Having no children in the Newton Schools I have not been following some of the discussions on school building and renovations. I have visited some of the schools and can see that renovations are really needed. At last night Newton Highlands Area Council meeting we had a discussion on the large expansion of the Zervas school and it dawned on me what folks are talking about when I hear “a 16th school”.
One thing I do value in Newton is my ability to walk to many of the shops and services I use. It seems that we have lost the value of that benefit when it comes to school planning. Bruce Henderson has a column coming out in the tab discussing some of these topics and provided a link (Updated Link) for the more online inclined. One point made resonates with me.
Instead of making our schools too large,
we should do what we can to make
them walking-accessible for as much of
Newton as possible. This means aiming
for three classes per grade instead of
four, and building a 16th school where it
will be needed most for future growth.
Walk-able schools, less busing, less traffic, less gridlock, more exercise for kids, what am I missing?
I sounds like the idea of locating schools near kids is not in the plan for Newton and the next step is increasing Zervas from 320 students to 490. (Updated link) With many discussions on the effects of new development on current schools is it reasonable to ask that we consider new schools near new population areas, Upper Falls has been one such idea.
The answer to this question may be “The Public has spoken” when question 1 was approved during last year’s override vote. It appears that “address the condition and capacity of Zervas Elementary School” means a bigger school although I suspect that another way to “address capacity” is locating the capacity to a more suitable location.
One concern raised last night is it is now a done deal with upcoming votes in the School Committee and Austin Street taking the attention of the BOA.
If this is a topic worth talking about it may be a good idea to mention it to members of the School Committee, Board of Aldermen and Mayor to get this on the radar for a more thoughtful process.
Bruce has put forward a thoughtful and compelling argument that deserves to be debated and discussed before the move to expand and consolidate Zervas and perhaps other schools is finalized. Bruce’s article complements a compelling and well researched paper on the benefits of a 16th elementary school that I heard presented by Mark and Maxine Bridger at a recent meeting of the Upper Falls Neighborhood Area Council. All I would ask of the School Committee is that they honestly consider what Bruce, Maxine, Mark and others are now putting on the table even if it seems to fly in the face of what their operating plan is advancing. A bit of inconvenience is certainly preferable to a planning process with blinders on it that may result in mistakes we will all come to regret. One of the worst mistakes that a deliberative body can do is to dismiss something “outside the box” prior to giving it time in the sunlight. We saw a lot of that with Newton North.
I have long been a fan of Bruce’s concept in theory. However, the reality is that most parents and children in this City do not walk their kids to school now. One reason for this is that not everyone in Newton has a “neighborhood school.” We, for example, live about a mile from Zervas. It was not practical to get our kids to and fro at that distance, particularly in winter months when many residents en route do not bother to shovel. Further, there are many parents who do not have, or do not make time to walk their kids from even a shorter distance.
Because Bruce has done a great job or raising the visibility of this issue, there are more who walk their kids to Zervas who otherwise would not. I would like to see the City and NPS get behind Bruce’s effort and get people who can walk, to do so. Part of that, btw, involves sidewalk shoveling enforcement. It seems like a very reasonable goal.
Would love neighborhood schools. My kids will always take a bus because our “neighborhood school” is 1.5 miles meaning we get to pay the bus fee from K-12. It is great that many of our friends live within the neighborhood, but we do not. And now there are Buffer Zones, which means more kids don’t attend neighborhood schools.
And the whole 6-12 grades in one area in south Newton boggles my mind. We have lost the neighborhood for all, and everyone is bussed! And we the parents get to pay for that, every single year!
This is a very worthwhile subject. But a continuation of the discussion needs to include how much we need to invest to achieve more walkable schools (which is of course asking for more school buildings). Each division of schools is asking for a new principal, new custodians, new cafeteria expense, etc. The City has on its plate over $300MM in capital spending in mind over the next five years, only $200MM is funded. We now know that each and every new capital project and expanded operating need requires specific tax overrides. On top of the $300MM in rebuilding is a balance sheet debt for OPEB. Wants v. Needs. Cost v. Benefit. We need to see the projections.
In my opinion, the most pressing need for a new school in Newton is not another elementary school, it’s a middle school in the Auburndale area. Busing kids who live in Auburndale all the way to Oak Hill, is ridiculous. I’m not gonna hold my breath waiting for that change to happen.
Now that my youngest is about to graduate, and my 22 year run as a public school parent is about to come to an end, I have no problem calling it like I see it. For the last two decades the biggest surprise the School Committee has shown me, is that they are capable of dressing themselves in the morning. They haven’t learned from the past. They completely lack creative problem solving skills. And the thing they are the absolute best at, is keeping things the same.
I think that the Zervas rebuild is related to the middle and high school issues because the redistricting that will be coming after the buildings are done will result in more kids getting sent to different middle and high schools.
This whole plan is a very oddly complex solution to a problem that is screaming for a simpler one. The enrollment crunch, which is a direct result of closing and selling off too many elementary schools years ago, is being solved by building larger and larger elementary schools where the growth isn’t happening, leaving entire villages with no school that do in fact have growth.
As far as costs are concerned, it’s inefficient to destroy 320 seats and then spend $40+ million to build 490 in the same spot, increasing annual busing costs for years into the future. And there is no way to have a 490-student Zervas without increasing staff in that building anyway. They currently have one principal and one admin in the office. So the added personnel for the new Zervas should be allocated to an Upper Falls school. And the cost of building that school would be significantly offset by not spending $40 million on Zervas. The number of teachers doesn’t change at all. You need them for N students regardless of whether they walk or are bused across the city.
more fodder for having more walkable schools.. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/02/kids-who-walk-or-bike-school-concentrate-better-study-shows/4585/
Like Mike Striar, my youngest graduates from North this year. For almost ten years I walked my kids to the Horace Mann school almost everyday on my way to the commuter rail in Newtonville. I still miss those walks and the talks we would have on the way to school every morning. They walked themselves to Day and North most of the year (although they sometimes caught rides with friends). So I am absolutely a fan of walkable, neighborhood schools. As Bruce Henderson points out, Newton used to have them and, although times have changed, I think more people would walk their kids to school if they could. It sure beats the traffic jams in the blue zone at drop off and pick up times.
During the election campaign last Fall, I heard from a lot of people on the south side of the city who wanted a new elementary school that their children did not have to ride the bus to get to. But I fear that the train has already left the station and that we will not see a 16th elementary school anytime soon, if ever. From what I am hearing from folks who are on the Zervas working group, the best the city could offer is free busing to Upper Falls elementary school students.
Ted, is that can’t or won’t? I was at the last Zervas working group meeting and my impression is that it’s more the latter.
Steven, you might very well think that, I couldn’t possibly comment. #Houseofcards
Just to be clear, I’m not recommending that there be direct correspondence between schools and villages. Years ago, Newton did a terrific job of laying out elementary schools — “like eggs in a carton” — to cover the city so that most homes were within a half-mile of a school. This map shows how all 15 current and 8 former elementary schools covered the city — and shows that they did not necessarily line up with 13 village centers.
We could significantly increase walkability by adding a 16th school in Upper Falls. This map shows current elementary schools relative to future growth of new homes as projected in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. And it shows how a new 16th school in the DPW space on Elliot Street would accommodate a significant part of that growth.
I get Bruce’s point, but from a practical standpoint: Didn’t we have a vote on this?
I am neutral on the issue of a 16th/UF school, but I thought that the override vote specifically called for a Zervas plan. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in what way did we call for opening up the discussion for an Upper Falls option (or anyplace else)? If the supporters for another option wanted it considered, why didn’t they have it placed on the ballot?
From my standpoint as a voter, Question 1 was about a lot of things that lots of people care about. The fire department, paving the roads, the schools *in general*, public safety personnel, and somewhere in the middle was a line about Zervas. There was nothing in the ballot question about spending $40 million to replace Zervas. It was about raising the tax base by $8.4 million for all of the above. So if we did what Zervas actually needs – a modest renovation and expansion – there would be plenty of money to finance a 16th school. The argument isn’t whether to spend the money – it’s where to add the capacity.
I don’t think it’s fair to blame residents for a facilities plan that was created without reaching out to the public for input. It’s that plan that drove the ballot questions and is driving the Zervas project.
@Bill Brandel – I think the “Public has spoken” answer, as Groot called it is a bit disingenuous. The override’s stated, intended use was to “address the condition and capacity of Zervas school”. There was no specific plan voted on about how to address the capacity issues.
In fact the Zervas working group has explicitly chartered to evaluate a range of different options, not just rebuilding and expanding the existing Zervas facility. So to say “we had a vote on that” is a bit misleading.
The problem is that many people, myself included, are questioning whether this was in fact a good faith effort to objectively weigh the alternatives or whether it was a go-through-the-motions effort to come up with a justification for a plan that was already decided before they started.
It may be that on its merits, adding an additional school is not a wise plan, but as Bob Burke said at the top of this thread, people are looking to see that it is at least given a fair and impartial evaluation and not just a go-through-the-motions effort to justify the original plan.
As part of this effort, the working group put together a matrix that purported to show the pros and cons of each alternative. One detail in that matrix that caught my eye was “required busing”. All alternatives to the existing Zervas site caused busing to increase according to this chart. On the face of it, that seemed to be an example of “cooking the books”. Yes, if you kept all school zones exactly as they are today and built a school in a different place, busing would increase … but you would never do that. Details like that have made many people question whether the process really is an impartial evaluation.
Jerry: I appreciate your sharing your perspective of the process. However, I think that my point still stands: We voted on a plan to “address the capacity of Zervas Elementary School.” Whether the process or outcome is what some may or may not prefer, what we voted on is in fact happening.
What we did not vote on was a plan for an Upper Falls school, or anywhere else. Nor was there a vote on tying a school to a village center, as nice as that might be.
So, my question remains: If anyone a 16th school, in UF or anywhere else, why did they not simply have that question placed on the ballot?
“if anyone wanted…”
Bill : I also appreciate your sharing of your perspective:-) . I think I did answer your question. There are many ways to address the capacity of Zervas Schools as mandated by the override. The working group is and/has been evaluating a number of those alternatives, some of which include building at a different location. The only thing we are trying to insure is that the existing evaluation of those alternatives be done in good faith.
As for “simply” putting a question on the ballot. As far as I know Newton does not support citizen initiated referendum questions.
What we voted on in March 2013 were specific debt exclusions to “renovate or replace” the Angier and Cabot schools, and a general override to fund a list of municipal and school operating and capital expenditures, including, inter alia, to “address the condition and capacity of the Zervas Elementary School.” It is (more than) a little disingenuous to suggest that supporters could have placed anything on the ballot, since it was the Mayor’s ballot question. I suppose the Board of Aldermen could have made some changes, but unless he agreed, the Mayor would have just vetoed them. But nothing is cast in stone until the Board actually votes to fund construction at Zervas, so I would suppose that now is as good a time as any to reconsider the city’s school improvement plan (not that I think that will happen).
I was reading about the history of the Hyde School in Newton Highlands and it offers some fascinating lessons about planning. In 1872, the city built the original wooden school building, but within 3 years, the School Committee wanted money to remodel it (apparently because it was big and ugly). By 1893, the city approved money for the construction of a new brick schoolhouse designed by Hartwell & Richardson, a well-known architectural firm that designed many schools and other buildings that are on the National Register of Historic Places. Within ten years, however, the population had increased so much that the School Committee called for another new building, and in 1908 a new school building was completed, but without a gymnasium. It was not until 1967 that the gymnasium was built. The Hyde School was in use until the fire in 1981 and was at the time the oldest school building in Newton.
As the saying goes, the best laid plans of mice and men…. Or, perhaps, the more things change, the more they remain the same.
@Bill: I am not sure what you are referring to when you ask people why they didn’t place something on the ballot. The mayor’s office crafted the override votes and we got to vote for or against, there was no opportunity to add one’s own preferences.
I advocated in favor of the three override votes in order to help pay for a badly needed fire station, invest in roads and sidewalks, rebuild Angier and Cabot, and address the school space crunch in general, including Zervas and including hiring more staff. Implied in my vote is that we spend the taxpayer money as wisely as possible… I think people want to know, and have a right to know, that rebuilding Zervas (rather than renovating it and building a new school elsewhere) is the most fiscally responsible choice.
