Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grade Configuration Enrollment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board begins public discussion of moving 6th grade to main campus as enrollment declines
Summary
Board members opened discussion of an instructional‑model change to relocate sixth graders to the main campus (a 6–8 or 6–12 model), citing long‑term enrollment declines and a window for state notification; administrators recommended a formal enrollment study and a phased, consultative planning process.
The Saugerties Central School District Board discussed a possible grade‑configuration change on June 10: moving sixth graders from elementary buildings to the main campus to create a consolidated middle‑school model.
Board members said the idea responds to multi‑year enrollment decline and available space at the main campus. A staff member who addressed the board summarized recent enrollment counts to provide context: the district’s total enrollment in 2004 was reported as 3,425 students, 2,270 in 2023–24, and about 2,282 in the current year. The presenter said grades 7–12 on the main campus had 1,755 students in 2004 and 1,130 last year; K–6 enrollment declined from about 1,670 in 2004 to about 1,140 last year. Board members concluded that those declines have created capacity and raise the question of whether shifting grade organization would better align space, staffing and programming.
Administrators and board members stressed this is an early, high‑level conversation rather than a finalized plan. They noted the State Education Department requires districts to submit grade reconfiguration applications by March of the year prior to implementation, so timeline planning must begin well before a target start date. Several board members recommended commissioning a formal enrollment study to analyze birth rates, housing occupancy and projected student yields from local development before deciding on a configuration and timeline.
Board members also emphasized the need for broad stakeholder engagement — teachers, families, building principals and community members — and suggested a phased approach that could be approved in a single voter proposition but executed across summers to avoid repeated votes and community fatigue. No formal motion or vote was taken; the board asked administration to draft a proposed planning path and committee structure for review at a future meeting.
