grade Configuration Research
National Middle School Association (now AMLE)
Research Summaries and Position Papers
- Cook, MacCoun, Muschkin & Vigdor (2008)
“Should Sixth Grade Be in Elementary or Middle School?” – Journal of Policy Analysis and Management- Offenberg, R. M. (2001)
The Efficacy of Philadelphia’s K-to-8 Schools Compared to Middle Grades Schools – Middle School Journal- Alspaugh, J. W. (1998)
Achievement Loss Associated with the Transition to Middle School and High School – Journal of Educational Research- Paglin & Fager (1997)
Grade Configuration: Who Goes Where? – Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
The committee will also explain why they believe that their project’s proposal for grouping grades Pre-K to 1 and 2-5 are the best educational decision.
In addition, they’ll talk about the design of the proposed new building and why they believe the improved layout and new features missing the current schools lack will enhance learning. (You can read more about that here.)
Convincing voters that the improvements are worth investing in is a critical task for the committee. One of the arguments opponents have been making is that the Town should be investing in teachers rather than buildings.
The committee also has to overcome concerns that some residents have raised over the site being downhill from an old landfill. To address that, they have scheduled another forum dedicated to the topic for April 16th at 7:00 pm at Trottier.
To move the Neary Building Project forward, the Town will need to convince 2/3 of voters that turn out to vote at a Special Town Meeting on May 10th to approve borrowing for the project that is expected to cost the Town $68M. (If that passes, they’ll also need the majority of voters in the May 13th Town election to approve the tax increase that comes with it.)
Last week, forums that focused on project finances presented the estimated annual tax increase of $703 per average home.1
That figure is the assumed average debt service payments over 30 years beginning in 2032. That doesn’t specify tax costs in the next few years. (You can read more about those costs here.) Stay tuned for more info on the finances, and other elements of the building project, in future posts.
You can also catch up directly by watching last Monday’s financial forum here and the general project overview forum here.
- That estimate is based on the average home value. The value listed in the FAQs is misleading out context. ($1.2M is the 2032 ave. projected value.) To look at how much higher or lower the tax impact might be for your home, you can compare your FY25 assessed value (on your most recent property tax bill or the Assessor’s property database) with the FY25 average home value of $957,500.