BTW, great maps, Bruce.
Emily,
Can you back up your argument about the most fiscally responsible choice regarding Zervas? It would appear that there may be other worthwhile options.
The possibility of having so called walkable elementary schools in Newton ended in the 1970’s and 80’s when 8 schools were closed and a number of those facilities sold. Opening one new elementary school won’t make the Newton schools more walkable when the other 15 schools remain outside a reasonable walking range for many of their students, and there’s no possibility whatsoever of building new schools to recreate what the city had in the past.
It doesn’t matter if one agrees or disagrees with the city’s decision to sell those school buildings at that time. That’s water under the bridge and not worth discussing. The result is the same – Newton long ago lost the possibility of having neighborhood schools within walking distance of many elementary age children.
Bill: We voted to approve funding to “address the capacity of Zervas Elementary School,” but there are lots of ways to do that. The vote was not in support of any particular approach, and I think it should not be cited as such. It would indeed be good to get voters’ views of different approaches.
Ah, civics. Jerry, citizens can petition the Board to take up an item. However, it’s not the most politically feasible approach (as in, why go through all of that trouble when one alderman could do the same by virtue of docketing an item?).
Ald. Emily: You should question how or whether to go forward with the plan. That is the Board’s role. However, while the Mayor can request that the Board put ballot questions up for referendum, the Board has the power to reject, approve, or offer an alternative set of ballot questions and send those to the Mayor.
For example, Mayor Cohen sought an override in 2008. It was, to use Ted’s language, his “ballot question.” The Board rejected it and other alternatives were offered. Ald Hess-Mahan and Ald. Albright, for example, offered their own alternative (as did I and Ald. Sangiolo). So, that 2008 ballot question sought by the Mayor was rejected, and it was replaced by one that originated with the Board. That ultimately was the ballot question that was rejected by voters.
Bruce: (sorry about the double post, and that you lost your 5-star blogger rating).
I think that we are in agreement on that.
Bill – The appropriate title is Ald. Norton. If you choose to refer to Emily by name (as I often do), that’s fine, but Ald. Emily? To a female Alderman but never to a male alderman? In this day and age? Really?
Sorry for the off topic post, but as one who fought the good fight for women, my ear hears subtle gender comments differently than others.
Some members of the BOA did propose possible amendments to the most recent override ballot questions, but in the end the Mayor did not agree to them and without a 2/3 majority to override a veto there was no point in pursuing them. I for one would have preferred using a debt exclusion for all of the capital projects and waiting until we had a budget for construction to put them on the ballot. One reason is that debt exclusions can only be spent for the stated purpose while the tax revenue raised by a general override only has to be spent on the stated purpose for the first fiscal year after it is approved by the voters. After that, it can be used for other things.
Jane, FWIW, I get addressed as “Aldermen Ted” a lot. I get called a lot of other things as well.
Ted – You are not a woman, so I don’t expect you to get it. It was not an appropriate reference to a freshman female Alderman, or to any female Alderman for that matter. If you like being called Ald. Ted, fine for you, but leave the women out of it. Either “Emily” or “Ald. Norton” would have been respectful.
There’s something stultifying and bureaucratically arcane about the notion that some new and potentially productive proposal like a 16th school cannot be considered on its merits because these benefits weren’t perceived by decision makers at some point in the past.
There are so many threads to this conversation that disturb me that I don’t know where to start.
So I won’t.
@Gail – oh go ahead. Where will that lead if we all start pausing before we write, start using self-restraint. Taking a deep breath could be the death of the blog as we know it.
The most telling information from Bruce’s map showing the population growth is that the growth is largely occurring far from Zervas. A new ‘Emerson’ school at the DPW yard location would handily place capacity where growth is obvious. Expanding capacity at Zervas solves nothing.
On that score alone a 16th school at the DPW yard would be very attractive.
Also, on the override messaging, I wrote the SC guest column in the TAB arguing the SC case for the override. That included money for a Zervas project of some kind. No specifics, with $1.3M/year allocated to solving the Zervas problem. Zervas surely needs improving but no-one in the override argued for a 490 student mega school and the spending of $45M.
The operating override allocated $1.3M/year to Zervas, but for how many years: 2, 4, 6, 8, … 20? Certainly not forever. The amount spent on Zervas is completely open.
What the public wants is a sound solution that addresses not just the condition of Zervas but the capacity problems NPS faces.
The least we should do in my view, is invite the public to vote on a number of options for the Zervas project. That way even though we foolishly bypassed the better practice of a debt exclusion, the city would have to get buy in from the public before spending its money.
And the role Zervas plays in NPS capacity planning should be very clearly defined in those options.
In my view the current way the government is handling Zervas bears a great deal of resemblance to the dreadful Newton North process. No community input on scope, design or cost.
Just barrel ahead blindly, with the real possibility that yet another grand mistake in facility planning will be enshrined in bricks and mortar for all to see and mock.
So great to have your valuable input Geoff. I was very surprised to hear about the quick escalation of size and cost of the Zervas project. Especially as it abuts a wetland area. The streets around the site and the residential makeup of the area seem inappropriate to such a large scale plan.
No reimbursement money from the State will be available for this structure. There is a reason for that. Part of the reason is that State doesn’t provide money to communities where the the existing building adequately provides educational services.
@Coleen or anyone. “The State doesn’t provide money to communities where “the existing building” (my emphasis) adequately provides educational services.” Does that mean that state money might be available for a 16th school since it’s not an existing building? I’m probably throwing a Hail Mary pass with this question, but thought I’d throw it out there.
Like Bruce Henderson and Bill Brandel, I am a “former” Zervas parent. But, for these purposes, I prefer to think of myself as a homeowner in a district that could become a less attractive choice to prospective buyers (in my neighborhood, always families with school age children) if this plan to build a 490-student, three-story school in the middle of conservation land and single family homes steamrolls though.
First, on the technicalities raised by Bill:
The override vote for Zervas did not articulate a specific building-based solution, as did those for Angier and Cabot (which were specific for the point of obtaining state matching funding – which Zervas is not.)
While they did not go into in-depth feasibility studies, the Zervas Working Group (ZWG] considered many different options, including building a new school in the Newton Cemetery, DPW yard and Cold Spring Park. This was done under the supervision of Ms. Young, an attorney from the city who was present at the last meeting. The fact that other sites were considered means that the ZWG, under legal direction, is interpreting the word “capacity” as meaning space capacity for the Zervas district and its population, not the capacity of the actual, physical Zervas building. Given this broad interpretation, they could have very well also explored the feasibility of sites outside of the current Zervas district as a solution to capacity, but chose not to. Even with the considerable cry to consider a 16th school that has been voiced by the Upper Falls community. It would have been great if they could have provided an economic argument against it.
Okay, back to the subject that I really want to discuss: the size of elementary schools. Whether you walk your kids to school or not, the very character of the schools is shaped by their size, as Bruce pointed out in his op/ed. A century ago, some of our schools were built in the middle of well-planned village centers/business districts . Zervas was not. Zervas was built as satellite capacity extender (to the former Hyde School in the Highlands village center) during a Baby Boom population bubble. Given that all of our schools are not built on the same acreage of land or in the same mixed use vs. strictly residential districts, I’d ask whether it is wise or in the least bit reasonable a to expect ALL of Newton’s elementary schools to be the same size and offer the same capacity.
When Zervas was built in 1950, it was built to serve a population of 250 students. It was even built without a cafeteria because all the kids went home for lunch. The new plan calls for building a 490 student building on the same piece of land. Zervas is not receiving state funding, so it doesn’t have to comply with Massachusetts State Building Authority (MSBA) standards (though they are for size of classrooms, etc.) Though I was told at the last ZWG meeting, which I attended as a member of the public, that the MSBA no longer has outdoor recreational space standards for children (probably because urban schools could not meet them in many cases), the schools being planned for both Cabot and Angier, under full MSBA oversight, with much more land, adjacent parkland/recreational space, and locations in the heart of village business districts, have been capped, per state authority, at 460 students.
The city and the School Committee obviously plans to incrementally increase capacity with each new project, has been limited by the MSBA on what it can do at Angier and Cabot and is putting an unreasonable demand on its smallest-site school with highly restricted opportunity for land expansion because of protected wetlands: Zervas.
People who don’t know Zervas drive by it on Beethoven Ave. and assume that there is a big field or recreational space behind the building. There isn’t. It abuts split-level residences and a fence to keep the kids out of swampy (and protected) wetlands. It is also a school that has endured more than its fair share of sacrifices, operating without an auditorium and other necessary programmatic spaces for two decades.
Zervas has earned its override money by its very condition alone. Let’s not forget that the messaging that was out there around the override was all about the condition of our schools, not about system-wide capacity. Go back and read the campaign materials. Watch the NPS video.
Another point: I can’t help but connect dots between what is planned for Zervas and what is going on with Austin St. Both seem to be dense, “urban” visions for suburban environments. Like Newtonville, people in my neighborhood chose to live here, buy our homes here and raise our children here because we didn’t want urban, no matter how much the smart architects advocate for it. I’d bet that the lack of land in urban environments is why the MSBA doesn’t require a minimal ratio of recreational space. Every day, my train goes by the Josiah Quincy School in Chinatown. I see kids playing in rooftop playgrounds with high metal fences.This is not the vision of what I wanted for my children and it’s why my husband and I moved out of a very nice place in the South End when it came time to raise a family. It is also why, at the time, we chose Newton over Brookline with its large K-8 buildings.
Do I want the family that will buy my home in ten years to drive by some three-story urban solution building with roof top recreation space sticking out like a sore thumb in a cluster of single family homes on a street that is already a traffic nightmare at pick-up and drop-off, especially in bad weather? Do I want to further exacerbate the lack of play space for children who already have woefully little recreational time while our country is in the middle of a childhood obesity crisis? At the last ZWG, Bruce’s daughter very appropriately articulated how the current land does not support the current population, much less adding another 100 kids to the same amount of land. My kids concur.
More so, should we be paying architects, at this very minute, to design this?
When Newton North was being planned, I didn’t feel like I “knew enough” to speak up. The things that I thought of as objections came true, with money diverted from the programs, services and building conditions that directly impacted my children. My children will not be impacted by what is done at Zervas, but my neighborhood and one of the things that makes the Highlands such an attractive place to raise children will.
It’s time to speak up.
Following on to KarenN’s comments … If history is any guide, the 490 pupil capacity of the Zervas plan should be considered the starting point. Many of our existing elementary schools now have more pupils than they were designed for. Over time, there’s a good chance that will be the case with a new Zervas.
…And the “capacity” of the current school could just as broadly be interpreted as creating permanent capacity to replace the temporary modular capacity that already exists — Zervas capacity —NOT systemwide capacity as the NPS and ZWG are interpreting it.
Gotcha! The language is to be interpreted broadly where you agree with it, and narrowly where you don’t.
A simple rule of Newton public discourse is that once NNHS is invoked, give up all ye hope for a reasonable discussion. That said, does anyone know if any of the Newton hardware stores still carry torches and pitchforks?
http://youtu.be/24hB9Phwnnw
The State does not match funds for school buildings in a city like Newton. We now receive about 30% reimbursement. Zervas would need to be torn down and rebuilt. Perhaps a new school to make up for the loss of Emerson would qualify for state money.
One of the reasons N.North was demolished was because of the state rules. Many people argued that the cost of a renovation would be very close to the cost of a new school. Just like what the argument has been for a new Angier.
In reality the cost of a renovation for North ended up being only 30% of the cost of the final N.North project.
Our city planners and elected officials make decisions that turn out to be extremely flawed and no one holds them accountable. Although Cohen did not run again for mayor. He certainly didn’t forfeit his salary and pension.
Now we have a similar group spending big bucks and making similar mistakes. Only now the city has far greater debt payments and a $600 unfunded debt liability. Where does it all end?
@Bill. I’m not a torchlight and pitchfork kind of guy and I haven’t even stated with any certainty that a 16th school should or should not be built. I don’t know and I don’t pretend to know. All I’m arguing is that proponents of a 16th school have done a lot of homework and developed a detailed and reasonable set of reasons as to why this should, at least, be considered and considered completely and fairly. That’s all I and I think most proponents of the 16th School are asking for.
