Science, Tech Program to Pilot at Farmington High

will be the home of a pilot Science, Technology, Engineering and Math—or STEM—program next year. It will be funded by a grant from Oakland Schools.

The Board of Education had considered a number of enrichment programs. But due to budgetary concerns, and an anticipated $14.5 million budget gap next year, the others were put on hold indefinitely.

The programs, and possible reconfiguring of some of the district’s elementary schools, were recommended by a School Choice committee, which earlier this year developed and analyzed an online survey before making recommendations to the board last month.

At Tuesday's Board of Education meeting, Superintendent Sue Zurvalec thanked the committee, which was formed last April, for its efforts. But she added, “One thing that we’ve come to realize is that our district is in a very different place than it was last year.”

Budget concerns, the closure of four elementary schools and the reconfiguration of schools for fifth- through eighth-graders warrant “a cautious approach” to further changes, Zurvalec said. “We do believe the committee’s report will provide solid research … for future planning.”

For now, the board unanimously approved the STEM pilot as well as:

• The formation of a task team to investigate the implications of establishing an educational foundation.
• A hold on the implementation of K-six schools; the district’s elementary schools will remain K-four.

Highmeadow Common Campus will for now remain a K-four school. The board had considered expanding it to allow fifth- or fifth- and sixth-graders to attend. It is not currently being used to its fullest capacity, and the district’s two upper elementary schools are crowded. Another task team will look at how to use the school to its highest capacity, Zurvalec said.

Enrichment programs, such as the expansion of the district’s International Baccalaureate program, will be put on hold. The district administration will consider adding technology specialists to the payroll, if and when resources become available, she added.

“We believe it’s in all our best interests … to stand pat,” Zurvalec said, “To make sure (any elements of the recommendations) align with our resources, our vision, and that they are sustainable into the future.” 

PTA president Charlene Carr was happy to hear that the district would put on hold some of the more ambitious plans, particularly restructuring—again—the elementary schools.

She said she was concerned that many of the parents were unaware of the survey, which she thought the board considered heavily as it considered the suggestions.

“We as parents feel that we are in the dark,” she said. Most of the PTA members had not even heard of the survey, which was offered online and was publicized in local media and through the district’s various Listserv messages, she added.

Trustee Deborah Brauer was also comfortable with putting most of the recommendations on hold.

“I want our district to be the choice that parents make, not a class and not a school,” she said. “Then the (enrichment  programs at various schools) can come. … It’s real important for me that each teacher have the tools they need to help each and every student reach their full potential.”

Likewise, Trustee Karen Bolsen expressed concern over the notion of offering enrichment programs and schools of choice programs at some schools, while others remain status quo.

“We need to consider that choice parents provide transportation for students so students without the ability to have that are at an immediate disadvantage,” Bolsen said.

And she was even more concerned, she said, at the notion of further reconfiguration of any of the elementary and upper elementary schools so soon after last year’s school closures.

So was Trustee Sheilah Clay.

“We went through major changes last year,” she said. “Let’s settle down. Let’s perfect what we’ve already done.”