Region 12 projects relatively stable enrollment; committee urges four architectural plans for elementary schools

The Regional School District 12 board heard a detailed presentation of 10-year enrollment projections and a community survey on elementary-school facility options and voted to commission four architectural plans to provide cost estimates and configuration alternatives.

The presentation, summarizing a report by demographer Dr. Peter Prada, said district enrollment is expected to remain largely steady over the next decade (the report projects roughly 797 students in 2026, about 813 by 2030 and roughly 811 by 2035). The presenter explained the projections use the cohort-survival method and noted prior reports from the same researcher had an average one-year error of about 2.2 percent.

Tony Benavania, who analyzed the committee’s SurveyMonkey results for the intermunicipal advisory group, told the board that 1,215 people completed the survey and that responses were weighted to approximate town populations. Benavania cautioned the poll was a convenient (nonprobability) sample that likely overrepresents highly engaged residents, but said it is useful for gauging community preferences. He summarized the key result: updating to code and renovating were broadly preferred or acceptable; building three entirely new schools drew strong opposition; a single consolidated school produced mixed town-level responses, with Bridgewater respondents strongly opposed and Roxbury and Washington more split.

Committee chair Jen Pote, who led an 18-month advisory effort of first selectmen, community members and school staff, said the group recommended the board obtain four architectural plans: renovate-to-new options for each of the three elementary schools (Burnham, Booth Free and Washington Primary) plus a fourth plan that models a consolidated configuration so towns can compare costs and impacts. “Obtaining these four plans will give us clear information about costs and help guide the next steps,” Pote said, adding the intent is to provide options that towns can consider rather than push a predetermined outcome.

Board members pressed for clarity on what the plans would include and on how the projections treated tuition-in and agriscience students. The presenter and Benavania said the projection slides shown to the board emphasized residents but that the underlying report and the posted materials include tuition‑in and agriscience students; the presenter committed to correcting any slide labeling confusion on the board website. Board members also raised questions about land availability and the additional costs of acquiring property if a consolidated site were pursued.

After discussion, a motion to proceed with the committee recommendation to commission the four plans was made and seconded. The board conducted a voice vote; the chair called for ayes and nays and the motion passed (voice vote with one opposing voice and no abstentions recorded). The board did not provide a roll-call tally in the meeting record.

What happens next: the board authorized staff to develop a request for proposals (RFP) or similar procurement to obtain the architectural cost estimates and designs. The committee and administration said they will provide the consultant’s full dataset and the Prada report online for board and public review.

Sources: presentation to the Regional School District 12 Board; survey analysis by Tony Benavania; summary of Dr. Peter Prada’s projections as presented to the board.