I wouldn’t even be writing this if I hadn’t heard more than an hour of back and forth between 3 members of the School Committee on one side and members of the Upper Falls Neighborhood Area Council and Alderman Yates on the other about this issue. Process and fairness are important to me and I came away from that meeting with the distinct impression that the 3 members of the School Committee were not at all ready to put the points the folks in Upper Falls had made into their deliberative process.
I also am not indiscriminately slamming the School Committee or any of its members. I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for the 3 School Committee members that were present in Upper Falls that evening. All three have made real contributions that have made Newton a better place to live. I just think they are wrong not to discuss and deliberate what Upper Falls and others in Newton are saying , particularly since it comes from a village where folks rightly feel that they are too often an afterthought in decision making. I don’t advocate the guillotine and even if I did, there would be many, many other people I would drag there first and none of them live in Newton. Most are about 500 miles south of here.
Well said, Bob Burke.
I think we should always remember Newton North. There were very rational reasons why it was poorly done and we should ALWAYS keep them in mind.
Newton North got its covert funding start, by the city diverting funds which should have paid the debt service for prior projects, into the Capital Stabilization fund for Newton North. Bill Brandel illuminated that very clearly a long time ago.
Starving the city budget of that debt service money caused 4 years of cuts in the NPS budget including significant layoffs.
The budget and scope of Newton North ballooned because the voters never had a say. There never was a vote for a debt exclusion or on school design scope and options.
Because of the flagrant mismanagement of Newton North, the MSBA completely revamped its entire process.
The reason we are OK with the Angier and Cabot projects is that the MSBA now demands that we follow best practices.
The city wanted to roll Angier and Cabot funding into an omnibus operating override. The MSBA said no and demanded debt exclusions.
So even as recently as a year ago our approach to funding Angier and Cabot showed that lessons had not been learned from Newton North.
Now we have Zervas.
The MSBA would never fund a project like Zervas because the condition of the school is not poor enough. Even apart from that, the Zervas project violated the debt exclusion MSBA requirement. The MSBA would never have allowed an operating override funding source such as we have. They want to see community buy in on scope and design. Both of which are absent now.
For many years now the collective common sense and intelligence of Newton’s community members has been far greater that the collective common sense and intelligence of its government. That gap is closing. But not fast enough.
If the Zervas project proceeds without explicit buy in from the Newton community on scope and design, not only for the Zervas building but for the role it plays in solving NPScapacity problems, a huge mistake will have been made.
And we shall see it play out in the next 2-3 years.
We have the opportunity to show that we really have learned from Newton North.
Or not.
We could make huge progress by doing a small scale renovation of Zervas and adding a new 400-450 student school at the DPW location on Elliot St.
But for some reason, the optimal solution for our facility condition and capacity problems, which also uses our money in the wisest fashion and comports with our best intentions for the environment and for traffic and pedestrian safety, seems to lie beyond the current reach of our government’s common sense and intelligence.
It is up to the community to intervene and lift the scales from our elected officials’ eyes.
Bob: As you might have surmised, my point was that using the NNHS experience — which is completely unrelated to the current effort — is not a constructive step toward rational debate. It’s a distraction. As I’ve said before, I do not have a dog in this fight. I am aware that there was a professional capacity and building plan performed back when, and best I can tell, it called for the process that is now under way. That said, we’ve been under new management for some time now. I am confident that they will arrive at the best outcome.
I’m not sure what Bill is contributing to the discussion at this point, with “I am confident they will arrive at the best outcome.” Why try to shut down citywide discourse on addressing citywide capacity when there is a half cocked plan to build the Taj Mahal of elementary schools on the smallest school site, in a residential neighborhood where it will stick out like a sore thumb, and all the kids will have to be bused in. Why not allow discussion on fixing Zervas and building another school where the kids live? Why say you are planning for 490 when you know the enrollment will be over 500 before it opens? The only thing of which I am confident is that without discussion, they will definitely not arrive at the best outcome.
The Newton North experience is an important one. It cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to current and future facilities management.
Learning from experience is a necessary step in the progression towards engaging in rational debate and arriving at sound solutions in Newton.
Newton North was an important lesson for the MSBA and it embedded that experience in the development of a new approach to facilities.
Newton North was an important lesson for Newton and we need to embed that experience in the development of a new approach to facilities.
HOWEVER:
It’s remarkable that at the very first sizable project where we are not constrained by the MSBA, we have managed to:
– Package facility funding in an operational override whose dominant purpose was not facility funding
– Provide no cogent details of the Zervas plan prior to the vote
– Claim after the vote that the public gave a mandate for a $45M project
– Allow the public no voting say on the scope of the project or its design
– Claim that the Zervas project is following MSBA guidelines
We have managed to violate every rule the MSBA put in place to prevent another Newton North project.
This much is completely clear.
Whether we can recover from this unfortunate start to the Zervas project remains to be seen.
@Marie. Spoken like a true daughter of Derry City.
We have been going to School Committee meetings all this year, at least when they have featured something related to the Zervas plan or busing fees (an outrage that should be the subject of another discussion). We have been advocating for the consideration of the DPW yard as an “alternate site” for a school, while sprucing up Zervas enough to keep it operating. We have encountered from the School Committee not even an argument against our position, but basically a stone wall, with barely any response from members (other than Steve Siegel, who has at least argued with us on occasion).
Last Thursday there were two open meetings of the Zervas School Building Committee. The first presented a bit of history, showed sketches of some of the plans, and presented an incomplete “feasibility matrix” (we will call it simply — yes Neo — the Matrix) showing the pros and cons of the current Zervas site vs. alternate sites. The second meeting presented a filled in Matrix which basically “showed” that the current site Zervas site was the only feasible one — surprise, surprise! Many of the reasons used against the DPW site were inaccurate or misleading (we’d be glad to elucidate in some future post), as we had anticipated in a statement to the School Committee previously, and reiterated after the ZSBC meeting.
We never knew exactly why nearly the whole School Committee (Margaret Albright was a notable exception) was taking such a hard line on the Zervas rebuilding and expansion at its current site. However, we had managed to secure (it’s a long story) an interview with Deputy Supt. of Schools Sandy Guryan. Sandy is the expert on demographics for the School Dept. (and Committee) and is a straight-shooter. We met with her and Steve Siegel this past Thursday. Basically, she told us — as we suspected — that the Newton School system is in very serious enrollment trouble — actually, critical enrollment trouble. Bowen is bursting at the seams and is unsustainable, Countryside is overextended and many schools are in terrible shape (worse than Zervas); the elementary school population is soaring with no real end in sight and the city does not have a lot of funds to do much about it (think Newton North). Most of the claims about the s0-called educational advantages of large (400+) schools — contradicted, BTW, by many published studies, especially by the Gates Foundation — is irrelevant: it’s the enrollment squeeze that is dictating the plans for the huge school that is being crammed into the fragile Zervas lot. Even if they were willing consider an additional site like the DPW yard, they need the space NOW and can’t wait for site preparation in other places. That is why there is the big hurry, the writing off of other options, and the lack of interest in debating issues of location or size or whatever. They simply don’t have the space for the kids.
You have to view the situation in this light to understand where the School Committee is coming from. As we saw from the school closings of 30 years ago, when the School Committee panics it makes mistakes. In fairness to them, 30 years ago they were worried about a simpler problem: overcapacity; what they have now is a really serious undercapacity problem, and it’s here now. Sandy Guryan and Joe Russo — who works with her and specializes in elementary schools — sees this clearly. But they don’t set policy. Unfortunately, the Superintendent, the School Committee and the Mayor, who do set policy, have been lacking in independent thinking, responsiveness and creativity. The result has been the grotesque Zervas proposal. The Mayor has been particularly silent about getting the DPW to consolidate to free up land at its spread-out yard on Eliot Street. (Isn’t Newton is famous for its schools, not its spacious DPW facilities?)
In our opinion, the only reasonable solution is to bring Zervas up to code (auditorium, cafeteria, gym) and expand it somewhat now; then — or simultaneously — build a 16th school where it will be most effective: south of Rte 9. This will minimize busing as well, and could utilize the new Greenway to good effect. That is where the money we have now should go.
Maxine and Mark Bridger
Going back to Groot’s original post – it seems like the proposed Zervas plan is making a major and profound philosophical choice nearly by accident. Step back from the Zervas plan and ask these questions.
* Do we think the city would be better served by making our elementary schools substantially bigger?
* If so, where would be the best place to build a new super-sized elementary school?
What seems to be happening is that we’re planning to build the biggest elementary school in the city on one of the properties with the smaller available footprints. Rather than choosing a location for a new super-sized school, or building an additional school the same size as the others, the plan has emerged almost by accident, based on the fact that Zervas happens to be “next up” in the school refurbishing queue. “Since we’re re-habbing Zervas anyway, let’s super-size it, to help deal with capacity problems”.
The plan is intended to solve two problems – the “condition and capacity of Zervas”. The “condition” is a purely Zervas issue. The “capacity” is a bigger issue that goes well beyond Zervas. The most clear evidence of that is that some of the squeeze on Zervas was caused by moving the school boundaries (buffer zones) a couple of years ago and shifting students from other schools into Zervas, to relieve crowding in surrounding schools.
Maybe the Zervas plan IS the best solution to a hard problem. Even so, it’s important that the public buy into such a major shift in School Dept philosophy – i.e rather than design elementary school for 350 – 400 students, we are going to begin designing for 500 students. It shouldn’t be decided by accident … and no, we didn’t “already vote for that.”
Like. Like. Like. Like. 😉
Wow,
Geoff it will take me all day to process the points you have made on this blog. Please send them to the Tab. People need to understand the seriousness of your arguments, all of which are basically true.
Now that we tax payers have the ability to see our gov’t in action very quickly via technology, we must be allowed to inform the residents of Newton as to what direction new decisions regarding Zervas are moving. Thank you, so glad you are not on the S.Comm. anymore and can speak more freely about issues that are truly very important.
Mark and Maxine – Small schools have real benefits, higher graduation rates, better behavior and better attendance. The most recent study supporting this was released by MIT last year: http://educationnext.org/more-research-showing-small-schools-work-gates-remains-silent/
Newton could think outside of the box and get a new school up quickly by re-purposing another building. In Boston and elsewhere, charter schools and private schools are in former office buildings, Victorians, etc. The Math Science Charter in Marlborough was in an office building. Our middle schools and high schools don’t have recess, they need access to sports facilities (cooperation with a local college perhaps?) but not a play-yard.
My kids school, Mason-Rice, has added 100+ students over the 12 years we’ve been there (multiply kids) and it is not the same school, it’s larger and more anonymous with worse traffic.
All I care about here is that tax dollars don’t get wasted. With that in mind, here are my thoughts and questions about what I’ve read here.
1. To the best of my recollection, the debt exclusions and override were built off a citywide facilities plan. When Mayor Warren pitched the override around the city, he talked about an expanded Zervas School with 80,000 sq. ft., the equivalent amount to what is being proposed in the proposed space summary. Plans were always for up to 450 students. (I understand that 490 is an increase, but it’s important to note that 350 was never part of the discussion.)
2. Jerry, what do you mean there’s a SC philosophy about designing elementary schools for 350 – 400 students? I would think that we lost that luxury a long time ago.
3. All ten years that my kids were in elementary school, I don’t think there were ever fewer than 480 kids in the school. I know it maxed at 502. What mattered the most was the size of the classrooms and having enough communal space. At Countryside, the gym, library, etc. weren’t built for 500 kids and the classrooms weren’t built to hold 27 fifth graders. I would hope that plans to expand Zervas would plan for the larger number of kids everywhere in the school.
4. Mayor Warren wrote a column in the TAB right after he proposed the override/debt exclusion package. Here’s an excerpt about Zervas that I would imagine represents his intentions at that time:
Here’s the link to his Town Hall meeting presentations.
5. The three-story option is only one out of six options.
6. Zervas does not have the smallest elementary school site in the city.
7. This following quote from Mike Striar made me laugh. I assume you know I mean no offense, Mike:
Back when the capacity plan was performed, Zervas became part of the focus not just because it was in poor condition, but also because of its location. Capacity demand has shifted unevenly over time in Newton. Sometimes there is excess capacity on the north side, and demand on the south. Zervas is located at a point to serve as a capacity valve, if it is sized to do that.
