A capital improvements referendum passed on Tuesday night. (Credit: Jen Nuzzo)
Shoreham-Wading River school district residents made their voices loud and clear on Tuesday: they want upgrades to their schools.
A $48.5 million construction project passed 1,421 to 585 on Tuesday, with 70.8 percent of voters approving the measure. The capital improvement project will require issuing a $33.5 million bonds and using another $15 million in reserves for additional construction work.
Shoreham-Wading River School District residents will head to the polls today to vote on a capital improvement referendum to issue $33.5 million in bonds and to use another $15 million in reserves for additional construction work.
The Shoreham-Wading River school board harshly criticized a recent state proposal to mandate additional standardized testing called “field tests” for grades 3 through 8.
In a resolution read aloud at its meeting Tuesday night, the board denounced the planned change as benefiting the companies that provide the tests more than the students. The change would result “in the reduction of students’ learning opportunities” and was proposed to create more ways to evaluate teachers based on testing scores, according to the resolution.
In the resolution, the board called the proposal a way to “subsidize private enterprise without public discussion.”
Previously, any participation in the tests was on a voluntary basis. The Board of Regents is currently considering the State Education Department’s proposal.
The district has previously taken stances against standardized testing. The school board called on state and federal educators to end the “over-reliance” on state testing for students.
This March, as the “opt-out” movement over standardized testing grew, Superintendent Steven Cohen issued a letter detailing how district parents could refuse to have their children take the tests.
Mr. Cohen has previously expressed concerns over standardized testing and its effect on students’ educations.
Supporters of the Shoreham-Wading River school bond review a map of where to place signs around the district. (Credit: Paul Squire)
Sets of tables and chairs were arranged in the Miller Avenue Elementary School gym Tuesday night, right next to a row of display boards showing overhead construction plans with alterations highlighted in yellow and green.
At the tables sat Shoreham-Wading River School District administrators and school board members, ready to answer questions about the district’s proposed $48.5 million plan to refit and repair district schools. (more…)
A view of two of Shoreham’s tennis courts last spring, which have become unplayable after years of neglect. A proposed $48.5 million construction project would repair the courts. (Credit: Joe Werkmeister, file)
Want to find out more about Shoreham-Wading River’s proposed school bond before the big vote next month? Clear your Tuesday night plans.
Roger Smith of BBS Architects speaks at Tuesday’s Shoreham-Wading River Board of Education meeting. (Credit: Jen Nuzzo)
The architect who designed a capital improvement project for the Shoreham-Wading River School District’s outdated infrastructure gave a presentation Tuesday outlining the scope of construction.
Eleven Shoreham-Wading River student-athletes signed to continue playing their sports in college next year. The signees were: (seated, from left): Alex Hutchins, Madison Dwyer, Emily DeGennaro, James Szymanski and Caitlin Mirabell; (standing, from left) Lauren Daly, Manuela Cortes, Christian Clarkin, Ryan Bray, Steven Weindler and Jack Zukowski. (Credit: SWR schools)
From gymnastics to lacrosse, Shoreham-Wading River was well represented during the early signing period.
Eleven students signed letters of intent to continue their athletic careers in college next year, highlighted by three students signing to major Division I programs. (more…)
After one woman spoke out at a recent Shoreham-Wading River Board of Education meeting, and members of the community have spoken at large in opposition to a 60-acre solar farm near the district’s middle school, the board seems poised to respond in opposition — not necessarily to the solar farm itself — but rather how it was approved.