To the Editor:
As elected Board of Education (BOE) members, we have a fiduciary responsibility to both the State of Connecticut and the town of Stratford to advocate for the education and safety of our students. Our goal is to continue to provide all Stratford students with the best learning environment achievable, increase quality instruction, and improve student achievement. We also have a responsibility to provide residents with transparency as to the actions we take to achieve these goals.
Following is our attempt to provide further transparency regarding the Stratford High School project:
We wish to clarify the misconception of the Board’s action with regard to building a new high school at the Longbrook location. The Board was given only two viable options by the Town and/or architects. The Board was not involved in selecting which town sites might have been appropriate to build a new high school. We were given two options to consider “A” and “B”, and proceeded to follow the process mentioned below.
Expansion of SHS is required in order for the school to obtain a renewal of accreditation from the State of Connecticut. The last accreditation review indicated that the total square footage of the facility is too small for the number of enrolled students, and classroom size does not meet the latest 21st century state requirements.
Actions taken by the board follow a process that, for the most part, are vetted by sub-committees, discussed in detail, and submitted with approval recommendations to the board as a whole. Accordingly, the following process took place for the Stratford High School project:
1. The Plant and Planning Sub-committee was presented with two options. Sub-committee members unanimously approved “Option B” for building a new school, versus “Option A” which was to renovate existing facility.
2. On Friday April 11, the BOE as a whole held a special meeting (due to the June deadline for obtaining the state grant reimbursement), and voted 4 to 2 in favor of constructing a new SHS building under “Option B”. The recommendation is then forwarded to the town Building Needs Committee for their approval.
3. The pros of “Option B” are that it would: a) provide 21st century classrooms in compliance with state mandate, b) expand the size of the gymnasium, c) would be completed one year earlier than renovation, d) would provide easy access to Penders Field for athletics events, and e) be less disruptive to students’ learning environment.
4. The cons of “Option B” are that it would require utilization of the town’s limited open space, near a residential neighborhood.
The renovation of SHS under “Option A” will: a) take longer to construct, b) be more disruptive to students as they transfer from one existing building section to a new section, c) not include expansion of present gymnasium, d) potentially limit parking areas, and e) potentially include increased project costs and delayed construction schedule due to the possible discovery of hazardous materials in existing building (i.e. section built in 1935).
In summary:
• The BOE determines needs, preferences and educational specifications.
• The town owns the school buildings, and has final approval for construction of a new school, or renovation of an existing facility.
• It is the town’s elected officials decision to decide what is in the best interest of both its students and its residents.
• The BOE has submitted what it believes is best for our students education.
As of Monday evening, the Town Council rejected “Option B” to build a new high school. The Board of Education will abide by this decision.
Andrea Veilleux
Board of Education chairman
Bob Chaloux
Board of Education vice chairman