Is it the best option? There are some pretty bright people who have goner over this plan, already. And dystopian predictions aside, many elementary schools have absorbed excess enrollment well beyond their stated capacity. It was not ideal. And a larger Zervas may not be the ideal, but it also represents the only practical option that is on the table.
Jerry’s comment is right on. Some schools could be mega schools and some not. Some schools could alternate from K-5 and K-8 depending on population bubbles, alleviating pressures on both elementary and middle schools if necessary. Also, some districts could be re-districted (I’m thinking about how Ward declines in enrollment, while Mason-Rice continues to expand)
In terms of a “stable” of school building sites, we have Clydesdales like Burr, Cabot, Mason Rice (I’m just guessing at the acreage, I don’t know it) and Shetland ponies like Zervas and Williams. You can’t say that all the horses in your stable should carry the same load just because it looks good on paper.
Another thing that nobody has talked about is how a school can be the anchor of a village center and foster its economic growth. Businesses in Waban definitely benefit from Angier and the businesses there have greater longevity than those in Newton Highlands. It was a huge mistake to close down the Hyde and Emerson for those reasons. I’m amazed by the disconnect between school facilities planning and city planning in Newton.
No Bill, Zervas is not the only “practical option”, though it may be the only practical option on the School Committee’s table since the Committee sets the table as it chooses.
There are also “some pretty bright people” who think that finding room at the DPW site, or even some other place, while preserving Zervas at a reasonable size, is a far better option. History has recorded “some pretty bright” (in fact very bright) people who made some serious mistakes, often compounded by their arrogance — I hope I don’t have to be more explicit…
Bill,
I guess it would be great to hear from these “pretty bright people who have gone over this plan, already” and get their winning arguments for the current Zervas plan.
I’m eager to hear what they have to say.
Talking about capacity valve relief, an elementary school at the DPW yard would immediately siphon off 177 students of pressure on Angier, Countryside and Bowen
That’s the location, on the other side of Route 9, which would be the optimal capacity valve location.
And you get 4 times more capacity relief than Zervas could ever provide for the same money.
Zervas would be a hugely over priced capacity valve located far from the capacity pressure problems.
So because ‘some pretty bright people’ examined the Zervas plan the rest of us dimwits shouldn’t ask questions?
It’s now more clear to me why we had three separate override questions, instead of one last year (a requirement not of Newton, but of Massachusetts). It’s not comforting to me as a supporter of all three voter questions that Zervas is the one drawing current attention — i.e., the least exposed of the capital spending options. It would be helpful if the Town-Hall style meetings by the mayor were revived soon in the Zervas area. The meetings might not change anything, but would provide local access to decision making.
@Karen is right. It is mystifying to me why we are so aggressively promoting housing development when we do not have enough space for the students we already have. We are negatively impacting not only our current students but also our teachers, principals and administrators who are doing their best under very difficult circumstances.
It costs on average $15,000/yr to educate a student in Newton, while the median home only brings in ~$8,500K in property taxes… not enough to pay for even one child. I can see the fiscal justification for developing more retail and office space, but not more housing.
Ask away. Be explicit. Offer panaceas. It’s a blog thread.
Most of the elementary schools that appear to have space to accommodate a larger school actually back up to designated “Open Spaces” (Mason-Rice, Cabot, H-M) which is altogether different from school property. I have no idea if the city is able to change the designation, but I do remember well the uproar when some folks thought that building a middle school on an open space would be an acceptable solution. In addition, the two schools with a larger space (according to the city maps) are Burr, which is already overcrowded, and Ward. Both schools are near the edge of the city perimeter and would not alleviate the overcrowding problem in the elementary schools.
The condition of and the overcrowding at the elementary schools was pointed out very publicly 7 years ago, and those people who tried to highlight it as an issue were pilloried, called “anti-education”, and much worse by some of the same people who are pushing for a 16th school, as well as some who insist we shouldn’t take that route. This is a problem that’s been a long time coming and ignored. Unfortunately, it’s at our doorstep right now in many sections of the city. Unfortunately a 16th school would not solve the larger problem of overcrowding in our elementary schools.
If you were to ask me if I think one entire village out of 13 should be required to pay bus fees, I’d have a different response.
This is quite a interesting thread, with both people from So of Rt9 and people from Zervas voicing strong opinions.
It would be great to have someone from the ZWG or SC chime in here. I know Steve is usually on these blogs, and I hope can provide some insights…
ND- Just as an FYI, I’m no longer an NPS parent, but taught in an overcrowded northside school for many years. This is a citywide problem created in large part because our elected officials believed we “deserved” and could afford a $200m HS.
And the next time you’re told that a project will be paid for by “new monies”, question very closely where exactly that revenue will come from. I also see too many residents who supported the NNHS project suddenly objecting to the projects that are producing the “new monies”.
@Gail – “Jerry, what do you mean there’s a SC philosophy about designing elementary schools for 350 – 400 students?”
The proposed Zervas design is for 490 students, higher than any existing elementary school. A few of those existing schools do have populations in the mid 400’s, most are in the 300-400 range. The important detail to note is that, as I understand it, none of those mid 400 schools were built for that population. Their populations have swelled beyond the original via modulars, sacrificing other spaces to classrooms, and various other band-aids. There’s no reason to expect Zervas population will not also eventually swell beyond 490.
Maybe you are right, maybe the best course of action is to build substantially larger elementary schools in the future than we have in the past. Bruce Henderson column in this week’s Tab, Groot in his post above, and many of the commenters all seem to be voicing frustration about just that issue.
The message seems to be – that train has already left the station – Angier=465, Zervas=490. Nobody seems to know when/why we decided to address serious capacity problems with substantially bigger schools rather than more schools, it’s just a fait accompli.
Jerry – It wasn’t a decision. The kids keep coming, we have very limited open spaces for new schools throughout the city, and even less political will to raise the revenue for new schools. What are you going to do?
If you unexpectedly had triplets and needed more space, would you build a second home, or expand your current? Maybe I’m crazy, but if we’re talking financials alone, how could anyone make a case that 2 schools are better than one? More staff, more utility costs, 2 roofs, 2 heating systems…The list goes on and on. If the issue is wanting a 16th school, insert reason, then fight for that. Can anyone make a case that building/renovating and then operating 2 schools is less expensive than one larger school? It would be interesting to see how many elementary schools other communities have compared to us? Somerville?
@Randy, as already has been pointed out, while there are some efficiencies from having fewer buildings to heat, personnel costs scale linearly with the number students. You need the same number of teachers for a given student population. You also need more principals and admin people. The larger building has a larger heating system. But yes, you will save some money by having fewer buildings. However, by that logic, let’s build everything on top of NNHS and bus every elementary, middle and high school kid there to save on heating.
I don’t mean to be flippant, but there are other considerations, namely what do we want our city to be? One downtown, one huge school and huge apartment buildings on the same block? The point is to design a city consistent with the character that most of us cherish. Small neighborhoods with shops you can walk to, schools you can walk to, etc.
As far as financials, think in terms of the costs to everyone. If everybody spends less time driving to school or paying bus fees, and if our children are a little healthier (and higher achieving according to some research) because they walk to school, and if there is less traffic congestion, and stronger community because of walking together and going to smaller schools, what is that worth? Just “talking financials alone”, we as a community save something as well. And after all, it’s our tax money paying for the buildings. So if you include all of the costs, whether they are paid by individuals or using public taxpayer funds, you might get a more complete financial picture. In the end, it might be less costly to have neighborhood schools, despite the higher heating bill.
I’m seeing this thread long after it has been filled with comments, and I hardly know where to begin. I can start by providing facts and also my perspective. I do not formally speak for the School Committee and I don’t know how many of my colleagues may share my point of view. But this is a starting point.
I’ll say with certainty that SC members and NPS are very aware of the wishes and arguments being forwarded by area residents about the Zervas project and its relationship to Upper Falls. These have been added to the mix of issues we are trying to solve. Our objective is to find the right balance between issues that compete for resources, and also, the unenviable task of choosing between perspectives that can be mutually exclusive.
I’ve been intimately involved in both the Angier and Zervas projects for the past two years since Newton was first invited into the MSBA process for Angier. In this role I’ve seen how challenging it is to strike this balance.
Here is where I’ve arrived. I strongly believe that the best balance of citywide needs is to enlarge the Zervas School, likely on its current site, and to not add a 16th school unless our enrollment growth evolves very differently than we now predict.
What are my guiding school building principles?
1. Fix our deteriorated, small, functionally compromised elementary school buildings;
2. Our fixes should focus on supporting our teaching and learning models. This calls for providing adequate square footage and well organized building program (space layouts), both lacking in many of our elementary schools;
3. Provide citywide capacity at a rate slightly ahead of our enrollment growth rate;
4. Place new capacity where it offers the most flexibility to handle nearby growth;
5. Make good financial decisions – build what we need but do not overbuild.
6. Support maintaining the quality of life of our neighborhoods.
A touch of history – Please note that the concept of enlarging Zervas is not new and has been publicly discussed since 2007 if not earlier. The 2007 Long Range Plan called for a replacement of the current Zervas (and Angier, Cabot, and Ward) with a school sized for the mid-400s, and for planning purposes identified 500 students as a cap. The contributors to the Plan did not call for a 16th school as they embraced the position that putting our resources into growing capacity evenly at schools centrally located across the city would give us greatest flexibility to deal with enrollment growth where it occurred.
Around the time the Plan was introduced Bruce put together a well researched and well reasoned argument for a 16th school and I used to argue publicly on the TAB blog and NewtonParents listserve with then-SC Chair Dori Zaleznik in favor of it. What changed for me? As I learned more information and considered the full context of City issues my priorities changed. I don’t claim to be right or wrong, but I do believe that for the priorities I’ve identified, a repaired and expanded or rebuilt Zervas is the best fit.
Communication regarding the override – The language of the ballot called for addressing “the condition and capacity” of Zervas. Beyond this, the marketing of the override called for fixing, enlarging, and/or replacing Zervas. Here is a sampling from a variety of sources from October 2012 until the March 2013 vote. The City has been quite clear about its intentions, whether one agrees with them or not:
October 15, 2012, Setti Warren’s statement when announcing his override request: “As one of our smaller centrally located schools, Zervas provides the opportunity to add classrooms to accommodate our skyrocketing school population.”
October 16, 2012, Patch coverage of the override request: “…Funding for expansion and renovation of Zervas Elementary School.”
January 28, 2013, in the Newton Needham Chamber of Commerce newsletter: “…renovations at Zervas Elementary School…”
February 3, 2013, Globe West: “…expansion and renovation of Zervas Elementary School”
March 2, 2013 coverage in the Boston Globe a week and a half before the vote: “Warren is also asking voters to approve an $8.4 million operational override, which is a permanent tax increase, to pay for Fire Department buildings, a bigger Zervas Elementary School…..”
Newton Public School website, on the Override Question and Answer Information Worksheet: “…funding for renovated or new Cabot and Zervas… “
LWV 2013 Newton Override Proposal Information Sheet: “Debt service for either the expansion or construction of a new Zervas Elementary School”
Why are we pitching 3 to 4 classes-per-grade in schools rather than 2 to 3? Our educational model has been evolving over the last decade or more, and 3 to 4 classes per grade maximizes our ability to provide “push-in” support for our students with literacy coaches, math coaches, and other specialists and aides who work within each classroom, by helping tremendously with scheduling. It gives us greatest flexibility in balancing class size, assigning students, and creating co-taught classrooms. This is subtle and complex. I don’t understand the fine details but ask our building principals who can make the case with specifics. Although the smaller schools in our system may facilitate a principal knowing every parent (a nod to my old Zervas principal), the larger schools help us provide educational supports more effectively for our students.
How big are our schools now? We have three schools, Bowen, Countryside, and Mason-Rice, with enrollments between 450 and 500. We have five other schools, Angier, Burr, Cabot, Horace Mann, and Memorial Spaulding with enrollments between 400 and 450. Angier and Cabot will grow from the low 400s up to the middle/upper 400s. Zervas will grow from the low 300s to the upper 400s. The phrases “mega-school” and “super-school” may be catchy but we should be clear that the design sizes of Angier, Cabot, and Zervas all fall within the enrollment range of our current elementary schools.
