Residents voice safety and programming concerns as board outlines separate‑campus plan for grades 5–12

Marissa Prior, a Broadbrook resident, opened public comment by urging the board not to combine grades 5–12 without firm physical and supervisory separations, saying parents and grandparents fear younger students would be at risk when placed on the same campus as older teens. “How can a 4‑foot 10‑year‑old little girl feel safe with a 6‑foot 17‑year‑old boy towering over her?” Prior asked, recounting a prior incident she said occurred when younger and older students were able to access the same spaces.

Board members and district staff responded that the renovation concepts under consideration envision two distinct entities on a shared site: separate entrances, staggered bell schedules, independent nursing suites and cafeterias, and scheduled use of shared spaces such as auditoriums. Patrick, who described work with CSG (the school construction group) and local stakeholders, said consultants showed models — including examples in Burlington — where circulation can be locked and one side of a building isolated so assemblies or public events do not open access to student areas.

The debate over where to place fifth grade featured prominently. District staff described a long list of pros for a traditional elementary K–5 model (playground access, older perception benefits) and several cons if fifth grade were moved out of the middle school, including a reduction in daily electives from two to one, elimination of after‑school options and possible loss of fifth‑grade participation in middle school sports and student government. Staff said moving fifth grade back to the elementary building could raise that building’s enrollment near 600 students and require new staff for special areas, potentially reducing the square footage that qualifies for state construction reimbursement.

Speakers representing teachers and specialists were reported to have been included in stakeholder interviews; staff said those groups repeatedly emphasized the importance of instructional space and configuration. Kate, head of the board’s ad hoc renovation committee, said the board has been clear that any combined campus plan must provide a “solid division” between the middle and high school programs and that the formal direction the board approved specifies separation in the design.

The discussion included questions about bathroom monitoring, supervision and access to athletic facilities. District staff said daily operational details — for example, separate gym schedules and staggered arrivals — would be part of design and scheduling work and that some sharing of specialized staff (world language, special education) already happens across buildings. The board encouraged continued public engagement, noting ad hoc committee meetings where financial and design details will be discussed.

The board did not take a formal vote on program placement or construction approach at the meeting. The most recent action was procedural; public comment and ad hoc committee work will continue as the district refines conceptual designs and reimbursement calculations.