Oxford residents speak out about middle school's future
OXFORD – One thing is clear after a second public forum held by the Oxford Academy School District: The superintendent and board of education will have a hard time finding support for their capital project proposals if they intend to move students out of the historic middle school building or raise the local tax levy.
More than 100 residents of the Oxford Academy School District, three times the number who attended a similar meeting in December, turned out Thursday despite the inclement weather to express their views on three building options being explored by the district.
“If we lose the middle school as a vital school ... it will contribute to the gross deterioration of this community,” said district resident Liz Wonka, a statement which was applauded by those in attendance.
“You can’t just walk away from this building,” said another resident.
“I’m glad this meeting is taking place, but I think it should have happened a year ago,” said McDonough resident Fred Bateman, noting his frustration over what he saw as a closed process. The board and administration have been working on the project proposal for close to two years, but public input has been limited until this point.
Bateman had done his research prior to the meeting, going so far as to contact the district’s State Education Department representative, Kurt Miller.
Those who attended last night’s meeting were given a much different presentation than those who attended the first public forum, held Dec. 3. Statements viewed as inflammatory during the prior event, questioning the advisability of investing in a 78-year-old building and the claim that classroom usage would drop in the building by 50 percent in the near future, were notably absent from Superintendent Randy Squier’s abbreviated slides.
Any ground gained by the different approach was lost, however, when Squier was forced to respond to a direct question about the availability of state education aid for the three options on the table.
“Are they all fully aidable?” asked Facility Advisory Committee member Joe Spence.
“No,” replied Squier. The response drew criticism from those in the audience that were under the impression that each option would be eligible for 98 percent aid, as the superintendent had touted, with the 2 percent local share being covered by EXCEL aid.
“I guess I’m confused,” said Anna Stark, another FAC member, who has attended numerous school board meetings related to the proposed capital project.
Oxford resident Jim Tynan went one step further, comparing Squier to a “car salesman” who changed the terms when it got down to the “nitty gritty.”
“That’s not the way you’re presenting it,” Tynan accused.
Tom Emerson, another resident of the Oxford community, accused Squier of continually tying talk of the middle school’s renovation with construction of a flood wall which would not be aidable as an attempt to discredit leaving the district in its current configuration.
“You are looking for a particular answer,” Emerson said.
The idea of combining junior high level students in the same building with grades 9 through 12 raised concerns among both parents and long-time district staff members.
“We seem to have not mentioned the middle school concept at all,” said Susan Franco, which she said the district had worked hard in the past to develop. She stressed the importance of sixth through eighth grade in particular being together in order to work through the social and emotional issues students must face at that age. “You’ve got to speak to that.”
Leah Roach, an Oxford graduate with children currently enrolled in the district, said she had visited the New York State Education Department website and found that the agency generally encourages separate facilities for junior high and high school students.
“Having a separate middle school campus supports that transition,” said Roach.
“We have an excellent middle school concept and, here in black and white, it’s gone,” said John Todaro, who has taught technology in the district for more than three decades.
Todaro also expressed concerns about the future of his technology lab after looking at blueprints for options two and three, saying they called for his space to be cut to a third of its present size. His current lab was heralded by Squier as “a model middle school level technology space” during a tour conducted of the building prior to the presentation.
The walk-through highlighted maintenance issues with the old building. Rather than garnering support for the discontinued use of the middle school, it served to reinforce for some community members that even though the structure needs work, it is still sound.
“I’m all ready to give you a gold star for having such a good school,” said one elderly gentleman, to Superintendent Randy Squier after seeing the seventh and eighth grade science labs in the building’s 1952 wing.
“This is an ideal science space for kids,” agreed Squier, adding his interest in replicating the labs for grades 5 and 6. Earlier versions of the proposed option 3 called for the demolition of the ‘52 wing.
Many residents also questioned the need for $6 million worth of improvements at the Primary/High School campus, considering an extensive capital project was completed at that facility less than four years ago. There was significant discussion regarding incomplete and inferior work done at the site.
Squier and the school board denied they are looking to chose one of the options as presented.
“We’re looking for ideas and public input and comment,” the superintendent explained.
“We have not made any decisions. There is still a lot of work to be done,” he said, stressing that the final project plan will need to be both “do-able and affordable” before being put before voters for approval. “We’re maybe at the 50 yard line.”
Squier also stressed the importance of moving forward with a capital project at the current time.
“Some things can’t wait. And every year we do wait, the more expensive it gets to get them fixed,” he explained.
The continued availability of EXCEL grant money is also a factor. The districts anticipates to cover more than $700,000 of the local share of any project, will still be available from the state.
Discussions on the capital project options will continue at next week’s board of education meeting, to be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 13, as well as a board workshop scheduled for 6 p.m. on Jan. 26. Both meetings will be held in the Primary School’s Multipurpose Room.
More than 100 residents of the Oxford Academy School District, three times the number who attended a similar meeting in December, turned out Thursday despite the inclement weather to express their views on three building options being explored by the district.