What will the Zervas experience look like within a larger school community? Without a doubt, it will be different than what Zervas parents, including me, so appreciated. There will be more teachers, kids, drivers, and busses. The building will be larger, and parts will be at least two stories. The school, whether a renovation or replacement, will be fully updated, for the first time in a generation with classrooms of sufficient size, appropriately sized lockers for every student, a cafetorium so students will no longer eat at their desks and that can readily hold student assemblies and stage shows, a gymnasium more than double the current size, a full kitchen rather than a warming and prep room, adequate small learning spaces, administrative offices, conference rooms, Special Ed support spaces, and more. The mechanical systems will function properly.
I loved our Zervas community of 320 students. But I believe I could find great value in a larger community too. This is speculation, but informing this is conversations I’ve had with parents at Bowen, Cabot, Burr, and Mason-Rice. They each speak of the intimate, supportive communities found at their schools, with pride that looks identical to what I feel about Zervas. A Cabot dad said that strong parent involvement and strong school leadership are what makes Cabot a great place for students and their families.
The Zervas site. There are serious issues to be addressed at the Zervas site. Traffic, outdoor playspace, and teacher parking are all issues that at first glance don’t have obvious solutions. But the people we’ve hired to study these issues do this for a living and know more than I do. They are studying Zervas with an open mind and until they show me their analysis and proposals, I won’t presume to know what will and won’t work.
The feasibility process. The feasibility study is intended to determine how to best deliver a building program factoring in site conditions, location, fit of educational program, renovation vs. new construction, and other factors. The study consultants were charged by the Mayor with identifying an optimal placement of Zervas and not a 16th school. For reasons stated above I believe that the consultants should seek a site at or close to the present site, because of its near center-of-city location. Since suitable land is rare in Newton we cast the net wide, looking at any open space within a certain radius around Zervas. We wanted to insure we missed no obvious opportunity, while understanding that unsuitable sites would quickly be eliminated when tested against our selection criteria. Near Zervas, the current site, Cold Spring Park, and Richardson Field emerged as possibilities. But MGL Chapter 97, a state law regulating the conversion of public parkland into public school sites, turns out to be overly restrictive and a significant impediment to using parkland. Other sites quickly disappeared when tested against the criteria.
The DPW site. Although relatively far from the current Zervas site and its helpful location, there has been vocal public support to rebuild Zervas (or a 16th school) there. In response the DPW and Public Buildings undertook a study of current regular functions and special functions (snow storage, treefall storage after major storms), and reported that 2.4 acres could be made available for a school, or nearly an acre less than the current buildable Zervas site. They also priced out the relocation of existing buildings and installed equipment and other costs and reported that it would cost $8–9 million to make the surplus acreage available for Zervas, including construction escalation costs while this process takes place. To me relocating Zervas on a too-small site, far from where it can optimize capacity relief for the most city schools, all while foreclosing the possibility of future expansion of operations on the single large DPW yard in the city, is a poor decision.
A 16th school at the DPW yard. I do not support constructing a 16th school for these reasons:
1. Our Long Range Plan demonstrates that we have the capacity to handle our future enrollment projects with our current 15 school locations. If our projections prove to be way too low and our 15 schools are not sufficient the discussion can open again. But significant growth in Upper Falls is not a fact in the near term or future; the 2006 map in the Comprehensive Plan only projected a possible level of build-out, by right and special permit. Until we see signs that this growth is coming, an UF school builds too much capacity, at significant cost, on speculation. Yet if growth comes later our work now does not preclude creating more space in the future.
2. We’ll create three very small schools. Consider this: The triangle of Upper Falls bounded by Rt 9, Needham Street, and the Charles River has 195 students in it that go to Countryside and Angier. The Margaret Street area has around 15 students who go to Zervas. With current district lines, an UF school built today would have 210 students to start assuming that every student wanted to leave their current school and school community. Zervas would drop to 300 students, Countryside to 330, and Angier to 350. We’ll create one tiny and two very small schools. This might please some parents but schools of this size are not efficient for Newton to run and they compromise the effective classroom support model noted above.
3. A sufficiently sized school site will take more than what the DPW believes it can free up without compromising its operations. The DPW can never get this land back.
I’ve put a ton of information and opinion out here. I hope it’s helpful to the discussion. If you have comments or questions and you can stick to one topic at a time, I might be able to respond. Looking forward to a continued exchange! Oh, and apologies for the length of this post.
Steve Siegel
Ward 5 School Committee
Excellent post Steve. There’s a lot to chew on there, but it’s exactly what I’ve felt was missing in much of the public discussion that I’ve seen to date – i.e. a reasoned explanation of how you weigh the alternatives, rather than just “we know best, deal with it”.
Excellent post Steve!
I appreciate you taking time (a lot of it) to summarize all the work that you, SC and ZWG have been doing (a lot of it as well). Your arguments are well thought out, and make sense.
I feel 100% behind the strategy your group comes up with.
Great post Steve. Very well thought out.
Let me join others in thanking you, Steve. There is a lot of information and history here that people lose sight of over time. I hope that you or someone else from the SC stays on top of this. Myth and misinformation are not a substitute for the factual record. Thanks again.
Zervas is not a the best solution for an expanded school. The SC is in panic mode now and unable to make sound decisions. A new site for a school in Upper Falls could be found even if private property were developed.
Steve: that was an excellent post. Of course, Maxine and I have discussed these issues before with you, but it is good to have them so cogently presented in this public forum.
Many matters of educational judgement are subject to different emphases. This is reflected in the many papers that appear in journals of education — papers with varying degrees of statistical evidence in support of their positions. The point is that saying schools of 3 – 4 classes per grade are superior can be supported by “professionals”, but so can schools of 2 -3 classes per grade. This is not a definitive argument — probably just a standoff.
Other points in your piece I’m sure will be argued in other postings.
I’d just like to say a few words about the DPW site. One problem with it is that it would take a while to prepare it for a school: buildings would have to be moved and access roads built. Of course, putting up a very large school on or near the Zervas wetlands is non-trivial as well. As far as the amount of land available, I still see that site as basically undisciplined, and estimates of the needs of DPW are still likely to be self-serving. No one is asking DPW to give up everything they have there, but I find it very hard to believe that the Mayor couldn’t eke out another acre or so of land from the extra space DPW has reserved for dumping exigencies. The DPW has another very large lot, and I think it’s easier to find places to dump dredging from Bullough’s Pond and things like that than it is to find a space for a school near where students live. The Feasibility Report on DPW also completely distorts the issue of busing. No one is suggesting that the population of Zervas is going to be bused to DPW. Rather, a school at DPW will avoid having to bus the entire population of Upper Falls to Countryside and Angier. Kids at these schools, as well as at Bowen etc. will have to be creatively redistricted. I am confident that the net effect of this will be to radically reduce busing and make walking to school easier.
Finally, your claim that repairing Zervas while building another school in or near Upper Falls would result in “one tiny and two very small schools” is not completely convincing. There is a lot of bad overcrowding now, and the School Committee needs to get rid of modulars. I’d like to see a comprehensive redistricting plan involving many schools. Furthermore, recent history seems to suggest that the population near and south of Rte 9 is still growing, with new projects being planned. Given the lead time necessary to prepare for enrollments, and the objection of local communities to very big schools — we’ll see that soon, I think, around Zervas — I’m not sure that your prediction of “one tiny and two very small schools” is correct.
I respect your position on these issues, and I appreciate your time in laying it out. I just am not yet convinced you are correct.
Mark
Thanks, Steve for the large amount of information. It is the first sign of real information from the city. I hope we get more.
Here are some comments:
1. Although the 2007 SC facilities plan set 500 as a cap on school size, in the last several years the SC had revised that down to 450, given the difficulties principal’s experienced managing schools larger than that size. From principal input, it was always clear that 450 was a breaking point and that a school around 400 was much for favorable as a target school size.
2. 3 classes per grade has been recognized for some time in NPS as a necessary target to ensure effective teaching and collaboration within a grade. 3 not 4.
3. The thinking while I served evolved to include a general principle to move smaller schools up to 400 where possible as 3 classes per grade facilitated better teaching and specialist teachers could be full time. Lincoln-Eliot is a good example where the PTO strongly supported moving the pre-K classes out and expanding the school from 300 to 400 for those reasons. Again, 400 was a good target size.
4. The override message was $3M/year for Angier and Cabot for 30 years, with the state expected to kick in 25% of costs, so the real cost for Angier and Cabot is $4M/year, or roughly $2M per school around a 450 size.
5. The override message for Zervas was an allocation of $1.3M/year which suggests a scale for the Zervas project much less than the Angier or Cabot projects.
6. A smaller scale renovation of Zervas to move it from 320 to 400 would be commensurate with the override allocation.
7. If the 2 Beacon St houses adjacent to Zervas are acquired, a smaller scale single story renovation of Zervas to make it a highly functional school becomes more feasible.
8. The 490 mega school option would require at least $2M + swing space costs, so the override will not cover its costs. The city will have to cut at least an additional $0.6M/year out of its other operations to fund a Zervas mega school.
9. The DPW plans for its Elliot St lot should be made public and open to community feedback, as we should not just dismiss the possibility of a school there, based on a sentence or two. Aerial photos of the DPW yard show that much of the space there is unused. Much more debate should occur in this area as it is relevant to the future feasibility of a 16th school.
10. The projection made in 2008 for the 2013 elementary student population undershot by 600 students. Our current projections for 2018 projecting a 200 student increase could easily be as wrong, so we should be very conservative in our planning, as it generally takes 4 years to put real elementary capacity online.
11. We handled the 2008 projection mistakes by deploying modulars, but that approach is just about tapped out and no-one thinks it is a good one.
12. Everyone agrees that we closed too many elementary schools, so we should be much more open to reversing that mistake by adding a 16th school in a location close to where we close one.
I hope this helps and again, thanks Steve for engaging.
Mr. Siegel’s input is very valuable — thanks for this. It’s great to see that someone can join a government body as a Ward member, yet keep the bigger picture of all of Newton in focus as well.
I tried to find the reference to public parkland since it felt odd to me that a town can build baseball fields and tennis courts on conservation land, but not something more grand, like a school or even a school playground. I think the correct reference is Article 97 of Amendments to Massachusetts Constitution. It does appear that Massachusetts has granted lots of exceptions to this rule. Is this possibility not feasible?
@Gail– No offense taken to your comment. Admittedly however, I no longer care whether my comments about the School Committee cross a line of decorum. Those folks remind me of that old laugh line, “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.” Yeah, sure, wake me when that starts to happen.
While I know that Geoff Epstein and Steve Siegel are articulate, hard working, well intentioned fellows, their words no longer have any meaning to me. Both have repeatedly assured me that they understood the negative physical and psychological effects of starting high school at 7:30 in the morning, yet neither has done a damn thing about it.
Why is this THE issue that rises above all others for me? Because it degrades the quality of life for thousands of high school students on a daily basis, adding an unmeasured amount of stress to their lives.
Fact: Sleep depravation has been linked to stress in humans.
Fact: Stress has been linked to suicide in teens.
You don’t even need a sharp pencil to connect those two dots. And you don’t need minds as sharp as Geoff or Steve, to understand the implication. The recent suicides are the tip of the iceberg. We’ve created a system that prefers to deal with the aftermath of stress, rather than minimizing its causes. To me it’s disheartening, even unconscionable that the School Committee has failed to change early morning start times at our high schools. Since I have lost all respect for them based on that issue, I have no reason to trust their judgement on other issues.
My apologies to fellow bloggers for the off-topic distraction. Just needed to get that off my chest.
I agree that the HS start time should be moved later than 7:50am. Much evidence supports that.
8:30am or 9:00am would be optimal.
It needs to be co-ordinated with our surrounding school systems, as a later start means a later end and there are all kinds of impacts on after school activities.
There are many issues in NPS. That is one.
Personally, I think that this should be dealt with as a state wide student well being issue and our SC should start working on our state delegation to start building some momentum on the issue.
