The Runkle School Building Committee met on May 20th. The primary purpose of the meeting was to designate either B1 or B2 the “preferred option.” Nancy Daly, the chairman of the committee, solicited input from committee members as well as members of the public. After a lengthy period of comment, a vote was taken and B1 selected.
The committee continued to discuss and stress that, while this designation represents a design direction, this is only the end of the Feasibility Phase of the project. Now begins the Schematic Design Phase. There are many changes still to come, including a reduction in overall square footage, refinement of the internal layout, the landscaping plan, and much more.
The next meeting of the RSBC is scheduled for Wednesday, June 10, 8:30 am, on the ground floor of Town Hall. See the RSBC site (http://www NULL.brooklinema NULL.gov/index NULL.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=447&Itemid=733) for the latest meeting minutes and schedules. See here for a list of all Renovation Reports.
2 Responses to Renovation Report: May 20th Meeting Notes
Leave a Reply
(http://jostensyearbooks NULL.com?REF=A01048535)
I’d like to address where you have placed the music room; where the multi has been placed;and a few additional comments.
First the music room: On the above plans the music room is a windowless room across from the boiler room in the ‘cellar’ of Runkle School. Except for a bit more space, I do not see any improvement over the sad conditions of the music room from this year….and the plans indicate that it will be a far cry from what the music room has been for approx. 18 years.
The music dept. at Runkle does academically accomodate as many students as the physical education dept. ;the art dept.;and the library. The music room needs space for movement;space for storage; space for instruments (in use); space for learning; space for chorus; space for band; and, space for orchestra.
As one teacher I see approx. 840 students each week for a lesson – and that does not take into account the 180 students I see at assembly every week. The plans do not take into account the .25 teacher that teaches grade 7 & 8 music and it does not account for the instrumental teachers – 5 of them – that converge at Runkle to teach instrumental music at the same time. Where do they teach? Where does the band and orchestra meet? How long does it take for a class to transition to the music room?
Regarding the windowless room: could not some consideration be given to the number of hours and days that a teacher will be using a room. Some teachers are here in the building 1, 2 or 3 days of the week and yet the plans indicate that they will have ‘prime’ space with easy access and (esthetically pleasing)windows. The primary music teacher at Runkle teaches 5 days a week.
It is not necessary for the music room to be close to the multi. A central location near all the learners at Runkle is necessary. One that is esthetically pleasing that will allow esthetic growth of the students at Runkle.
Regarding the plans for the multi: I find that access to the area inadequate. Runkle school is a very active community. In addition to concerts twice a year for all grade levels there are plays, musicals, international celebrations, square dancing, large activities that support curriculum, etc. ……all of these and more demand the use of the space – it is so busy that scheduling is done the summer prior to a school year begins. How do people get to that space?….through the one small door you have provided at the back?….It seems to me that this is a bottleneck and could prove hazardous. There is one small entry where you have placed a stage – that entry is one door , built below ground level, with a flight of stairs leading to the small front parking lot. If the stage is indeed a stage you will need a flight of stairs on the stage inside, that will proceed down, below ground level, in order to reach the door outside and the flight of stairs on the outside that will take you up to the small parking lot. This will make a very awkward and unusual stage and not what is visually indicated on the plans.
In addition: Bathrooms for grade 1 and 2 are a distance from their classrooms. It is very important to keep them as close as possible to the classrooms for the same reasons that ‘K’ has bathrooms in their rooms.
Also, the staff room will not accommodate staff. Brookline has a tradition of ‘Friday morning breakfast’ for teachers. There is no space to continue with this tradition. It seems that the space you have provided will not even allow teachers to lunch together. I do not want this request for staff room space to seem as though it a place for social occasions but more as ‘business lunch’ place…..where the business of education is continued.
May I add, this building is in need of additional bathrooms for teachers. There is only one shared bathroom (male/female) on the first floor. There have been many occasions where the waiting line was 5 deep. I understand that the building may have the required number of bathrooms for a school – but I can’t help but think that meeting those antiquated requirements should not stop us from real, needed improvement.
May I suggest that you look at Heath School in Brookline to see a good example of a well thought out music room – central to the school.
Thank you for considering my thoughts on the plans.
Stephanie Gardner
I think it’s worth serious consideration that our music teacher says that the plan we’re likely to adopt does not adequately address instructional needs.
Right now we have group music classes taught in the hallways. This is a disgrace. We also have musical instruments “stored” in the hallway. Also a disgrace.
Maybe we all overlook these disturbingly inadequate situations because we assume such glaring problems will obviously be ameliorated by the renovation. But will they?
Nevertheless, if we do decide to go ahead without providing adequate and appropriate space for music instruction, let me make a simple suggestion: Pick the subjects that produce the least sound to be taught in hallways. That would clearly be less disruptive. It’s quite inane to have the one subject that is bound to produce sound be the one that is relegated to being taught in the hall where it can penetrate all nearby classrooms. Although this would perhaps be less disruptive, it would be, I think, equally squalid.
Imagine if instead of teaching music and storing instruments in the hallways we had math, art, or PE, or any other subject treated this way — imagine how outraged you would be.
Now imagine that the new building plan does not solve (or even address) that problem for music and ask yourself why it would be okay for us to accept that? If you think that’s not okay, then I’d urge you to make your thoughts known to the building committee by commenting here.