The TAB’s Jonathan Dame reports that Newton City Councilors “were displeased with the request to waive the requirements of a city ordinance-mandated site plan approval process” to move modular classrooms to Brown Middle School and Newton South in time for the start of the school next month.
City Council to Newton Schools: Not so fast on reusing former Zervas modulars
by village14 | Aug 9, 2016 | City Council | 26 comments
Put the modulars up and get some of the most vulnerable students out of that horrible space at NS and what part of overcrowded schools does the Council not get?
There are several things in this article on which I am unclear.
If it takes 2 months after approval for the modulaters to be ready to use, how could getting approval last night allow them to be ready for use before school starts? Why did it take until now to address this problem? Holding it up for a review seems necessary.
What causes a student to become “vulnerable to non attendance” and why do they have to be
“isolated from the general population for 45 days?” Sounds like something that would happen in prison. Who ever thought putting students in a ramshackle building with no insulation, vulnerable or not, would be a good idea?
This issue should have been addressed months ago. Why is this coming up in mid August? I don’t blame the Councilors for being upset. However, the “Shed” at Newton South is deplorable. Its continued presence on the South campus is a disgrace. So if the Councilors are going to be sticklers about site plan approval, then they should pony up the money for a temporary location to accommodate the students. I found Marc Laredo’s position particularly annoying, since he did nothing about the “Shed” when he was a School Committee member for umpteen years. Even though he’s now a City Councilor, he’s still putting the best interests of the students last. And where is the Governor, um Mayor in all of this? Someone needs to remind him that people expect the leader of the city to actually lead. Of course Mayor Warren has a habit of turning his back on our high school students as well.
@Jane: The Superintendent said they had been thinking about this for 2 years. The Board/Council only got notification in July.
@Marti: If the Council approved the waiver request last night, there would still be a delay and the kids would not be able to access the modulars in time for opening of the school. It was a rather odd presentation last night, as more and more information came to light. First, despite the statements that this is the first time existing, built modulars were being moved, there have been existing modulars moved from one site to another that have gone through the 5-58 process. Second, the fact that there was no formal discussion with the Design Review Committee about waiving the $100,000 expense for more detailed plans seems odd. Like, why not? Third, why was the issue of the sprinkler system requirement not put forward until Councilor Schwartz inquired about the lack of connection. Fourth, it really irks me is when folks say we have to move forward “For the kids/children” – as if the Council doesn’t care about the kids. As Councilor Schwartz and others eloquently pointed out, there is a process in place to ensure safety and other issues are addressed FOR THE KIDS, the abutters and the entire City. Fifth, where is the leadership on this? If there is a known need, then why not ensure that all of the information is provided so they can be assured that they are making an informed decision to waive a protected measure as well as a public process? Sixth, is it not appalling to folks that we house some of our most vulnerable kids in an uninsulated building yet that has not been a priorty brought forward to the Board/Council by the School Department or School Committe? Seventh, shouldn’t all schools be sprinklered?
So let me be clear, that my colleagues and I are all concerned about the current educational situation and will do whatever we can to ensure that the needs of our children are met in a timely fashion. The decision to hold this waiver request just means that there a lot of concerns that have not been adequately addressed.
Remember when we had an override to pay for a brand new NNHS, and a renovation of NSHS? Well, that shed was the same as it is today. Of course, they put a fresh coat of paint then, because the school committee and the Mayor did not want to do anything about the shed then. Why not? The most vulnerable of all the students in that school, and they found it acceptable to build a brand new building, but do nothing about the shed.
The “not suitable for educational use” is a pretty interesting statement by the Super, what about last year, and the year before? Was it suitable then?
Why no public alert to the fact, that parents were entrusting their children(among the most vulnerable in the system according to the superintendent) in a building that he deems unsuitable.
and the school committee…… ugh
@ Amy, this is not the first time the sprinkler issue has been raised. Instead of actually putting in sprinklers, because it was the right thing to do, to help ensure the safety of the people in the building, they keep figuring out ways around “triggering” the state law.
By the way, if this has been in the works for two years, when has it ever been publicly discussed? They started cutting down trees in preparation for this; was the School committee in the dark about this?
Amy- A highly competent staff is in place to take care of the safety of the kids. Either you have confidence in their ability to move modulars from point A to point B or you don’t. You have competing interests here – a bureaucratic process that delays the placement of modulars or actually putting the modulars in place ASAP. You say 5-58 is more important, but please accept others think this is a tempest in a teapot and the modulars should be in place now to alleviate overcrowding at Brown MS and the totally unacceptable space for the most vulnerable students at NSHS.
I think it completely unfair to put this on the City Councilors. Government is a system of checks and balances. Jane, if you think the school committee shouldn’t have to go the Councilors for review and consent, then change the charter.
But so long as the Councilors need to vote on it, they need enough information to be comfortable.
