To the editor:

I urge Barrington leaders not to move forward with 2B-2, a plan that fails to meet the goals established by the community-driven process and that is, most importantly, not a strong plan for kids. I also urge parents, especially those who value neighborhood schools, to consider speaking up about the weakness of this plan for students. 

I have been working in education for over 20 years. Over those years, I’ve worked as a classroom teacher, an assistant principal, and a district instructional leader. I currently work in educational research and support policy, practice, and evaluation in a variety of contexts. I am also a Barrington parent. 

The pressure by some parents to continue the use of all four existing elementary school buildings in the name of “neighborhood schools” has resulted in a shift to a plan that keeps the buildings but significantly reduces the years each child will actually be in a “neighborhood school.” 

I want Barrington elementary students to have neighborhood schools, and that is why I vigorously oppose 2B-2. 

A neighborhood school is a small school, close to home. In plan 2B-2, Barrington children will go to a town-wide school at the end of second grade, when most kids are 8 years old. 2B-2 might preserve a building, but it does not preserve neighborhood schools for actual children. Transitioning to a full-town school – akin to most students’ middle school transition – a year earlier than they do now is a big step backwards, if we’re putting the kids first. 

An advantage that the original 2B plan had over this one is that the transition year that occurred during K-5 happened after K, rather than after 2. If other constraints (building space, cost) require any mid-elementary transition at all (none would be the best scenario), a transition after K is better than a transition after second grade for students. In K, students’ experiences are largely classroom based. As they get older and develop, they interact more across their school, make social connections beyond one classroom, and begin to carve out their own place in the community they’ve been in year after year. Critically, they also enjoy educational benefits of continuous service with a school’s instructional team, especially if they utilize any special services, like reading intervention. The research indicates that interruptions through transitions between schools are harmful to all students and their learning outcomes, not only students whose interventions and special supports would be interrupted. 

One significant weakness of our school system right now is that we have this mid-elementary transition, which is contraindicated in educational research and which many children, including my own, have experienced as a significant loss – a setback to recoup – both socially and academically. Plan 2B-2 not only fails to address this problem, but it exacerbates it with a transition to a full-town school – double the size of the neighborhood schools they would have experienced through grade 5 in the original 2B – after second grade. In contrast, other plans that are on the table keep students in small, neighborhood (i.e. not town-wide) schools through grade 5.  These schools meet the definition of small, neighborhood schools that research supports. 

2B-4 has the advantage over 2B-2 of keeping students in smaller schools with a consistent cohort of students from K to 5. It’s the lesser of the two bad options, in my view, as this still requires a mid-elementary transition for students to a new physical site and, most importantly, to a new instructional team. Again, mid-elementary school transition is harmful to students, and we should be prioritizing a continuous elementary school experience for students. Nevertheless, 2B-4 keeps all Barrington children out of a town-wide school at 8 or 9 years old. That’s preservation of neighborhood schooling for kids, and it’s the option on the table now that puts kids first. 

Despite the loud opposition to the original plan on the grounds that it stripped Barrington of neighborhood schools and that it lacked community engagement, we now have two new plans that reduce the years students spend in neighborhood schools and that have undergone no open, public scrutiny. 

I urge residents and leaders to step back and reconsider. 

I personally view the shift away from the original 2B toward both new plans on the table as a sad example of adult-focused politics distracting our community from a full, inclusive, and careful conversation about what is right for kids. Unfortunately, our children pay the price for this. However we got here, I feel it is critical to raise the alarm now: 2B-2 might save buildings, but it won’t save neighborhood schooling for kids. 2B-2 is a mistake for our kids. 

Brenda Santos 

Barrington