Letter: Continued Concerns about the Neary Project

[Ed note: My Southborough accepts signed letters to the editor submitted by Southborough residents. Letters may be emailed to mysouthborough@gmail.com.

The following letter is from Amelia Braun.]

To the Editor and Members of the Select Board:

My name is Amelia Braun. I am a lifelong Southborough resident, a graduate of Southborough Public Schools, the parent of a fifth grader at Neary and a kindergartener at Finn, and an educator at Algonquin Regional High School for the past 21 years.

I watched your meeting on Tuesday, December 16, and I am appalled by the proposal to add the so-called “band-aid option” to the warrant for the Special Town Meeting. Framing this decision around demographics fundamentally misrepresents the problem. The Neary project was never about enrollment numbers—it is about whether this town is willing to provide a safe, inclusive, and functional school for its children.

Students are not data points. They are human beings with complex and varied needs. Some require occupational therapy, physical therapy, accessible bathrooms, specialized equipment, or additional adult support in order to learn. Meeting those needs requires space, trained professionals, and a building designed for modern education. The purpose of the Neary project is, and always has been, to create a school that serves all students—not just those who fit neatly into outdated spaces.

The ongoing effort to avoid triggering building codes is deeply troubling. Building codes exist to protect people. They represent the minimum standard of safety we are willing to accept. Treating those standards as obstacles to be avoided sends a clear message: that cost savings matter more than the safety of students and educators.

I was particularly disturbed by the claim that sprinkler systems save buildings, not lives. Mr. Hamilton said “Sprinklers protect the building, not the occupants.” That statement is factually wrong and morally indefensible. Sprinkler systems save lives by controlling fires, reducing smoke and heat, and providing crucial time for evacuation—especially for children. According to the National Fire Protection Association, the death rate per fire is 90% lower in buildings with sprinklers than in those without. When sprinklers and smoke alarms are present, fire deaths drop by 80%. Sprinklers also protect the firefighters who enter burning buildings to rescue our children.

Consider a student who uses a wheelchair and cannot evacuate quickly due to narrow doorways or noncompliant infrastructure. In that situation, sprinklers are not optional—they may be lifesaving. To suggest otherwise, or to imply that Neary is not worth this level of protection, is unacceptable. Also, it should be noted that evacuation plans are only effective as far as the building does not impede their timely implementation. I think it has been made clear that the Neary building has many such impediments.  The repeated attempts to work around safety requirements communicate to students and educators that their lives are negotiable. That should be deeply concerning to everyone in this community.

We often ask how Neary was allowed to deteriorate to this point. The answer is clear: by choosing temporary fixes over responsible action. The band-aid option continues this pattern of delay and neglect. It does not solve the problem—it guarantees that future students will inherit the same failures.

I am also compelled to address the suggestion that the School Department and School Committee are being fiscally irresponsible by advocating for “wants” rather than “needs.” This narrative is inaccurate and unfair. Every proposal put forward by the School Committee—from the original new building to the current renovation option—has been about needs. This building remains largely unchanged from when I attended Neary more than 30 years ago. That alone should be unacceptable.

We need classrooms that support modern instruction. We need accessible spaces for students with physical needs. We need adequate electrical capacity to accommodate the electronic requirements of education today, wider doorways, a functional kitchen, a safe roof, and sufficient space for all programs and services. These are not luxuries. They are the basic requirements of a 21st-century school. Improving Neary would also allow the district to bring programs back in-house, reducing costly outplacements and saving taxpayer dollars over time.

This is not about building something extravagant. It is about refusing to accept that children should simply “get through” two years in an unsafe, outdated building. Our students deserve the opportunity to thrive.

I urge you in the strongest possible terms: do not place the band-aid option on the warrant. This is a school, not a line item to be minimized. Educational and safety considerations must come first. While cost matters, community responsibility matters more. Many of us routinely support town investments we do not personally use because they benefit the community as a whole.

School-aged children and their families are part of this community. They deserve leadership that acts decisively, values safety, and refuses to settle for less than what our students and educators need. Neary deserves better. Our children deserve better.

Respectfully,

Amelia Braun
24 Liberty Drive