This falls on the school department and the school committee(and the mayor), for waiting so long to move this along. If this has truly been in the works for 2 years, then what is the explanation for waiting until the last minute?
The School Committee and the City Council knew this was coming their way, knew the timeline was tight, and should have been prepared to act expeditiously. The School Committee and City Council has complex issues to deal with in the upcoming months, but this was not one of them.
@Jane: The staff and committee that you reference failed to inform the City Council of some major pieces of information. If you are fine that the School Committee did not even have a discussion about the possiblity of connecting the modulars at Brown and putting sprinklers in the building, then so be it. I’m thinking the public – particularly the parents who have children attending Brown – might want to have a say about whether a discussion should ensue about putting sprinklers in the building.
The 5-58 process is the law that needs to be followed. They clearly did not want to – which is why they asked for the waiver. Fair enough. The Councilors made the decision not to grant the waiver. We could have denied the request – but many of us – would like to work with them to get these modulars in place as soon as possible. If this was such an URGENT situation, one has to wonder why – after 2 years of considering this possibility, they didn’t come forward until the summer and why – even if the waiver had been granted – they would still NOT meet the school opening.
Amy, I agree with your assessment of thus terrible situation. Thank you all for your vigilance, except for Jake and whoever voted to give it a go.
Jane, really, you blame the city council for the modulars not being in place for the start of school? I just don’t understand your reasoning even though you keep saying it.
I don’t want the city council to make decisions without all of the pertinent information. Of all the committees and leaders listed above, the city council is the only one who made the correct decision to halt a fast moving, problematic plan that hasn’t been fully fleshed out mainly for the safety of the kids.
I think Amy and Neil are asking all of the right questions. Yes schools need sprinkler systems. Yes the “shed” is horrendous and has been for years. It is a blight on what is claimed as one of the best school systems. It needs all the publicity it can get. It isn’t the best if some of the “most vulnerable” students get there education in an uninsulated shed.
How can ANYONE in this city call the “shed” an acceptable place to educate ANY students! These families have been through alot personally and then the City shows them disrespectful treatment, by having their vulnerable kids attend school in an unheated shed. I just emailed the school committee. How can this be legal? How can educating children in this building be legal? I feel terrible that it has been happening, and I wasn’t educated myself to know this.
The city leaders owe these students an apology and a proper building starting September 6. Anything less than that is cruel.
I am embarrassed that our leaders let this happen.
Was there any info provided at the meeting as to why the Stabilization Program wasn’t accommodated during the renovation of the rest of the school? I was at NSHS then, and the building was swing space for displaced classes – We got t-shirts printed that said “The World’s Largest Garage Band” when we were there for a year. I had understood that the Stabilization Program was another temporary thing until its new space was done in the Fieldhouse/Cutler connector. Did that change? FWIW, the shed definitely didn’t look like that when I was in it. It was inconvenient, but freshly redone and actually kind of cozy. Cold in the winter, though.
Marti-I’m expressing frustration that the city has not acted expeditiously to relieve the overcrowding and remediate the horrible conditions in several areas of the school system. This is nothing new on my part – I’ve been speaking out about the problems with the school facilities for years and will continue to do so. There’s nothing fast moving about how the city approaches these problems.
@Jane – why are you addressing all your frustration at the City Council, rather than at the School Committee and school system administration? They’re the ones who took so long to bring this to the CC and tried to evade the process. They’re the ones who have been housing vulnerable students in shockingly bad conditions and are trying to avoid putting sprinklers into a school (both of which appall me)?
This isn’t rocket science. . . . about the school population. It was only time before the bubble hit the middle schools. For all the elementary school children that have burst the schools, they will move up to middle school. My son’s class (Class of 2020) is the start of the bubble . . . . Again, Brown needs more space, because they have more students. . . . Not a surprise, if Countryside was bursting at the seams.
But for the school committee not to plan ahead knowing the numbers is awful.
But the real black eye is this shed that has been authorized to use as a functional education space for any child or group of children. And the vulnerable children (and parents) that have been placed in that school. When your child is in crisis you don’t have the energy after a special placement is made to fight the school stating that the actual building is a shed! These parents are concentrating their energy and time and helping the student.
mgwa, that was exactly my point when I addressed Jane. Thanks for the clarification.
I am appalled at the continued use of the shed, the absence of sprinkler systems particularly the use of this bad situation as an excuse to not attach the modulars and and the lack of preparation long ago for all of this to get done – also at the NPS, school committee and the mayor for trying to use a last minute stop gap measure basically so the conscientious city councilors would take the blame for something that could not happen on time anyway.
The Super sounds ridiculous saying the “shed is not suitable for …” When obviously the shed has been an untenable education facility the entire time. I’m just waiting for the mayor to make a statement about how he will “proactively” address the shed, the overcrowded middle school and the sprinkler situation.
