Lewiston Superintendent of Schools Bill Webster, third from left, goes over suggestions from parents Monday night with the redistricting committee. From left are Angie St. Hilaire, Jim Handy, Webster and Audrey Chapman.
LEWISTON – After hearing suggestions to change plans about sending a few hundred students to different schools, redistricting committee members said no to most ideas Monday.
The committee is recommending sending 234 elementary students, about 8 percent of the total, to different schools this fall. The reasons are to handle a growing enrollment and provide greater equity by spreading out the number of poorer students and students learning to speak English.
After hearing from parents at December meetings at Geiger, Montello and Farwell schools, Superintendent Bill Webster presented a list of parent suggestions to the redistricting committee. Only two of 17 were adopted Monday.
One adopted was that students who live in the Perley Street and Jan Boulevard area stay within the Farwell school area. The second suggestion adopted was that research used to base decisions on redistributing students be posted on the School Department's website.
Rejected suggestions included:
* Allow impacted families to stay in their present schools until all children are promoted or move to another school;
* Put parents from impacted schools on the redistricting committee;
* Delay redistricting another year;
* Adopt citywide school choice and eliminate all school boundary lines.
Committee member and School Committee member Jim Handy reacted strongly to that idea, saying it would “create an educational wasteland.” Handy said he gave that suggestion “two thumbs down.”
Another suggestion from parents was to not wait five years for expected state funding to build a new elementary school for the Farwell/Longley/Martel area.
“Do we have to discuss that really?” said committee member and city councilor John Butler. The $35 million cost to local taxpayers was not worth discussing, he inferred.
Parents asked if balancing the numbers of students getting free and reduced-price lunches and those learning English is so important, why was Longley Elementary left unchanged in grades prekindergarten to grade 2.
At Longley, 93 percent of students get free and reduced-price lunches and 61 percent are learning English. Citywide, 67 percent of students get free and reduced-price lunches and 23 are learning English.
The committee's answer was that the only way to balance Longley was to close the school altogether, it's the poorest and most transient section of Lewiston. Instead, the committee is recommending Longley house prekindergarten to grade two students who now attend Longley, Farwell and Martel, when a new elementary school is built in five years. That would help parents without cars be able to walk to their child's school, committee member Audrey Chapman said.
Other parent suggestions included handling disparity through allocating more resources to schools; and redistricting by considering only proximity and not demographics.
Those ideas were given thumbs down, as committee members said the goal of more equally spreading out poorer students and those learning English is critical. Webster has said if all elementary schools more closely reflected the diversity of the city, more students would have more success.
"I'm proud of the direction of this committee,” said Linda St. Andre, committee member and Longley principal. Doing a better job of spreading students with greater needs to more schools “has been a long time coming,” she said.
Committee members Tom Hood, Bruce Damon, Angie St. Hilaire and Handy agreed. The committee worked hard to get where it is, Damon said. “We took a view of this from 30,000 feet, we've really addressed this city wide.”
Louise Elie, a grandmother of Montello students, thanked committee members for their work.
“We need to remember that parents are very reluctant to send their children to Montello. That's one of the reasons this redistricting is so important,” she said. Too many parents are having “Facebook wars” about redistricting “that are very self-serving.” She encouraged them to “keep in mind the greater goal.”
The proposal would tweak students demographics at Montello, a school with more than 700 students. The plan would mean Montello would have 69 percent of its students getting free or reduced-price lunches, instead of the current 75 percent; and 24 percent English Language Learner students, instead of the current 37 percent.
Webster will hold two meetings with parents this week: at 6 p.m. Wednesday at McMahon school; and 2 p.m. Thursday at Longley school.
The school committee is scheduled to vote on the plan Feb. 25.


Q: What part of this doesn't make sense?
A: ALL OF IT!
Someone please answer for me what the pct. of free/reduced meals has anything to do with the quality of education?
Doesn't it make economic sense to consolidate the students that need the ELL classes? If these students are spread out, won't there be a substantial cost in hiring more ELL teachers?
Why is this committee thumbing their noses at the TAXPAYERS who FUND the education? I know my 'return on investment' is being seriously compromised by demographic tomfoolery.
Redistricting based on 'balancing' percentages of free and .40 lunches is like moving to a different apartment in the same building because you don't like the weather... it's POINTLESS!
If redistricting needs to happen, that's fine... Do it by population density where you live in relation to the nearest school like it has always been done. The transportation costs will be largely the same, the controversy goes away, and the TAXPAYERS are satisfied.
I would be interested in what Lewiston's teachers have to say about this 'plan'? This article has no input from any teachers...two principals but no teachers.. Seems odd to me.
The school committee meeting on 2/25 will be an interesting one. Hey SJ, where and at what time is the 2/25 meeting going to be held? I know a few parents/voters that would like to attend.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It appears that the Lewiston
It appears that the Lewiston School Committee has pretty well thumbed their noses at what the parents of the school children involved had recommended. Hopefully this arrogant attitude on the part of the School Committee will be remembered come next election.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Spot on
You are spot on. The whole attitude / temperment from these folks have been puzzling. They act as if children are numbers not students.
At the Geiger meeting in December, Mr Webster admitted a "benefit" (read: Goal) of this shuffle was to put 150 bodies in the $10,000,000 McMahon expansion.
We received a letter prior to the start of school explaining my 2nd grader was not welcome back to Geiger for 2013-14 due to the numbers. My 1st grader and Kindergartener could stay at Geiger because their class number(s) were below line. When I called central office to ask what my options were, it was McMahon or Longley. Geiger, Montello, and Farwell did not have the space to accomodate additional 3rd graders for 2013-14. Martel is full.
When Mr Webster was first hired, he attended a PTO meeting at Geiger to introduce himself. One of his first topics was pointing out the need for an LPS roadmap. I asked at the December Geiger redistrict presentation where the roadmap was. Wouldn't you know, there is none.
Before the committee of select few gets rolling, they need to figure out a roadmap for the Lewiston Schools. This flying by the seat of the pants needs to stop. It wastes money, it wastes time. Where do they expect student achievement to be in 5,10, 15 years? What about professional development? What are the plans to maintain or improve the physical school buildings and support infrastructure?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Why not FIX the failing school
“We need to remember that parents are very reluctant to send their children to Montello. That's one of the reasons this redistricting is so important."
Has it ever crossed their high holinesses Mr Handy and Butler to ask what the problem at Montello is? Always preaching from the top of the soapbox. Why not ask the 130+ people why they asked to NOT have their children attend Montello???
It must be nice to be all knowning. BTW, Mr Handy and Butler...since you two seem to know everything... can I have the powerball numbers for this Saturday?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Like I said in my first post;
Like I said in my first post; Let us not forget what these people are about to do to our school system.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.