Amherst should take advantage of additional time offered by the state and reconsider its vote defeating a new consolidated elementary school. We urge Amherst officials to schedule a special Town Meeting during the winter, preceded by informational forums, to salvage a building that would replace two outdated schools with the help of a $34 million in state funding that may otherwise disappear or be long delayed.
A petition already is circulating seeking a revote at a special Town Meeting, which may be scheduled by the Select Board when it meets Dec. 28. State law requires that a Town Meeting be held within 45 days if 200 certified signatures are gathered.
After nine years of planning, town officials deserve one more chance to convince Town Meeting representatives that the plan supported by the Select Board and School Committee is the best option now that the state has ruled out an alternative proposal, but extended the deadline for the town’s final decision.
A new building housing two co-located schools for all students in Grades 2 to 6 was narrowly approved by voters Nov. 8, but six days later failed to muster the necessary two-thirds majority at Town Meeting.
While the town had suggested moving forward instead with twin K-6 schools, the Massachusetts School Building Authority said that is not an option that can be supported with state dollars in the near future. Amherst now must get a favorable Town Meeting vote on the original plan before the end of March, or lose the state money – which would pay for about half the $67 million project.
If the plan is not approved through a revote, the town would need to start over, adding years and expenses to the planning with no guarantee that the state would help pay the bill for the next project.
The immediate goal for town officials is to sell the building project proposed for the current Wildwood School site on Strong Street. That project has divided the town, with voters approving a Proposition 2 ½ debt-exclusion override 6,825-6,699, and Town Meeting voting 108-106 against authorizing borrowing $33 million, which was 37 votes short of the two-thirds threshold.
Supporters of the project have suggested the Town Meeting vote may have been clouded by the hope that an alternate plan could easily be substituted and still qualify for the $34 million state grant. And some who back the Grade 2-6 schools believe that Town Meeting members misgauged the level of support among teachers.
Informational sessions before another vote would allow for detailed presentations explaining the benefits of the project, including hearing from teachers and students who face years more of undesirable conditions at Fort River and Wildwood if the project does not go forward. We encourage Town Meeting members to attend those sessions with an open mind before voting again.
Fort River and Wildwood were built in the 1970s using the open-classroom model that is now regarded as educationally unsound. Multiple classrooms share the same space, separated by partial walls that do not fully contain noise.
In addition, natural light is limited in many of the classrooms and other work areas in both buildings, which are not energy efficient, have air quality problems and do not meet accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The new co-located schools would replace Wildwood and Fort River, which would close. Crocker Farm Elementary School would become an early learning center for children in pre-kindergarten through Grade 1. The new energy-efficient building would save the School Department an estimated $500,000 annually once it is completed in 2020.
That 21st-century school paid for with the help of significant state aid remains the best option for most immediately improving education in Amherst.
* * *
The debate over a new school occurs at a time when the Charter Commission is considering changes to the structure of town government, including the possibility of doing away with the 254-member representative Town Meeting.
We do not favor eliminating Town Meeting on the basis of its vote on a single issue such as the school project. However, this is a good opportunity to evaluate the usefulness of a legislative body that generally meets for only a few nights during the spring and fall, and to assess whether it adequately represents the town’s increasingly diverse population.
No matter the outcome of the school vote, we encourage the Charter Commission to continue exploring alternatives such as a much smaller town council whose elected members would meet regularly throughout the year.