OXFORD – It looks like it is back to the drawing board once more for Oxford’s facility planning committee. During a three-hour board of education workshop Monday night, the group’s proposal for a Phase II capital project which would reconfigure grades among the school system’s current buildings was shot down – not once, but twice.
The first nail in the ill-fated proposal’s coffin came from representatives from the district’s faculty and support staff, who summarized the input provided by their colleagues during two “cafe style” forums held over the last two weeks.
“The overwhelming comments were not in favor of option 2,” explained Primary/High School Librarian Margaret Fensen, who represented some of the faculty members who participated in the process.
The information gathering sessions, organized by administrators, were done at the behest of the committee following a recommendation by former Johnson City Superintendent Larry Rowe, who facilitated the group’s first two meetings.
The proposal put before them was to shift the district’s youngest students - UPK through grade 2 - to the current Middle School, and consolidating grades 3 through 12 at the Primary/High School campus. Doing so would require extensive reconstruction at each facility, and possibly some new construction in terms of additions.
Fensen said the majority of teachers supported leaving the district’s existing configuration as is, while making necessary renovations to the current facilities. Some of the suggestions they had for improving the facilities, she explained, included updating technology, upgrading the school’s athletic fields and facilities, and considering moving the bus garage to another location.
Fensen’s comments were echoed by Diane Bucino, a Middle School Spanish teacher who recently completed an administrative internship with the district.
Bucino said she saw “virtually no support” for reconfiguration in the comments provided by her colleagues. The message she relayed was to “keep the (current) configuration, and improve the Middle School for student and staff safety.” There was also a feeling that the district should proceed slowly, and not rush into anything, she said.
“No one really wants to move forward with any construction,” Bucino said, explaining that most felt the district should “simply maintain and improve” the current facilities. Suggestions were also made to improve technology, provide additional courses to better prepare students for college and to maintain staffing levels.
The district’s support staff held similar views, which were communicated by Primary School Nurse Liz Loughren.
“Overall, we didn’t feel it was a good idea,” Loughren said, summarizing the comments of her peers. Some of the concerns they had, she said, involved the expense involved with any capital project, state aid cuts and the district’s declining enrollment. Their recommendations for improving the facilities included adding gym space and upgrading the athletic facilities, as well as placing more of an emphasis on basic education and hands-on learning.
According to Loughren, there was a feeling that the Phase I capital project approved by district voters last fall would make the school environment healthier and safer for students, faculty and staff.
“After the repairs are made ... we think everything else should be left as is,” she said.
The second, and seemingly final blow to the option 2 proposal came when Bernie Brown of the Bernier Carr Group, the architectural design firm retained by the district, relayed the message that the State Education Department were unlikely to aid such a project given the district’s declining enrollment.
“I verified all this by phone today,” said Brown, who explained that since 2008, SED has recommended has been for Oxford to consolidate its educational facility to the Primary/High School campus.
As a result of his most recent conversation with a representative from SED, he said it had been made very clear that no new construction - including additions - would be aided by the state as long as the district maintained two campuses.
“They don’t care about the history; they don’t care about public sentiment. They only care about how the money is used,” Brown reported, stressing that this was the state’s stance, not his own.
The announcement was met with consternation by some of the community and committee members present.
“I won’t comment on SED’s values,” said Committee Member Fred Lanfear, president of the Oxford Historical Society and a retired teacher.
“The fix is in,” he said, comparing the state agency to a python with its “financial coils” around the district’s neck, trying to “squeeze” it into consolidation.
In consideration of the feedback obtained from the faculty and staff, as well as Brown’s input, Superintendent Randy Squier recommended that the committee revisit the goals established two years ago at the beginning of the process. He also suggested posing a new question to stakeholders, focused on gathering ideas regarding what could be done within the district’s existing footprint “that would provide the greatest positive impact for the benefit of students, staff and community.”
That feedback will then be reviewed at the next capital project planning meeting, a date for which has not yet been set.
Video recordings have been made of each of the meetings to date. Those recordings, as well as documents related to the capital project, can be accessed by visiting the district’s website, www.oxac.org.