Making the high school start time later has been done successfully elsewhere.
We should raise it on our priority list.
I’m with you Mike on the starting time issue. It has been known for many years that starting school very early is bad in many ways for adolescents. Yet almost no school systems anywhere in the U.S. has acted on this information. I don’t know where Steve and Geoff stand on this so I think it’s probably unfair to criticize them. One of the problems with acting rationally on this subject is the irrational subservience to varsity sports found in most school systems and communities.
I am NOT with you on the mocking line “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.” It is instructive to complete the sentence:
We’re from the government, and we’re here to help with _____
(Hurricane relief, acid rain, workplace safety, child labor laws, consumer safety, medical research, Social Security,…)
or fill in the blank:
We’re from ______, and we’re here to help.
(Exxon-Mobil, BP, AIG, Bank America, Microsoft, Monsanto, NRA…)
I think we should stick to school or other local issues here.
Mark
Geoff– Thanks for responding. I’ve been hearing that story for years. We don’t need the State to make the change. We need our SC to wrap their heads around the fact that sleep deprivation is linked to depression, and do something about it. This is an issue that effects the quality of life for thousands of high school kids in Newton every day. In light of the consequences for failing to act, later start times for the two high schools should be at the top of the priority list.
Mark and Maxine– I know where Geoff and Steve stand on the issue of later start times. The problem isn’t what they think about the issue. The problem is that they’ve done nothing to correct it. Thus, my mocking tone. Frankly, I’m sick of having SC after SC agree with me on this issue, then turn around and completely ignore it. So I’ll use this opportunity to repeat one more time… Sleep deprivation is linked to depression. Starting high school at 7:30am results in sleep deprivation, and that contributes to depression in our teens. This is not a situation that should be allowed to continue.
Fair enough Mike. Let’s see H.S. opening times at least made an official agenda item and discussed publicly by our SC.
We feel similarly about busing fees for kids who can’t walk safely to school (pretty much everyone in Upper Falls): no one on the School Committee will walk that walk, but they won’t do anything about it. Several SC members have expressed sympathy privately, but many folks here in the Falls are paying $30 – $60 EACH MONTH for this outrageous and un-American fee for public education. This fee should be immediately rescinded — Steve take note — and refunds issued. Why are we waiting?
(By most any measure Upper Falls families have half the income and house values of Waban families, e.g., and four times the poverty rate. Yet our kids had their school closed and have to pay fees to get to school — others don’t. How is that fair?)
These school projects are not supposed to be about short-term capacity. They are supposed to be about a plan that will get us through the next 20 years. Preferably in a way that is equitable across the city.
In 2002, when my oldest child entered Zervas as a kindergartner, there was an article in the TAB predicting the school’s closure because of under-enrollment. Unfortunately, one can’t blame such completely inaccurate predictions on since-departed staff. Sandy Guryan and Mike Cronin were at the helm on enrollment forecasting and buildings then, as they are now.
I have followed this issue since at least 2007. I’m not sure if I was quoted in a TAB article in either 2007 or 2008 about “small schools being Newton’s jewels”. I just know that I went to a public meeting at Oak Hill while Jeff Young was still superintendent and a completely different architectural firm was being paid. The “experts” completely dismissed the possibility of maintaining a school of about 350-400. I can’t remember anyone ever recommending an elementary school population over 450. I think the principals weighed in at 420. Here we stand with the MSBA capping at 460 and Newton committees going for almost 500. Where is the pedagogy in this conclusion?
Certainly, anyone can chronicle the process of the committee that has led to this outcome about Zervas. I can only say that the override was not a vote on whether we want an elementary school of almost 500 kids on a site originally designed for 250 or any mandate from voters other than fixing the substandard conditions that have existed for 20 years. If Setti campaigned so hard for a current site-based solution at Zervas and clearly established that THAT was what people were voting for when they voted for the override, why did the Zervas Working Group go so far off plan to consider sites as bizarre and ghoulish as the Newton Cemetery (were bodies to be relocated?) The current committee has no public mandate or endorsement on school size. Just as the Austin St. project was undermined by an actual poll of Newtonville residents, I would like to see what would happen if area residents were polled about whether this is the kind of school they want in place for the family with children that will buy their home. Similarly, I would like to see elementary school teachers polled as to whether the size of the schools was a determining factor in pursuing a career in Newton. Zervas has long enjoyed a preferred status for placement of the children of Newton teachers, including the principal of NSHS. I wonder if this would change if it became a school of 500.
Also, the voices of Upper Falls residents must be considered. Their entire school district has become a buffer zone/swing space vs. a district-supported community of families and children. The fact that Upper Falls was blown off and denied a seat on the Zervas Working Group when their village’s children would be redistricted to Zervasis just plain tone deaf.
Sorry, I’m not buying Steve’s argument that bigger may not be better but we have to endure it as a consequence of the times and the new normal. Bruce Henderson presents great arguments about how savings are not achieved with mega-schools because of other costs in staffing and transportation. I have talked to Countryside parents through the years and my take was far from rosy. In fact, I would say that the awful physical conditions at Zervas were countered by the small school environment and strong community that my son still finds strength in under the (increasingly in the news) pressures at South. You want less anecdotal proof? Look at Zervas’ MCAS scores and those of Newton’s smaller schools vs. Countryside. Our highest academic achieving schools tend to be the smaller ones. This directly contributes to housing prices in the Peirce and Ward districts, two elite school districts that seem untouched and above this systemwide discussion.
Well said Karen.
It is absolutely true that our school buildings are tight; our long range plan is carefully designed to relieve this. We want to move steadily now to stay ahead of enrollment growth. But our plan including the enlargement of Zervas has been public, deliberate, endorsed by four successive school committees, and has been updated and available since its creation in 2007.
The MSBA originally argued for an enrollment at Angier of 525 but we negotiated that number down to 465 for reasons relating to Newton school culture and site limitations.
Regarding the room at the DPW yard, I do not have the expertise to determine how much acreage their operations require. I am simply reporting on the work presented to us by our DPW head and Building Commissioner.
The MCAS scores for Countryside (a large school) are low but more generally, the notion that there is a correlation between Newton school size and academic achievement is not supported by the data. See Newton elementary MCAS scores from the spring of 2013:
The schools with the top 6 ELA scores (proficient or higher) are Mason Rice, Ward, Burr, Pierce, Cabot, and Horace Mann. 4 of these schools are above 400 students and 2 are below. Of the top 6 schools for Math, Ward, Mason Rice, Burr, Horace Mann, Cabot, and Underwood, 3 are above 400 and 3 are below. Zervas, one of our small schools, is tied with three other schools at 7th in ELA and holds the 10th spot by itself in Math.
I believe that demographics — i.e. number of kids on free or reduced lunch — have more to do with Countryside’s MCAS scores than its size, although I acknowledge my information could be outdated. When my kids were there, there were years when it was a Title I school.
I understand the fear that parents have over losing the intimate environment they’re accustomed to. As a parent of children at the largest school in the city (at the time), I can tell you that it doesn’t have to be that way. Countryside with 502 students was every bit a community. Making it so was a priority of the principal and the PTO. What ruins a school — and a learning experience — is when the classes are too large and when the shared class spaces like the gym and library are too small. When my son was in third grade, there were five third grade classes. It was probably his best year at Countryside. We got more resources from the Ed Center, which meant there was more differentiated learning going on. But because the building wasn’t meant for that many kids, scheduling for so many classes was difficult: How to get them all phys ed, art, music time. The whole school was scheduled around the third grade.
“Our plan including the enlargement of Zervas has been public, deliberate, endorsed by four successive school committees, and has been updated and available since its creation in 2007.”
Steve, I would add that in addition to a seven-year-long process, it was also advocated by the Mayor, put forward by a super-majority vote of the Board of Aldermen, and then approved by Newton voters through public referendum. Other than that, this has pretty much been an inside job.
The comments claiming or implying that the public was informed that Zervas would be rebuilt as a 50% larger school are baseless. I’ve clicked on the links provided to articles and documents and I see nothing that leads me to think there was such a plan.
Take the override proposal information sheet (http://lwvnewton.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/LWVN-Override-Outline.pdf).
As a voter just looking at this, it sounds like “we will renovate and expand a little using *part of* the $2.4 million of the $8.4 million operating override. ”
Contrast that to the language for Cabot and Angier where TOTAL price tags for the buildings are mentioned in the summary. That’s clear! “We are spending on a brand spanking new school building. $40 something million.” With Zervas, it’s “there’s 8.4 million and out of that the 2.4 million for the fire department, yada yada, yada, mumble mumble, (shhh!) Zervas. It needs a little fixing up, an addition. We’ll get back to you with a plan.” It was always “addressing capacity” or “expansion or new”. I saw one line in one of those documents that talked in general about Zervas being a great site to significantly expand capacity. But that’s buried in one document and was never in the main messaging for this override.
And by the way if you read down to the notes, it says that the MSBA didn’t approve the project “because Zervas is not one of the worst schools in Newton.” So if it’s not in that bad shape, we can do an addition, given the kids a cafeteria and a library and call it a day.
So let’s stop claiming that the public was told, had a chance to vote it down, and that’s that. The plan was described as very early phase, details to be determined.
This issue deserves to be pushed back on and the school committee owes it to the voters to suspend work on Zervas and switch into a mode of public engagement and re-evaluation of the goals of this whole capacity plan and redistricting.
It is pretty obvious to anyone with even a casual interest that we did not vote on a school at a given cost.
It should be obvious to anyone with a passing interest that we did not vote on a building cost.
One note on the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP).
It was introduced in 2007, voted on by the SC in 2008 and never reconsidered in the entire time that I was on the SC.
Steve is being misleading here when he says:
“But our plan including the enlargement of Zervas has been public, deliberate, endorsed by four successive school committees, and has been updated and available since its creation in 2007.”
The LRPF was endorsed formally by ONE school committee, has NEVER been updated by vote and if anything in the last several years, the SC lowered the LRFP target maximum size of an elementary school from 500 to 450.
Schools at 500 are schools in trouble.
One of the first things I learned when I was elected in 2007 was that Countryside was the largest school at around 500 and the one in the most trouble and the one with the most active parent community trying to remedy that. Size was the problem.
Over the years I served on the SC, however, there was total agreement, that Angier and Cabot needed to be renovated or rebuilt due to there obvious bad condition. The SC visited both schools multiple times since 2008 and that was affirmed with each visit.
Zervas was never mentioned except to add modulars.
Also, for the record, the insertion of Zervas in the operating override was a total surprise to me, as that had never been discussed by the SC ever.
In my view, it was a mistake, as capital projects should be handled with debt exclusions.
The reason we are now in trouble with Zervas is that the city now has $1.3M/year which is enough debt service money to pay for a $25M project and can start a Zervas project moving without getting voter approval on scope or design.
Then if the Newton North project is any guide, there never will be any meaningful attempt to get voter approval on scope or design and that other $20M will be squeezed out of city and school operations.
They just blew the scope out to $45M. They just blew the 450 target maximum the SC has had for years out to 490.
This is not a deliberative process. It has not been endorsed by 4 school committees. It is an approaching nightmare.
And if people want to know one correlation with larger school size, it is that class sizes go up.
Countryside had the largest class sizes of any elementary school for years. Bowen is showing the same effect.
Supersize Zervas and you’ll get all of the supersize effects we’ve seen at Countryside and Bowen plus worse traffic and environmental problems and watch out for cuts to your favorite school system programs as they scramble to squeeze $20M out of the NPS budget.
School Committee! Aldermen! Mayor!
Stop this insanity.
What about when this BOOM hits the middle school? My son used to buy lunch at elementary school, but the line to buy lunch in the sixth grade lunch time is huge. It is the same infrastructure as it has been, and there were enough kids to add another half team. I am glad we have a stablized class size at Brown, however there are more kids using the cafeteria, the busses but the same resources. Wait another three years and the lunch line/cafeteria will be worse.
He wanted to buy a better school lunch, but it takes him 25 minutes to get through the line! And it is the same line for lunch as milk, so now I pack him a milk, so he can go and eat. And not wait in the line.