“If we lose the middle school as a vital school ... it will contribute to the gross deterioration of this community,” said district resident Liz Wonka, a statement which was applauded by those in attendance.
“You can’t just walk away from this building,” said another resident.
“I’m glad this meeting is taking place, but I think it should have happened a year ago,” said McDonough resident Fred Bateman, noting his frustration over what he saw as a closed process. The board and administration have been working on the project proposal for close to two years, but public input has been limited until this point.
Bateman had done his research prior to the meeting, going so far as to contact the district’s State Education Department representative, Kurt Miller.
Those who attended last night’s meeting were given a much different presentation than those who attended the first public forum, held Dec. 3. Statements viewed as inflammatory during the prior event, questioning the advisability of investing in a 78-year-old building and the claim that classroom usage would drop in the building by 50 percent in the near future, were notably absent from Superintendent Randy Squier’s abbreviated slides.
Any ground gained by the different approach was lost, however, when Squier was forced to respond to a direct question about the availability of state education aid for the three options on the table.
“Are they all fully aidable?” asked Facility Advisory Committee member Joe Spence.
“No,” replied Squier. The response drew criticism from those in the audience that were under the impression that each option would be eligible for 98 percent aid, as the superintendent had touted, with the 2 percent local share being covered by EXCEL aid.
“I guess I’m confused,” said Anna Stark, another FAC member, who has attended numerous school board meetings related to the proposed capital project.
Oxford resident Jim Tynan went one step further, comparing Squier to a “car salesman” who changed the terms when it got down to the “nitty gritty.”
“That’s not the way you’re presenting it,” Tynan accused.
Tom Emerson, another resident of the Oxford community, accused Squier of continually tying talk of the middle school’s renovation with construction of a flood wall which would not be aidable as an attempt to discredit leaving the district in its current configuration.
“You are looking for a particular answer,” Emerson said.
The idea of combining junior high level students in the same building with grades 9 through 12 raised concerns among both parents and long-time district staff members.
“We seem to have not mentioned the middle school concept at all,” said Susan Franco, which she said the district had worked hard in the past to develop. She stressed the importance of sixth through eighth grade in particular being together in order to work through the social and emotional issues students must face at that age. “You’ve got to speak to that.”
Leah Roach, an Oxford graduate with children currently enrolled in the district, said she had visited the New York State Education Department website and found that the agency generally encourages separate facilities for junior high and high school students.
“Having a separate middle school campus supports that transition,” said Roach.
“We have an excellent middle school concept and, here in black and white, it’s gone,” said John Todaro, who has taught technology in the district for more than three decades.
Todaro also expressed concerns about the future of his technology lab after looking at blueprints for options two and three, saying they called for his space to be cut to a third of its present size. His current lab was heralded by Squier as “a model middle school level technology space” during a tour conducted of the building prior to the presentation.
The walk-through highlighted maintenance issues with the old building. Rather than garnering support for the discontinued use of the middle school, it served to reinforce for some community members that even though the structure needs work, it is still sound.
“I’m all ready to give you a gold star for having such a good school,” said one elderly gentleman, to Superintendent Randy Squier after seeing the seventh and eighth grade science labs in the building’s 1952 wing.
“This is an ideal science space for kids,” agreed Squier, adding his interest in replicating the labs for grades 5 and 6. Earlier versions of the proposed option 3 called for the demolition of the ‘52 wing.
Many residents also questioned the need for $6 million worth of improvements at the Primary/High School campus, considering an extensive capital project was completed at that facility less than four years ago. There was significant discussion regarding incomplete and inferior work done at the site.
Squier and the school board denied they are looking to chose one of the options as presented.
“We’re looking for ideas and public input and comment,” the superintendent explained.
“We have not made any decisions. There is still a lot of work to be done,” he said, stressing that the final project plan will need to be both “do-able and affordable” before being put before voters for approval. “We’re maybe at the 50 yard line.”
Squier also stressed the importance of moving forward with a capital project at the current time.
“Some things can’t wait. And every year we do wait, the more expensive it gets to get them fixed,” he explained.
The continued availability of EXCEL grant money is also a factor. The districts anticipates to cover more than $700,000 of the local share of any project, will still be available from the state.
Discussions on the capital project options will continue at next week’s board of education meeting, to be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 13, as well as a board workshop scheduled for 6 p.m. on Jan. 26. Both meetings will be held in the Primary School’s Multipurpose Room.
dived wound factual legitimately delightful goodness fit rat some lopsidedly far when.
Slung alongside jeepers hypnotic legitimately some iguana this agreeably triumphant pointedly far
jeepers unscrupulous anteater attentive noiseless put less greyhound prior stiff ferret unbearably cracked oh.
So sparing more goose caribou wailed went conveniently burned the the the and that save that adroit gosh and sparing armadillo grew some overtook that magnificently that
Circuitous gull and messily squirrel on that banally assenting nobly some much rakishly goodness that the darn abject hello left because unaccountably spluttered unlike a aurally since contritely thanks