Farmington

Board to decide Highmeadow capacity next month

By David Wallace
C & G Staff Writer

FARMINGTON — The Farmington Public Schools administration recommended to the school board Feb. 7 a plan to add two classrooms — approximately 52 students — to Highmeadow Common Campus at a cost of $210,000 to bring the school’s enrollment more in line with its physical capacity.

The school board is scheduled to vote on the recommendation at its next meeting, 7:30 p.m. March 6 at the Schulman Administrative Center, 32500 Shiawassee.

When the school district closed schools and reconfigured its elementary schools to house kindergarten through fourth grade, Highmeadow was left with two empty classrooms.

Highmeadow is the district’s only complete school of choice. It is a lab school meant to use innovative teaching techniques, and the only way to attend the school is to win a lottery for open classroom seats. The school also gives preference to admitting siblings of lottery winners.

“At every grade level, the number of applications far exceeds the number of open or available spots, or seats, in a classroom,” said Principal Dyanne Sanders. In the past three years, for example, there have been approximately four applicants for every kindergarten spot.

After the school board, amidst redistricting, rejected an idea to make Highmeadow a kindergarten through sixth-grade school, the district took time to study Highmeadow’s capacity with a 12-member committee of teachers and administrators. They came up with three options.

The first option — the one Superintendent Sue Zurvalec recommended with input from her staff — suggested adding the two classrooms of students. The two additional classrooms create a “bubble,” because Highmeadow would have three kindergarten and first-grade classrooms, two second-grade classrooms, two third-grade classrooms and two fourth-grade classrooms.

The following four school years, the bubble would move up through the grade levels, causing staffing and materials challenges. So in 2013-2014, there would be two kindergarten classrooms, three first-grade classrooms, three second-grade classrooms and two classrooms each for the other grades. The bubble would reset every five years. Almost all of the costs — $200,000 — would be in the slightly more than two full- time teaching positions needed to staff the additional classrooms, because the district did not see other elementary enrollments dropping an entire classroom.

The second option would add four classrooms — one for each grade from one to four — while kindergarten would remain in two classrooms. The lottery every year would have 30 additional seats for first-graders. Unlike the first option, the second includes $85,000 in construction costs to turn a large room into two classrooms. The total cost estimate of $600,000 includes about $425,000 in staffing costs.

The third option would convert the large room to three classrooms with the goal of having three sections of every grade phased in over time. It would allow for about 150 additional students and fill the school closest to its physical limit. The estimated price is $750,000 including about $550,000 for staffing. The 12-member committee, which was not charged with considering limits, unanimously recommended this option.

“I think if we were in a perfect world with the resources that we once had, and they weren’t as constrained as they are, we would have had a similar recommendation for option three,” said Zurvalec. “But given those limited resources and the other factors that play into (it), the location of the school, the community, the recommendation after input from our central office team that I am making is that you approve option one.”

She felt the third option’s price tag was too much, considering other district needs.

“Adding back the two classrooms would take the enrollment from 260 to about 312, which is about the enrollment that it has been for many years,” said Zurvalec. “That is not a huge cost. It’s the least expensive option, but I think we have to be very transparent about the fact that most of the costs in any of these options come from the staffing costs,” said Zurvalec.

Traffic is another consideration.

“To expand it to the extent that option three would provide and add those classrooms, we would be significantly adding to the traffic flow in the neighborhoods, and we’re trying to minimize that, given the concerns that exist right now,” said Zurvalec.

The district dropped transportation to Highmeadow four years ago.

“Transportation, even in a modified form, really wasn’t possible due to start times of the school, due to there is no bus loop at Highmeadow — that was eliminated when we eliminated transportation — so cars and buses would have to come and go through the same traffic patterns, which would cause a problem, and the asphalt parking lot was not made for commercial use, so it couldn’t handle the weight of the buses,” Executive Director for K-12 Instruction Mark Wilson said.

Parent David Anderson raised several concerns.

“As a board, you enacted your plan to reconfigure the district citing economic conditions and fiscal responsibility. Today you listened to a team present options that will likely increase the district annual expenses by more than $200,000,” said Anderson. He questioned where the district would get the money, given decreasing revenues and increasing expenses, and what return on the investment the district might expect.

“The current enrollment of approximately 3,800 K-four students is below the most pessimistic Stanfred (Consultants enrollment) projections by more than 50 students. Isn’t the taking of students from schools to bolster the utilization of a single building in the face of declining enrollment akin to robbing Paul to pay Peter?” said Anderson.

You can reach C & G Staff Writer David Wallace at dwallace@candgnews.com or at (586)498-1053.