FYI, the aldermen were just forwarded this email from the School Committee:
@Bill that is right we did not vote on a building cost for Zervas because the project was completely unspecified and bundled with money for the fire department, roads and sidewalks, public safety, and general capital expenses for the schools. I’m surprised they didn’t take the next step and throw in free candy for Zervas students.
Even by wrapping the mysterious Zervas plans in with other essential needs, Question 1 passed by the lowest margin of the three overrides (and by the way it lost south of Rte 9 and north of Washington St. where we have the bulk of the enrollment increases. )
Of course we don’t vote on specific building costs. We vote on the scale of the project and that was unspecified and stuck under the category of “trust us”. Or even worse, “give us this money or we won’t pave roads and build you that nice fire station you want. “
Debate about a 16th school aside..
As a resident of that neighborhood, I don’t see how the Zervas site could possibly handle a 490-student school. Even now the traffic is horrendous during dropoff and pickup. Streets are impassable. Any event at the school completely clogs the neighboring streets (or even take a look at Saturday morning soccer), and is a danger to drivers and pedestrians alike. And if the present situation is any indication, a significant amount of parents of these 490 students are not going to have their children ride a bus to school.
Beethoven is one of two ways into the neighborhood at the top of the hill. Blocking access is a safety nightmare. Emergency vehicles could never gain access.
There’s also the anonymity that comes from a school that large for both parents and children alike. To say that community isn’t lost in a school this size is just wrong. Many of those parents and children will become just faces – not names.
Regarding the size of Zervas, there are have been only two votes by the School Committee or voters:
In March, 2008 the School Committee voted to approve Option 3 of the Long Range Facililities plan, which set Zervas at 22 classrooms and 441 students.
In the most recent override, voters approved $1.3M per year for debt service for a capital project to address condition and capacity at Zervas. With 30-year, AAA-rated municipal bonds, that $1.3M finances a capital project of about $25M — not the $40M+ that is being contemplated for a 490-student Zervas.
In various School Committee presentations, as recently as last October, a size of 450 for Zervas has been mentioned, but it has not been voted on.
The first mention of a 490-student Zervas came just two weeks ago, in a School Committee presentation on February 24. The Zervas Building Committee voted later that week to approve a 490-student school on the current Zervas site.
Outside of the above meetings, the first open meeting for public discussion on this topic will be tonight (6:30PM) at Zervas, where the Superintendent and members of the school department, School Committee, and the Zervas Building Committee will review preliminary plans for renovation/expansion of Zervas.
The School Committee may possibly vote on the 490-student plan for Zervas this week, at its March 13 meeting.
This is 490-student stuff is happening too fast.
If the override provided $25M and a new Zervas would cost $40M+ … where is the remaining ~$20M supposed to come from?
Emily,
Probably from the sale of land deemed surplus by Setti with the easily obtained approval of the Bof A. Watch out Newton Villages, Newtonville’s parking lot will be sold, which village will be next?
These money questions are very important. In the operating override, all of the capital expenses were bundled together into a $2.4M item, described as:
“Debt service for either the expansion or construction of a new Zervas Elementary School, relocation for Fire Wire Division, renovation and reconstruction of Newton Centre Fire Station #3 and Fire Headquarters”
[From the League of Women Voters override information sheet at:
http://lwvnewton.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/LWVN-Override-Outline.pdf%5D
The renovation and reconstruction of the Newton Centre Fire Station #3 and Fire Headquarters is projected to cost from $12-15M. If that project were to be funded with 20 year bonds at around 4% interest, the debt service would be as much as $1.4M, leaving just $1M/year for the Zervas project.
I think that it is very important to identify where the money from the Zervas project is going to come from now that it has been mega-scaled.
Are the fire station projects going to be funded with 20 year bonds, or 30 years bonds? That affects the money available for Zervas.
No matter which way you estimate it, the Zervas project at mega scale will need an additional funding source beyond the operating override allocation.
Bruce, thanks for the info. I’d like to hear more about the intentions of the Zervas Building Group to truly understand this.
When I was on the Space Task Force for Countryside a few years ago, the school was at 510+ in terms of capacity and Geoff is correct – it was troubling, to say the least. But, I wonder what Countryside was initially planned for and if planning for a larger school at the outset makes a difference. What’s important to understand also, is that any estimate is just that, so the 490 could be high or low – probably even more worrisome for many.
Either way, an elementary school that size, on those grounds, on Beethoven street, is of concern. (not to mention the costs, Emily)
Bruce/Emily: What source are using for the $40 million figure?
Maybe I missed something… The city can’t build a “new” Zervas without going back to the voters, right? We voted on additions to the existing building, not a new building.
@Hoss. This is the project site managed by JLS. As you can see Zervas is one site considered among many for a *new* building. Other locations considered include Cold Spring Park, Newton Cemetery, the DPW yard on Elliot St, and several others (see page 7)
http://zervas.projects.joslinlesser.com/download/presentations/2014%2002%2027%20ZSBC-DRC%20Presentation.pdf
I’m not sure they wouldn’t add onto the existing structure in some way, but they have obviously been comparing this project to building a brand new school on other sites. I haven’t heard anyone say the reason for the Zervas site is that they can save money. It was that they ruled out everything site for reasons indicated on the spreadsheet. Sandy G has indicated they may come up with swing space for this project, which would allow them to build an entirely new building.
Bill: The $40M estimated project cost for Zervas comes from page 33 of the City’s FY2015 –FY2019 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and Long Range Projection, Oct. 21, 2013.
Steven Feinstein — In that case, I’m not understanding why Cabot and Angier were treated differently on our ballots. We should have done four overrides if the difference is just a technicality with the Commonweath
Bill,
On projected school building costs.
As described in the LWV summary:
http://lwvnewton.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/LWVN-Override-Outline.pdf
Angier – $35-37M
Cabot – $45-47M
Note that around $10-12M was also spent on Carr for Angier/Cabot swing space.
So if Zervas is going to be bigger than Angier and Zervas, and constructed after Angier but before Cabot, a minimum building cost estimate of around $40M would be very reasonable.
Site constraints including wetland issues and traffic would tend to raise that figure.
Plus there will be swing space and bus transportation costs, which might add another $2-5M or more.
So the cost for Zervas might go as high as $45M or more and we don’t have a debt exclusion as a funding source, so there is real financial risk.
I’ll keep this brief since we’re almost up to #100 in the number of responses to Groot’s posting. This has been a great debate. It’s clear that everyone has been dealing in good faith here and for what they see as the common good for both students and citizens. I’m particularly pleased that Steve Siegel engaged the blog audience as forcefully and thoroughly as he did. I have always appreciated his willingness to reach out honestly and openly even to those he disagrees with. Bruce Henderson and many of the folks from Upper Falls have been equally engaged and passionate about positions they have thought long and hard about for years. I’m not surprised that the response from Upper Falls has been this strong or that it’s been so responsive to Bruce Henderson’s Walkable Schools proposal. The people there have at least as strong an identity with where they live as any place else in Newton.
I’m hoping that the debate on this school issue does not end this evening or at the next School Committee Meeting on Thursday. I hope it can go on for at least another month because the people in Upper Falls have raised issues that deserve to be debated. And not only that. The school issue itself is really masking something far larger that’s really driving this debate. It’s sharply competing visions of what Newton and its 13 villages should look like, how people within these villages should interact with each other and what kinds of institutions (schools, libraries, parks, etc.) it takes to bond residents to their villages. Beyond that, some are asking if the informal village borders that evolved more than a century and a half ago should be factored into planning for 21st century needs. So much of the debate about the kinds of housing stock we want, the best transportation alternatives for Newton, etc. are wrapped up in these competing visions of whether more village based structures, or more centralized systems and institutions are best suited for Newton in this Century.
Let the debate continue.
Bruce, Geoff: Thanks. I can’t access the link from here, but will take your word on it. Generally speaking, the CIP serves as a place-holder for the City punch list. So unless there is something authoritative to determine price, it is virtually a lock that the price will be something other than what is stated.
That said, where does the $1.3 million come from? If $8.5 million was raised through an operating override, the City could tap some portion of that and easily swing $40 million in bonds.
Can someone help me? I’m a bit confused as to where Zervas fits into the various villages. I’ve always thought of it as a Waban school. Are the main objections here from Waban residents that want a smaller school? Or from Upper Falls that want their own school? Or Both?
I think the days of smaller schools at the 250 student level are largely behind us. Too many kids. Cabot is going to be at 450 I believe. If we redo Zervas, it needs to be larger. How much larger? I know my Cabot issues but not Zervas, but I do believe that smaller schools on the whole don’t make as much sense with the enrollment issues.
As for a whole new school, I would support if a suitable site was found. I’m sympathetic to the wishes of a local village wanting a local school. But consideirng the needs of the system, not everyone is going to get what they want (including Cabot of course)
A primer for the less educated folks on the board would be helpful.
If we are OK with 22 classrooms at Angier, 24 classrooms at Zervas does not seem much different (not accounting for the traffic – for which I am sure creative solutions can be found (one way, dropoff from Beacon etc.) )
I believe the core problems are:
1. The $40M funding. THIS REALLY CONCERNS THE ENTIRE CITY. ZWG and SC Need to show the arithmetic NOW.
2. What is the CORE objective – Capacity addition + Zervas repairs OR new Zervas (I believe its former)
2a. If former – Big Zervas OR 16th school. Cost AND Time should be a key factor here. We cannot get in analysis-paralysis. This is one step of the roadmap which extends into 2033 and touches other schools.
BTW – the part which surprised me was Zervas was going before Cabot! Why would we not use the MSBA money sooner, is beyond me.
PS – I don’t know why a talented man like Geoff left SC. His candor and insights would have been of better use with him on the SC… but I digress.
Bill,
The operating override breakdown was pretty clear as is explained in the LWV link, but here it is roughly:
– $4.5M – school staff + short term modulars
– $1.0M – public works … road repair etc
– $0.5M – police
– $2.4M – Debt service for either the expansion or construction of a new Zervas Elementary School, relocation for Fire Wire Division, renovation and reconstruction of Newton Centre Fire Station #3 and Fire Headquarters
So we don’t have $8.4M to tap for Zervas, we have part of the $2.4M and that part depends on the other projects, the bond term etc. Certainly the $2M/year a mega Zervas would require is not covered by the override money.
Geoff: If one concludes that they know all of the details of what is involved here, then you might be right. But without a building specified or priced, it seems a bit premature to be doing that. Further, the funding for Zervas or anything else is not strictly limited to override funds.
@Bill, I was with you till your last comment. If Zervas is not restricted to the override funding, then why did we even call it out.
Lets do this right and with full transparency!
Could someone explain to me why increased traffic is a valid reason to stop or slow other development in the city (i.e. reduced Austin St. and Riverside, former Omni on Rte 9 w/out housing, etc.) but increased traffic is not a problem here?
I’m with you, Newton Dad.
The rational approach is to get all of the options on the table and then figure which one makes the most sense for the community.
Barreling ahead with an SC vote on a 490 student option for Zervas, without exploring the full set of possibilities would be a huge disservice to the community.
The SC is better than that.
The Board of Aldermen is better than that.
The Mayor is better than that.
Newton Dad: I don’t quite get the point. First, we don’t know the project specifications or cost. We don’t know what prevailing bond rates will be, assuming this finally goes forward. Is the idea that we are limited to $25 million to address Zervas capacity? If so, that surely rules out building yet another school somewhere else. Budgets are fluid from year to year, priorities shifts, costs change. It’s a false argument being used to “disqualify” something that some do not want.
Second, we go through this every time the City tries to improve anything. We go through this Henny Penny nonsense every time the City attempts to change anything. Questions are good. False claims and exaggerated conclusions aren’t helpful. Let’s be better than that.
Third, I commend Bruce for putting his ideas and principles forward. He loves this City and the schools, and he certainly loves his ideas. 😉 Whatever the current leadership decides, I believe it will be done transparently, inclusively, and will results in the best practical option available to this City. Not because “they’re right,” but because they will work to get it right.
It’s a beautiful day. Outta here.
Biil has it exactly right. We don’t know the true project specifications or cost.
Yet the SC is poised to vote shortly to approve the project at a scope of 490 students.
This is completely backwards.
Bill has it exactly wrong when he starts obfuscating about Henny Penny nonsense etc.
