Letter: Closing Plunkett School Short-Sighted
 |
To the Editor:
The impending closure of one of the two elementary schools in the Adams-Cheshire Regional School District is an unfortunate yet necessary step to strengthen the district both educationally and financially.
The problems plaguing this region have been well documented in many forums: declining and aging population, declining enrollment, stagnant revenue, 10-15 percent rise in health-care costs every year. These, among many other economic factors have hit not just here but small towns across America hard. Both C.T. Plunkett in Adams and Cheshire Elementary School have served thousands upon thousands of kids. Closing either of these schools will be difficult and perhaps even traumatizing to former and especially current students.
One thing that won't change is the focus of the staff on producing well-educated, prepared, well-rounded kids ready for the next level. Of that I am sure.
At the beginning of the process I was public in my belief that whatever option is the best educationally for the students I would support. That raised a crooked eyebrow among some Adams residents when I made my opinion known. As the decision nears I have no doubt that Plunkett is the best option not only educationally but socially as well. It's highly concerning to me that the closure of Plunkett would pull dozens of jobs from downtown Adams. This would have a measurable effect on our businesses that have supported Plunkett for so long. It would also result in another empty school building in Adams. It also leaves the larger of the two towns, and the majority financier, in Adams-Cheshire Regional School District with no physical presence. But what concerns me most is the dilapidated condition of Cheshire and its inability to provide a consistent environment for learning.
In 2014 a study was commissioned by ACRSD in the form of a Statement Of Interest sent to the Massachusetts School Building Authority. It basically asks the MSBA their opinion of the condition of Cheshire. The resulting report is deeply alarming. Some highlights include the following statements directly from the report:
• The school is in need of renovation and some replacement of facility systems such as roof, windows, and heating and ventilation systems. The school also needs demolition of obsolete buildings and additions of new modern buildings.
• The facility does not have access to town sewer and has its own septic system on site.
• The roof is in poor condition and requires constant repair and maintenance. The roofing system here certainly needs to be replaced.
• West wing windows, other than the cafeteria, have deteriorated wood frames and replacement is the only option.
• The heating infrastructure is in very poor condition. Ventilation systems are outdated and not adequate for a modern-day educational facility.
• There is a buried oil tank on the south side of the building that needs to be removed.
• There is a lack of proper lighting, ventilation, sound proofing of classrooms, security and communication systems, a centralized main office and nursing facilities. Inadequate space for occupational therapy and physical therapy and inadequate restroom space.
• The lack of consistent heat in classrooms is disruptive to the educational process. It is a constant distraction to the students and staff.
• The building is nearing the end of its useful life. The current systems are inadequate for a modern-day educational facility.
There are many other problems cited in the report but in the interest of brevity, I'll stop there. Should Cheshire remain open and Plunkett close, I have no doubt that in the near future Adams will be asked to foot the majority portion of an exorbitant bill for repairs to Cheshire. As the chairman of the Selectmen and a citizen, I find this unacceptable and it would be irresponsible of me to condone it in any way.
If there are not enough restrooms now how will more students impact the shortage? Can the septic system handle it? Where will the money come from to replace the roof, windows, HVAC, etc.? Most importantly, why should we send all the students to a school where "The current systems are inadequate to meet the needs of a modern education?"
Additionally, I am of the opinion, judging by the enrollment estimates of the Northern Berkshire Education Task Force, that in the very near future K-12 will be housed entirely at Hoosac Valley Middle and High School, which is a new facility in pristine condition. I would be unwilling to support any major renovation of Cheshire because I see it as wasting money that could be better spent on Adams' town services, all of which have seen major cuts in the last few years.
For the citizens in Adams to pay roughly 70 percent of the cost to rehab a building in Cheshire that in all likelihood will be deemed unnecessary to the district in 10 years would be a reckless use of town funds. For those who think I'm stumping for Adams and Plunkett, absolutely I am, but to the folks in Cheshire, ACRSD will be asking you for money as well. Unless there is a secret vault filled with money in Cheshire Town Hall of which I'm unaware, you can ill afford it as well.
Plunkett certainly needs work. No doubt. But it needs far less than the massive overhaul to make Cheshire Elementary even remotely ready to meet the needs of today's students. Especially when any repairs made would only be needed until we consolidate at Hoosac Valley. Any other decision than keeping Plunkett open as the ACRSD elementary would be irresponsible, short-sighted, and unjust financially and, more importantly educationally to both communities.
Jeffrey Snoonian
Snoonian is chairman of the Adams Board of Selectmen. The opinion he has stated is entirely his own and not that of the Board of Selectmen.
Tags: ACRSD,