Back when Newton had its’ own buses, the ‘bus shed’ was constructed to house management and maintenance; hence the very high overhead doors. Improper ventilation, heating, leaded fuel, asbestos considerations, were all reasons to phase out its’use. But then the vocal voc ed South parents wanted an automotive program handy to the South campus. The shuttling of students to North did not meet with the curriculum demands, so a make-shift program allowed us to maximize the space. Central High was situated at 100 Walnut, along with Springboard and pre-K. The stabilization program addressed the dis-enfranchised students who was borderline in not being allowed to attend mainstream campus life, many of whom have emotional psychological situations; hence the temporary nature of the shed. 5 years ago, the word was tear-down. The city councilors appear to not be asking the correct questions – Has interior environmental air quality testing occurred? Lead, asbestos. Has 21E outside been questioned? Cronin is keeping the info close to the vest, offering up the multitude of vagueness purposely and strategically maintaining options for reuse. A new coat of paint to the uninquisitive hides many sins.
mgwa-I’ve been all over any part of the system and the city for years any time I see a decision that doesn’t expeditiously address the overcrowding and poor condition of the school facilities. I’ve been highly critical of other entities when they futz around while students spend their days in inadequate and unhealthy space (a decision to put off purchasing much needed modulars, overspending on one part of the system at the expense of another). I’ve also been very complimentary when things go well (the purchase of modulars, the building of Angier School). Right now, the City Council should act expeditiously to get the modulars put in place so that the Shed becomes a thing of the past and Brown MS receives much needed teaching spaces.
Jane, I know you as an advocate for all students in NPS and know you have their best interests at heart. I agree with almost all of your positions on the schools.
I disagree with your wanting the city council to neglect to follow the approval process because the other entities involved did not timely and expeditiously address theses problems as they should. Adding another error in judgement does not correct the many that came before. It only enhances the problem.
The poor conditions need to be addressed. I am late to the party. I did not know that vulnerable students were attending school in an unheated shed nor did I know the modulars being installed at Brown were not being connected to the school because a sprinkler system would be required. Sounds backward. I am annoyed by both situations. I don’t think the council should give them a waiver when it is obvious there could be other problems associated with failing to do these things properly in the first place. Even if they got the waiver the modulars would not be ready in time for the first day of school.
Continuing to skirt the law, making one bad decision after another, and refusing to plan ahead so this last minute rush could have been avoided won’t solve the problems. Nor will chastising the city council for not following the same erroneous process.
I am glad these situations have been brought to the attention of a wider audience via the Tab and V14.
What Marti said.
One’s lack of planning does not necessitate an emergency on another’s part.
Wondering if anyone else is noticing the pattern of stumbles from the executive office in the past few months. Might there be a void of leadership?
This is morally reprehensible. The auto shop space is a filthy toilet. Lets not forget that the city just built a multi-million dollar elementary school and is in the process of building a second – both in Waban- the wealthiest “village” in Newton. If the students who populate the auto shop space were high academic achievers, trophy students, or the children of influential residents or politicians, and not at-risk kids, this would NEVER happen. All residents of this city are judged by those outside of it
by how we treat our most vulnerable citizens, especially children. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!!
Yes, SHAME ON ALL Of US!! I did not know about the shed, and shame on me, but now that I do I am appalled, and angry. We are building multimillion dollar schools, and yet we educate our most vulnerable kids in a shed. I’ve seen animals that have better facilities. While the citizens of Newton bicker about who is to blame for this outrage, the kids, and their families suffer. Setti Warren and Fleischman are a joke, and could care less about the less fortunate. I have no respect for either of them, the school counsel or anyone at city hall. Warren/Fleischman, maybe you could find the time to meet with “the people” if you weren’t so busy catering to your rich and influential buddies. Get rid of the shed now! Disgraceful!
Visited the site this morning. I count 12 cut trees, primarily white and red oak. Took peeling paint samples, which are composed of a primer and dark final coat. The siding underneath is galvanized steel which upon sample removal has chalking extreme (zinc oxide). Part of the original painting process should have included a pressure wash with TSP Trisodium phosphate (no longer legal to use). Apparently the original base primer coat has adhesion problems due to the underlying chalk. That adhesion situation is exemplified by not only the extreme cold shrinkage of the galvi steel siding, but also and more importantly by the dark outside color paint which absorbs sunlight more than a light color, expands the siding underneath, popping out sections of primer/paint which do not flex with the siding. Proof positive is a look at the specific locations of popped out paint. A mere paint over will not cure the underlying problem.
I’m wondering when someone from the SD or Administration will respond to my questions related to Sandy Guryan’s memo back in September 2014 (http://amysangiolo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/09-15-14-CIP-Final-Update-1.pdf) regarding the proposed demolition of the shed and the fact that it did not meet building codes back then. Has that been addressed?
Does the absence of ‘full disclosure’ by municipal officials lend itself to the appearance of plausible deniability, the continuum of citizen perception that ‘everything’s just fine’ in Newton?