Where are the false claims and exaggerated conclusions? Nowhere in sight!
Pouring scorn on us plebians who simply don’t get the “smart folks” great plans is the same kind of attitude which characterized the Newton North process.
I expect government to be better than that.
Send us some facts and argument, not some PR guy who disrespects us.
I am mystified at Bill’s repeated insinuations that we should all just trust that the government will take care of everything wonderfully and the disdain expressed for those who are asking perfectly reasonable questions.
“In the frank expression of conflicting opinions lies the greatest promise of wisdom in governmental action.” Louis Brandeis
I agree with Geoff and others who want more thorough debate on this important issue. As we saw with North, financial decisions have far reaching and long term consequences. As long as interest rates remain low, our leaders have a false sense of security about spending. Most of them are slightly inebriated with a sense of joy after winning the override vote. City spending is exploding with much new hiring. Euphoria has set in with a renewed sense of excitement as many of them plan for all the new school building projects.
This new phase of decisions for Zervas is a result of new studies showing increases in elementary enrollment. No time to waste they think and rush ahead without sound judgment.
As we all well know, this economic growth phase could quickly end without warning and leave us all wishing we had shown more caution about accruing too much debt.
Ald. Norton: I clearly said: Ask Questions. And yes, we all should. There, I said it yet again.
Further, I don’t care if you or anyone else does trust this government. I said that I did. And that would include you, Steve Siegel, the Mayor, and others in government working to get it right.
Geoff: Did I hit a nerve? And it wasn’t me who said that they disrespected you.
I doubt that they disrespect Geoff. They admire his work on behalf of the students of Newton and his courage to challenge their old worn out assumptions regarding how children ought to be educated for the future.
Geoff probably got worn out waiting for many SC members to clue into what educational progress really means.
As someone who does not live in Waban and no longer has school aged children, but knows that neighborhood, I agree that it’s hard to see how that location can support the additional traffic. Of course, one way to ameliorate that problem is to get rid of bus fees (which should be done anyway).
As long as class sizes are reasonable, I don’t see why it should be a problem having 4 classes/grade. As long as the facility can support the number of students, there can still be a good sense of community in a 500 kid school (been there, done that, still in touch with classmates,)
At both Bowen Buffer Zone meetings it was indicated that the new buffer proposals were a short term (@5yrs) solution until Zervas is up to increased capacity. Currently Bowen and Mason-Rice are the two largest elementary schools. There was much concern that two of the new buffer zone options are just shifting kids between the two biggest schools and thus resulting in two relatively large schools which is not really resolving the situation. The Superintendent and School Committee mentioned that Zervas was the “key” to fixing the overcrowding in the Newton Centre schools. Bowen currently has 24 classrooms and over 500 kids. Mason-Rice has 21 classrooms with 458 kids. Buffer Zone Options 2&3 could place up to 22 incoming kids at MR. The Superintendent stated that the size of a school does not impact academic performance and the effect on the community was pretty much disregarded. Size does impact that aspect and I feel you cannot downplay the importance of an engaged and supportive community on the social, emotional aspect of education. The SC & Superintendent seem to indicate that larger schools rather than an additional school would be the way to go moving forward. It appears after Angier was planned they have decided that schools should now be 24 classrooms and thus capable of 4 classes for each grade which is why I am guessing they are now looking for Zervas to be in the 490 range. Many felt that the buffer zone decisions had already been made and that these meetings were more of a formality so it will be interesting to see how that is portrayed in Thursday’s SC Meeting. Hopefully the Zervas folks did not leave tonight’s meeting with the same feelings.
The moral of this story is that no-one should ever vote for an operating override with capital projects in it. They should be split out into debt exclusions.
If Zervas had to be done with a voted debt exclusion, the entire conversation would be very different.
Right now the community is being bypassed, as they were with Newton North.
Nothing has changed.
My service on the SC has been book ended by two projects. The dreadful Newton North at the start and the potentially dreadful Zervas at the end.
Just like Bruce Henderson and others, I have argued for a much more democratic process in Newton: openness, transparency, facts, analysis and then a choice amongst sound options.
I have spent a ton of time on this and now for me it is coming to an end. It’s up to all of the rest of you to carry on the fight.
I am totally disappointed in the Mayor for allowing this project to proceed as it has and in the SC, under the leadership of Matt Hills, who was the architect of inserting Zervas into the operating override. Which is the cause of all of these problems.
I have spent almost 24 years living in Newton and I was hoping that by my departure real change would have occurred in the relationship between the citizenry and its government.
We have, however, come full circle. At least on facilities. There is hope elsewhere.
But lots of hard earned tax payer money is about to be wasted on a project which will create more problems than its solves.
If all proceeds according to plan, I will be moving from Newton to Framingham at the end of May.
I wish you all well. It is a worthy battle and can be won with enough engagement by the community.
Farewell.
I am hoping that there will be a new thread started about last night’s Zervas meeting. There was a Globe reporter there, taking copious notes, so there will hopefully be coverage of the community reaction. One thing that I did want to get out there, per the Bill/Geoff/Emily thread about the cost of the project is that Sandy Guryan referred to Zervas as a $40 million project at last night’s meeting.
Farewell Geoff, thanks for your attempts to improve Newton schools. My 2 sons own homes in Natick so I have been exploring all the surrounding countryside. Drive along Farm Rd. it is beautiful. Wish I could live out there too., maybe in a few more years.
Bye Geoff, we’re going to miss ya!!!
This should be an entirely different thread at some point so that we can pay homage.
Karen, you are the most eloquent and creative writer. I would love to read your thoughts regarding Geoff’s contributions to Newton. The most important act for me was the time he discovered an error in the petition gathering debacle which Cohen tried to subvert.
Thanks, Tom, Karen, Colleen.
We have lived in Newton since 1990, most of that time in a 2 family in a great neighborhood in Newton Corner. But our children are in college or well on the way with their careers. Our youngest is a freshman at Purdue aiming at mechanical engineering. So it was time for a change.
We wanted to live in a single family with about half an acre of land and so we looked all over for the last year: Waltham, Needham, Natick, Framingham, Marlborough, Northborough, Southborough, Sharon, Dover, Sherborn, Westborough, Acton, … Newton was prohibitively expensive for what we wanted.
Then we found a great house in Framingham, adjacent to conservation land, that even had a swimming pool (gets the kids to visit more often!). In fact, Framingham proved to be a real source of property values, especially on the north side.
I also like the fact that you get to have 2 water meters: one for handling the garden, so you don’t pay sewer charges.
The Framinghamschool system is also on a strong improvement track with Stacey Scott (who was one of our 3 finalists) proving to be a really effective, innovative educational leader.
Plus Framingham seems to have avoided the unique brand of political craziness we have to deal with here.
So it will be a good change for Kitty and me, and we are looking forward to it.
However, this Zervas madness has to be stopped, so it it comes to a citywide citizen vote of any kind to stop the mega school, you can still count me in for a ton of help with any flyer campaign. As people know, I love to do this and personally flyered about 5 wards for Margaret Albright’s campaign, dropping 5 pounds in the process and getting very fit!
On school facilities issues, I often feel that the current city and school system administration is unaware that the city extends south of Rt 9 and north of the pike. All of the money is being spent in the central band in a really strangely twisted planning approach. There are so many obvious things being done wrong, I sometimes wonder if there are other forces at work whenever large projects are in the offing.
Plus we seem to have lost a big opportunity to acquire Aquinas to provide a home for the pre-K program and the arts in Newton, which have been under duress for quite a while. Consolidating the pre-K would free up 100 spaces at Lincoln-Eliot and provide capacity relief for the wave of students which is swamping Horace Mann.
The Mayor really fumbled that one.
The Aquinas neighborhood group mounted a solid effort making the case to the Myor, held off public action as the Mayor indicated he was in negotiations with the nuns, but in the end nothing happened and its looks like there is a real 40B threat there now which would swamp Lincoln-Eliot and then Bigelow.
And it’s not just the schools, we have multiple misfires such as Austin St., Lake Ave., Wells Ave., Court St., where the city seems to be following very bad advice or is simply out of its depth.
The Austin St project is especially bad as we asked for developer plans based on an outdated parking study. The 85 spaces requirement would be a disaster, when it’s clear that with the resurgence of business in Newtonville, 150 is really more like the needed figure.
How did the city get that so wrong? And now they are saying: “Trust us, the plans don’t matter, all we have to do is pick a good developer”. That is complete nonsense.
So the community needs to crack this constant problem with building project misfires and force the city and school system to do the right thing.
Otherwise, new development will raise density way beyond what the community wants, flood the schools with more students, and worst of all Newton will lose one of its most precious assets: its walkable, neighborhood schools, as every elementary school is turned into a mega building. Ward is next on the agenda, after Zervas.
Many sources of information I have come across in the last 6 years, indicate strongly that a target elementary school size of 400, with an absolute maximum of 450 is the best for educational purposes.
The community needs to fight for that, especially against the leadership in the schools, the SC and the city which will have moved on 4 years from now, leaving an unmanageable school system behind them if they have their way.
Such a great summary of city growth patterns, hope someone is listening. I doubt enough feel any hope to change this pattern of growth. Most people I knew with families here 20 years ago moved just as you are planning to do.
The only reason we are still here is so my husband can easily commute into Boston. With his retirement that will change soon. Most older people are leaving MA to avoid the high rate of taxation on saved/pension income.
One problem I see with this accelerated economic growth is our very unsatisfactory transit/road system. This will be an impediment to continued growth. Once the full impact of the ACA is felt with its drain on economic growth plus higher interest rates, we in Newton may find we took on too much date to quickly and simply left burdened by higher taxes and debt we can’t sustain.
Both Kitty and I work from home offices, so the commute is not an issue for us.
The door-to-door time for us from Framingham to our current house is 20 minutes, so we hope to manage our rental property fairly easily.
On the Affordable Care Act (ACA), I see that as a necessary first step to move the US more towards the norm on health care delivery and costs.
Currently, we pay twice a much as comparable developed nations for worse outcomes. The US is great if you are wealthy and get sick, but we are way behind on overall effective health care delivery.
We pay annually on average $6,000 per person compared to $3,000 per person in other countries like Australia, UK, Japan, France, Germany, …
With 300,000,000 people in the US that adds up to almost a trillion dollars more than other typical nations. If we can make a dent in that, a huge step would have been taken to both improve health care and reduce the deficit.
Payment based on patient outcomes rather than fee for service is the right model and we need to accelerate that transition.
Back to Newton.
Newton has huge upside potential.
The key is shifting the government to the same level of common sense and capability as the community.
That process is underway but needs to really pick up the pace.
If Newton really worked on that, it’s school system could again become #1 in the state as it was 40 years ago.
Same for city side.
At least the city now takes VISA as well as MASTERCARD.
But that took 8 years of lobbying!!!!
Newtons Villages are Suburban, They are not Dorchester, the South End, or Cambridge. Growth and increased Urbanization are the real problems for this city. The undemocratic administration of power on the part of the School Committee, and the Mayors office, not to mention some members of the Board of Aldermen is derogating the character of the “Garden City”. Large urban housing projects at Riverside, Austin Street, Court Street, Wells Avenue, are being forced on the city by do gooders like Newtons Housing Partnership, The League of Women voters, the Cities own Planning Department all led by a Mayor, (who is the Chairman of the US Council of Mayors, Community Development and Block Grant Committee ), that wants to polish his national credentials in hopes of future higher office, by building a portfolio of subsidized housing projects on the backs of the citizens of this town.
The results of these ambitions is a city that is slowly becoming unrecognizable to those of us that came here from urban environments seeking some space, fresh air and a few trees. The possibility of population increase,as a result of the building of these sorts of housing developments is undeniable. Traffic and parking issues already compromise the quality of life here. The burdens placed on school size growth will be financially untenable. We already cannot even properly maintain the school houses we have,.. witness the dire straights of the schools slated for tearing down. What distinguishes Angier, Cabot, and Zervas from their sister buildings at Hyde, Weeks, Claflin, Warren that are still standing if not an truly delinquent lack of maintenance and management foresight.
Enough people have to rise up and recognize where this city is heading and implement a 180 degree change in political leadership before we can say that we have any sort of democracy at work here.