Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quakertown SD narrows capital focus to Quakertown Elementary; board split over keeping students on-site during construction
Summary
School leaders presented two primary approaches for replacing Quakertown Elementary — build a new school adjacent while students remain in the old building, or demolish first and relocate students — with cost estimates near $60 million and differing views from board members, staff and residents about safety, timing and temporary housing options.
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quakertown Community School District leaders told a March 18 town hall they will focus the district’s next capital step on Quakertown Elementary, presenting two main options: build a new elementary on or adjacent to the existing site while students remain in the current building during construction, or demolish the current school first and relocate students off-site during a rebuild.
The options matter because administrators say Quakertown Elementary is overcrowded and in failing condition. “The facility overall is failing and in need of immediate repairs,” Superintendent Dr. Friedman said, and the administration gave a rough construction estimate of about $60,000,000 for a new elementary. That figure is a planning-level number the district repeatedly described as preliminary.
The board and district staff outlined two contrasting approaches. Under the on-site option administrators called “Option A,” students would remain in Quakertown Elementary while a new school is built adjacent to the existing building; after occupancy the older building would be demolished. Under the off-site approach, “Option B,” the district would relocate Quakertown students during construction and rebuild on the existing footprint. District staff said an architect the district has consulted believes the new building’s placement would be similar whether the old building remains or is demolished.
District staff also reviewed temporary housing scenarios if students are moved. One scenario would take the entire Quakertown Elementary student body to the Sixth Grade Center with modular classrooms added; another would disperse students to several elementary campuses with modulars; a third would place modular classrooms at Strayer Middle School, with sixth graders shifted to that campus temporarily.
Facilities staff provided high-level modular-classroom estimates and site notes: the district’s vendor quoted modular groupings that would require additional plumbing, electrical service and, if multiple units are placed together, sprinklers per code. Board member Spears cited a vendor figure of about $29,000 a month for modular rentals and noted a 24-month lease could push modular costs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars; district staff also listed a roughly $650,000 rough estimate for renovations to the Sixth Grade Center to make it suitable for elementary students, and said a smaller temporary playground might cost in the low hundreds of thousands. Officials stressed those figures are preliminary and depend on final siting and specifications.
Enrollment, redistricting and disruption were central themes in the discussion. Dr. Hoffman, who presented enrollment data, said the district’s student counts produce “really horrible number breaks” across grade levels and schools, complicating any short-term redistricting solution. Administrators and several board members cautioned that moving students to other district schools without adding modulars is not an option because there is no available classroom capacity to absorb Quakertown students.
Board members and parents differed on whether students should stay in the existing building while construction proceeds. “I am not a fan of leaving them in the school as construction goes on,” said Board Member Spears, citing safety and contractor access concerns. Board Member O’Donnell warned that building next to an occupied elementary “limits what you can and can’t do with construction” and said it could lengthen the schedule; he and others asked the district to get architect estimates for any schedule or cost escalation tied to keeping students in the building.
By contrast, other board members and staff argued that relocating students — and moving teachers and classroom materials twice — would be disruptive to instruction and costly. “There’s a lot of systems on their last leg in QE,” Dr. Friedman said, and he cautioned that if the Quakertown Elementary facility fails during a planned on-site project, the district would “automatically need to move to Option B.” Several speakers urged keeping the Quakertown school community together during any temporary move if the district relocates students.
Public commenters raised safety and program concerns for special-education students, playground access and traffic at Strayer. Multiple speakers highlighted Ronald Reagan Drive and local traffic access near Strayer Middle School, saying the district cannot fix off-site roadwork on land it does not own and that any decision to shift sixth graders to Strayer should account for unresolved road and traffic constraints.
Community engagement and next steps: the district said it has launched a capital-projects website and sent a feedback survey; as of the meeting staff reported 228 survey responses. Administrators and several board members said they want more detailed concept drawings and estimated timelines from the architect and engineers before a final decision. Board Member Jackson urged the board to act at the April meeting to authorize designers and begin permitting and concept development; administrators said they will seek a quote for conceptual drawings to present at the next board meeting.
The board did not take any formal votes at the town hall. Instead, administrators were directed during the session to post the presentation to BoardDocs and the capital-projects website, to gather more precise timeline and cost information from the district’s architects and engineers, and to return to the board with conceptual drawings and permit-timeline estimates for further deliberation.
What’s next: district staff said construction of a new elementary would likely be an 18–24 month construction phase once designs and permits are complete, though officials stressed final schedules depend on the option chosen and permit timelines. The board and administration asked architects for more detailed cost and schedule delta estimates that specifically compare building with students in place versus demolishing before construction; those numbers will inform the board’s next public deliberations.

