There will
be no elementary school reconfiguration study in the Unionville-Chadds Ford
School District this year. The school board deadlocked 4-4 during its Oct. 17
meeting on a vote that would have authorized the study.

Directors Keith Knauss, Holly Manzone, Eileen Bushelow and
Jeffrey Leiser voted for the study while, Timotha Trigg, Frank Murhpy, Corrine
Sweeney and Jeffrey Hellrung voted against. Outgoing board member Paul Price did
not attend Monday night’s board meeting and therefore did not cast a vote. The
resulting tie vote means the building utilization study will be eliminated from
this year’s district goal initiatives.

Resident comments made before board members discussed their
views strongly opposed conducting a building reconfiguration study.

Lynn Brooks, of East Marlboro Township, said reconfiguration
would be “disruptive and damaging.”

“The emotional impact would outweigh potential cost savings.
Many school districts have studied elementary school grade configuration. The overwhelming conclusion has been
wider grade spans like K-5 lead to greater student achievement and enhanced
parent support of the schools.”

Birmingham Township resident Harry Miller said a previous
study recommended the current neighborhood school configuration.

“The School Board should look elsewhere for cost savings,”
he said.

Wendy Landry, of Newlin, said, “The K-5 grade configuration
allows teaching professionals consistent watchful eyes to enhance the
educational, emotional and social development of elementary students. Also, disruption of families and
probably longer bus trips would be the result of reconfiguration.”

All eight directors who voted provided their respective
reasons for their vote to the community residents who attended the October
meeting held at Pocopson Elementary School.

According to Knauss, “A study prepared by community
stakeholders representing all points of view would provide the school board
directors objective facts to either support building reconfiguration or keep
the neighborhood schools in their current configuration. Moving forward with a
study does not mean any Board Director would have made up their mind.”

Bushelow said she has “an obligation to the voters who
elected me to the board to be open minded and determine what is in the best
interests of our children and the taxpayers.”

Manzone said this would have been a good time for such a
study because the district is not in a financial bind.

“This would be the best time to study building configuration
and carefully weigh accurate budget savings against the pros and cons of moving
to a split elementary school configuration,” said Manzone.

Leiser said he supported the study because he’s open-minded.

“A detailed study will provide me information to make the
best possible decision,” he said.”

In opposition to the study Trigg said she doubted there
would be any “significant financial savings gained by moving to split
configuration. The elementary school buildings were recently designed to
accommodate kindergarten through fifth grade also the district conducted an
exhaustive study which resulted in the current neighborhood school format. I
can’t envision a new study would result in a different conclusion.”

Murphy said the board has enough on its plate right now,
while Sweeney nothing has changed since the last study a decade ago.

Hellrung said he had a change of mind on the matter.

“I initially believed a study would be in the community’s
best interest. However after
listening to the community voices opposing this building utilization study and
reading many articles concerning the impact of splitting elementary education
into K-2 and grades 3-5 I no longer support conducting a study. Out time is better spent
elsewhere.”

The 2011 – 12 district DRAFT goals can be found on the
school district webpage at:
http://www.ucfsd.org/~boarddocs/FOV1-00037F8F/FAV1-00037F82/FOV1-000443D5/08%20-%202011-2012%20DRAFT%20Finance%20Goals%202011-10-10.pdf?FCItemID=S0373A13E&Plugin=Loft