In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I have lived in Ipswich’s central village since moving here in 1984. All three of our children graduated from Ipswich High School — our two youngest attended Winthrop School. Even though we no longer have children at Winthrop, we still consider that small neighborhood school as a critical community asset, contributing value to our home investment at Woods Lane.
My wife and I have always supported funding for our public schools, voting for all of the previous override requests. But this current proposal is different. Why? Because it asks us to abandon what our community has valued and invested in over time. Two small community schools, each with its own “culture” and set of strengths.
Ipswich has always demonstrated that it is not just a beautiful place to live, but an inclusive place as well. It’s hard not to develop a sense of ourselves across time when you drive or walk down High Street. We respect the old and do our best to accommodate the new in creative ways. We have achieved a “sense of place.” This proposal erodes that progress. It chooses one beneficiary over another, leaving others irrevocably behind. Has our collective memory grown that short?
There is a clear difference between intent and impact. While the intentions of all were good in this endeavor, the impact can’t be denied. For vulnerable families living in designated areas in town outside of walking zones for the new building project, the project itself will create additional barriers, causing an enhanced disparate disadvantage to these children and families. This issue has been raised over and over again to no discussion or resolution. Is this one school proposal truly best for all students?
There remains one undeniable and established fact throughout this discussion: Small neighborhood schools work best for kids, families and teachers/administrators. Equally important, Winthrop School and its younger sibling Doyon School have proven over time to work well for our community.
The one school at the Doyon site is a default option and asks us to contradict our own guiding principles of sound community land use planning in favor of creating a full “commuter” school well outside of our village center. The result – more time and precious financial resources spent on transportation and logistics – forever. During my MSBA funding research, I found examples of addition/ renovation projects as well as new construction, but there were absolute zero examples of school districts who decided to abandon a valuable central village location in pursuit of state funding.
The one school proponents have attacked both schools, labeling them “old” and “dilapidated.”
In reality, these two steel frame, concrete and masonry structures are in remarkably good condition. Doyon’s windows and doors were replaced with commercial-grade aluminum units in 2003-04. The roof was replaced in 2005-06. Its most recent wing was added to the rear in 1995.
Winthrop School’s addition was added in 1988-1989. It’s windows are all good quality Andersen units replaced in a similar timeframe as Doyon’s. The roof was also replaced in 2006 utilizing
MSBA funding support. As a result, if Ipswich decides to abandon this building as a school use, it will be required to reimburse a pro-rated portion of that grant based upon a 20-year life span for the roof. Clearly, these buildings and investments need not be considered disposable.
What lessons can we learn from the Pine Grove School renovation, a 1954 vintage elementary school in Rowley? First, properly executed renovation creates a new learning environment, enough to satisfy the MSBA’s flexible requirements and realize equal or better reimbursement rates for eligible construction costs. The same principles can be applied to addition/renovation projects. Second, comprehensive renovation can be planned in a multi-phased manner to minimize disruption and take full advantage of summer season breaks and even holiday periods. The Pine Grove project will take place in five phases over 18 months. The construction process is being used as a teaching opportunity for the students. To gain more insight from this project, please contact Deborah Eagan, Rowley Town Administrator. She also happens to be an Ipswich resident and former Winthrop School parent.
Are our elementary schools really over-crowded? Although rarely discussed, this costly new school proposal is being presented against a backdrop of steadily declining enrollment. It’s hard to imagine, but peak enrollment occurred in 2005 with Winthrop at 504 students and Doyon at 480. Current enrollments now stand at about 350 students each, and have continued to fall during the feasibility study process. In a letter dated December 2014, then superintendent, Dr. William Hart, submitted a Doyon School Space Reallocation Plan to the MSBA. To quote from that document: “The plan is designed for a population of 350 students. The reduction in student population allows for significant enhancements to the current school floor plan.” It goes on to discuss four major plan components: Reassigned Programming Space improving the School Psychologist office and Teachers Room. Reallocated Space “affords ELL and reading services to be conducted in a full size classroom” and it “affords three dedicated classrooms to support our comprehensive music program.” A third component provides Conference Space and Secured Storage. In the fourth component Ipswich Public Schools proposes to move the Pre-K Programs into one building to support program continuity and supply appropriate space. Why can’t this type of sensible space reallocation planning combined with modest new additions address our “educational plan” goals in a more fiscally responsible manner?
It’s easy to say “no” without offering a solution, a path forward. In reality, the two strong schools solution has been right in front of us all the time.
We can do better. We must do better. We must honor and respect the positive and beneficial characteristics inherent in both small schools at both sites. We should have faith that our previous investments in both school communities remains the right thing to do educationally and financially. Investing in 21st century education should reinforce that critical triangle – the kids, their families and their teachers. The “solution” should not tear at the fabric of our community in order to achieve that goal.
Please attend Town Meeting on May 8 and voice your support for two, strong elementary schools in Ipswich. Vote “no” on Article 5. Thank you. — Carl Gardner, Woods Lane
Awesome perspective. Well done.