In a slideshow presentation to the community about redistricting Wellesley’s elementary schools, followed by a question and answer session, Superintendent David Lussier laid out the Redistricting Team’s goals to create student enrollment parity across the town’s seven K – 5 schools. This two-hour evening meeting took place at the Middle School auditorium (we’ve embedded Wellesley Public Media’s recording below).
Lussier, along with the Redistricting Team, put forward a plan he said would realign districts to accommodate upcoming housing construction projects. In all, there are 10 developments totaling almost 700 units expected to be built. The Great Plain Avenue project with 44 units, under construction now, is one example.
Although the meeting was not about the larger School Building Committee (SBC) project to rebuild Hunnewell and rebuild either Hardy or Upham, Lussier said, “we know we have to redistrict as part of that…Our goal tonight is to talk about the redistricting maps to make sure everybody understands the methodology that was applied.”
The redistricting team, some of whom were in attendance, is made up of Cindy Mahr, Asst. Superintendent of Finance and Operations; Deane McGoldrick, Transportation Director; Jeff Dees, Upham School Principal; Charlene Cook, Hardy School Principal; Matt Kelley, School Committee rep; members from the AppGeo consultant staff, consultants hired to assist in the redistricting effort; and one parent representative from each of the seven elementary schools.
The presentation to the crowd of about 40 was a repeat of the one given to the School Committee on Jan. 21st. The same presentation and will be given again in a Jan. 28th, 9am – 11am presentation to the community at the WMS auditorium.
Four redistricting plans were outlined — two each for a scenario that included a new Hardy or a new Upham. The earliest a redistricting plan would be implemented would be in 2024, to coincide with a school rebuild.
A hot-button issue for attendees was walkability and students having to cross Route 9, something the current districting requires they do now, and something that isn’t going to go away with the new plan. One parent said, “It seems to me the worst possible scenario ” that kids will have to cross Route 9 to get to school.”
A parent and former police officer in the crowd took issue with the idea of what’s used to define walkability. “It’s not just distance, it’s safety,” he said, pointing out that many of the secondary roads in town on walk-to-school routes have no sidewalks. “Kids and cars sharing the road is a recipe for disaster,” he said.
You can see each of the four redistricting maps here, along with the entire redistricting presentation. The presentation drills down extensively into enrollment reports over the past twelve years, capacity numbers, how student locations throughout town were geocoded, and more.
Each map includes an evaluation of walkability, drivability, and projected capacity. The seven parent volunteers on the committee, one from each elementary school, provided legacy knowledge on natural neighborhood boundaries and how they might be kept intact.
All numbers in the presentation are based on the baseline assumption that each of the elementary schools will have 18 sections and that there will be balanced enrollment across all districts while achieving district classroom guidelines. Those guidelines are 22 students per class in K – 2 and 24 students per class in grades 3 – 5. Wellesley’s enrollment projection numbers are here.
Next up: on Feb. 11, one redistricting recommendation per school will be made to the School Committee.
Any redistricting plan still will have to be presented on the floor of Town Meeting.
“The real goal is to create parity in enrollment,” Lussier said. “There will be disruption for some families.”
And such disruption is the crux of the issue. The mood of the crowd was at times chilly, particularly around the issues of students starting at one school and being redistricted to another.
Here’s a survey about the redistricting issue. All residents, not just those with current school-age children, are encouraged to fill out the survey.
The proposed redistricting scenarios require closure of one neighborhood school and construction of two larger schools. The new school at Hunnewell will be the smaller of the two, at approx. 75,000 sq. ft. The other, at Hardy or Upham (TBD) will be approx. 80,000, to accommodate the wonderful Skills program, currently housed at Upham. The new schools, estimated to cost $65-70 million each including soft costs, will need to be approved on a town ballot, scheduled for March 2021.
I think before we consider redistricting we NEED TO CONSIDER A NEW SUPERINTENDENT who has the community and students best interest at heart and not his own about getting a medal under his belt! It’s ridiculous that such a lovely community and school district like ours is dealing with such a dilemma! I vote replacing the superintendent if that were an option! YES to neighbor schools!
The problem with that survey, (that link you posted at the bottom of the article) is that it’s asking us to share feedback on the redistricting giving only given two choices for the Maps. shouldn’t they be showing us redistricting maps for all seven schools and what it would look like? I didn’t take the survey because I was forced to choose one of only two maps and I don’t understand how accurate a survey like this could be.
I find it interesting that the district is requesting feedback from all members of town – asking which map they prefer and why. I have an elementary school aged child in the district that is not impacted but I would be fairly frustrated if it didn’t feel that I had a louder voice than someone without children /particularly plans for children living on the other side of town if I were up for redistributing .
This seems like a move with perhaps a goal of either to say there was a low response rate thus people are fine with whatever we do, or, people’s comments generally are supportive of either map so again we should feel empowered to do whatever we want. This survey should have had a question that asked “Will you be personally impacted by this map change?” (And how?) for each map set. Also neither set shows a school removed which one will be and might impact people’s choices, comments, etc
The survey did not even go out to parents of children most affected by 2024 redistricting – i.e. those with preschool-aged children. It’s designed to provide evidence of due diligence when it is anything but. The maps were drawn hastily over the holidays, the committees are voting on them quickly, the survey only gives two real options, and the survey was sent to a very small segment of the population – just current WPS parents. This is part of a plan to spend $120M+ of taxpayer funds on two large schools in lower enrollment districts while imposing disruptive redistricting on the entire town to fill those schools. There will be no grandfathering of children either – they will be switched midstream. A plan as expensive and disruptive as this needs far more public input and debate. .
This survey is flawed. It dismisses the voice of many citizens that have absolutely no appetite for school closure. It is manipulative and therefore the data results are not an accurate voice of Wellesley. We have never been given a fiscally responsible 3 school solution and on this survey no option to choose “none of the above”.
Can we trust the outcome of the survey? As this is hosted on a public SurveyMonkey link, anyone in the world can vote–as many times as they want. It’s also therefore possible that any one district could get together and “stuff the ballot” to drive one set of results. (I certainly hope they wouldn’t go to this level but there is potentially a lot at stake with real estate values on the results.)
With only one week to respond, not a lot of public promotion (e.g. local newspapers), and the the technical flaw of allowing multiple ballot entries per person–I won’t vote and would question the results.
I agree with the comments above citing the massive flaws in both the survey itself, and the omission of most Wellesley voters from the “blast email” by the WPS superintendent.
The form is missing a “none of the above” option, and/or a “keep the districts as they are” option.
Luckily, a MUCH more meaningful public opinion survey will happen at our TOWN ELECTION on MARCH 17th.
All Wellesley voters will have a chance to express their opinion on preservation of our existing, excellent, walkable, 7 neighborhood elementary school model.
I will be voting YES for our neighborhood schools on March 17th, for two reasons:
1. Emotion – My walk to school with my kid is, hands down, the best part of my day, and I want future kids to have that experience, in my neighborhood and in neighborhoods around town.
2. Common Sense – Peer towns in have recently built wonderful elementary schools in the $30 M price range. We don’t need mega buildings that give luxe amenities to 1/6-1/3 of our kids. Nor do we need redistricting to continue delivering a wonderful public education, and top flight special education services, to the kids at all three HHU schools.
We are NOT building a system from scratch. We already have a great model that works, that supports our enrollment’s ebbs and flows, and attracts young families to our town. Let’s fix our buildings in a fiscally prudent way, and leave our great 7 neighborhood model alone.
I encourage neighbors to join me in voting YES for our schools on March 17th.
Thank you for covering this important issue.