Paterson board tables review of middle-school model after heated public outcry over proposed closures

The Paterson Board of Education on Feb. 4 tabled a motion to recommit and review proposed closures and grade-configuration changes tied to a long-range facilities plan that would move parts of the district to a middle-school model.

The discussion followed a presentation by district leaders outlining Phase 3 of the plan, which would group elementary schools into local zones and convert School 21 to a dedicated middle school while reconfiguring feeder patterns for schools 10, 18 and 26. Assistant superintendents said the goal is to "advance instructional intelligence" and to create smaller, developmentally appropriate middle schools with specialized staffing and tailored professional development.

Commissioners raised procedural and practical concerns. "Only the board can close the schools," Commissioner Simmons said, arguing the board had not been given detailed resolutions or adequate notice about specific closures. Commissioner Freeman and others pressed administration on whether prior boards' actions bound the current board and whether all prior phases (0 through 3) should be revisited. Administration and facilities staff responded that redistricting is a component of the long-range facilities plan previously submitted to the New Jersey Department of Education and that elements had been presented in prior years, but that the district would present the plan again.

Dozens of parents and community members addressed the board during public comment, many urging the board to pause the plan and protect existing "choice" schools such as Norman S. Weir, Alexander Hamilton and the Young Men's Leadership Academy. "You have taken that away from us parents," said Eliana Vargas, a parent of an Alexander Hamilton student, asserting the closures would harm students who chose those schools for safety and academic supports. Other commenters warned about safety and neighborhood "turf" concerns if students are reassigned.

Separately, advocates urged the board to address communication lapses: parents said they received the notification letter only days before a snowstorm and described inadequate community engagement. "We were informed of this big change on Friday," said Anaya Shabazz. Multiple commissioners acknowledged the need for more community forums and clearer communications.

During the business portion of the meeting, Commissioner Teague moved a formal resolution to recommit the proposed closures and reconfiguration for further review under the board's authority. The proposal prompted lengthy debate over scope and legal/financial consequences. General counsel warned the board that the long-range facilities plan had been approved by the Commissioner of Education and that reversing or altering parts of it could carry fiscal and administrative ramifications, including potential repayment of state funds if investments had been conditioned on the approved plan.

After additional discussion and an amendment process, the board voted 7—1 to table the recommit motion to allow staff and counsel to research the legal, financial and operational impacts and to return with a complete, precise resolution and recommendations. Board President said the administration was asked to prepare a full report listing state approvals, capital investments tied to the plan, estimated fiscal exposure and options for community engagement.

Next steps: the board directed staff to prepare legal and financial analyses and to schedule further public forums; no closures or boundary changes were enacted at the Feb. 4 workshop.