FAQs   

At its June 8 meeting, the School Building Committee (SBC) voted unanimously to approve the schematic design for the new Pollard Middle School at a total project budget of $325.4 million, $10.9 million less than an earlier $336 million estimate, even as the building grew by 11,000 square feet to meet the educational program.

The savings stem from a faster construction schedule, reducing Phase 2 to only the sixth grade wing, and right-sizing the building envelope. Locating the geothermal well field on Warner Field also contributed significantly, avoiding the complications of multi-phase drilling on the existing sloped site and eliminating the need for temporary mechanical systems during Phase 1. Bond Building Construction has been instrumental in refining construction logistics and scheduling, and value engineering will continue at each step of the design process.

In April 2026, the Deputy Town Manager/Director of Finance analyzed the possible tax impact of the proposed Pollard project based on the most recent estimated gross cost available at that time of $336.3 million.  

• The analysis assumed a 7.00% long term interest rate, an MSBA reimbursement of $64.6 million, debt service payable over 36 years (FY2028 – FY2063), and a single tax rate for the purposes of analysis. Needham has a split tax rate, resulting in a lower impact on the residential taxpayer and higher impact on commercial property owners.  

• The additional tax to be paid for a reconstructed Pollard School by the average single-family home (based on the FY2026 average of $1,541,061) would range from $102 - $2,366 per year and would peak at $2,366 in FY2034.  

Since the above analysis was completed, the project budget has been reduced to $325.4 million. A debt financing analysis will be conducted prior to the October 2026 Special Town Meeting and November ballot vote based on this lower project cost.

Source: 2026 Debt Financing Outlook Report (pages 6-8)  

High Rock as a “6th grade center” was viewed as a temporary fix almost 18 years ago when the School Committee authorized its use due to space constraints at Pollard. It was economical to make use of an existing building, but it has never fully fit the needs of our 6th grade students. 

Because High Rock was originally built as an elementary school, the classrooms, cafeteria, and gymnasium are all undersized relative to current middle school standards. Growing population needs have also led to a decrease in special education space and programming — some students with special needs do not attend High Rock at all, instead starting their sixth-grade year at Pollard. 

During the study for the School Master Plan, it was determined that fully meeting capacity and programmatic needs at High Rock as a permanent sixth-grade center would require an addition of approximately 15,000 square feet.

In addition, while the educational program at High Rock has been good for students and widely supported by the community, we have also learned that disrupting the middle school experience by separating 6th graders from 7th and 8th graders has some drawbacks, including: 

• Inefficient use of programs, staff, transportation, and other resources

• Increasing transition issues with an extra move between 6th and 7th grades

• Curtailing the 6th grade educational experience due to elementary-designed space that limits the curriculum and program 

• Losing the opportunity for 6th graders to develop the skills and maturity that are modeled by older peers in a mixed-aged setting

Pollard School was identified as a critical part of the District’s long-term plan and is considered a key component in the multi-building strategy described by the 2020 School Master Plan Study to address the District’s goals of:

• Remediating the deteriorating physical infrastructure and programmatic deficiencies of the Mitchell and Pollard Schools, including the end-of-life middle school modular classrooms.

• Alleviating overcrowding and lack of adequate program space at the District’s two middle school facilities (High Rock and Pollard).

• Mitigating the impact of construction on one or more generations of students.

• Avoiding expensive building maintenance over time by completing renovations in a timely manner.

• Avoiding expenditures for temporary facilities to the extent possible.

• Providing for elementary enrollment capacity, including preparing Needham for Universal Preschool.

In conjunction with the School Master Plan, Pollard was identified by the School Committee as a priority school for improvement because:

• It makes possible the fastest resolution of the Pollard, High Rock, and Mitchell building issues.

• It ensures that no single generation of students would experience multiple construction projects.

• It unlocks a project sequence that circumvents the need for costly temporary swing space and offers the most elementary classroom capacity for enrollment growth.

Learn more by visiting our timeline page.

Although the Town has undertaken significant repair and maintenance of the Pollard School over the years, all of the Town Master Plans agree that the building is in need of a comprehensive upgrade due to the building's age (32–68 years), deficiencies in many of the building’s systems, and poor energy performance.

As examples:

• The HVAC system must be totally redesigned and replaced to meet contemporary specialized energy codes and the Town’s stated goal of meeting net-zero emissions by 2050. Portions of the heating system are original to the building, and there is no central cooling system in place. The HVAC system requires constant repairs to maintain the design airflow, and the control system, which was installed in 1995, is past the end of its useful life.

• Portions of both the electrical and plumbing systems are also original to the building and are in need of replacement. Repair parts are no longer available for some equipment.

• Only about 40% of the building is sprinklered, which is less than the 100% threshold identified in the current fire protection code.

• Additionally, although the building structure and envelope are sound, renovations or additions to the building would need to conform to contemporary seismic and snow load criteria. Improving the thermal performance of the building will also require insulation to be added to the walls, windows, and roof.

• Finally, the ten modular classrooms, which were installed in 2002, are now at the end of their useful life. These classrooms are necessary for the school to accommodate the current population of students and must now be replaced with permanent construction.

The Pollard Middle School will be required to bring all existing envelope, structural, HVAC, and life safety systems up to contemporary building and energy codes with a major renovation project that exceeds 30% of the existing value of the building.

The School Master Plan was undertaken to address the School Committee’s goals of:

a) Remediating the deteriorating physical infrastructure and programmatic deficiencies of the Mitchell and Pollard Schools, including the end-of-life middle school modular classrooms.

b) Alleviating overcrowding and lack of adequate program space at the District’s two middle school facilities (High Rock and Pollard).

c) Mitigating the impact of construction on one or more generations of students.

d) Avoiding expensive building maintenance over time by completing renovations in a timely manner.

e) Avoiding expenditures for temporary facilities to the extent possible.

f) Providing elementary enrollment capacity, including preparing Needham for the possibility of Universal Preschool.

On April 5, 2022, the Needham School Committee voted Pollard as its priority school for renovation in conjunction with this Master Plan, because:

a) It makes possible the fastest resolution of the Pollard, High Rock, and Mitchell building issues.

b) It provides additional enrollment capacity around the district that offers the possibility for a renovated, three-section school on the Mitchell site – a school size that may be better suited to the constraints of the Mitchell site.

c) It ensures that no single generation of students would experience multiple construction projects.

d) It unlocks a project sequence that circumvents the need for costly temporary swing space and offers the most elementary classroom capacity for enrollment growth.

Learn more about the history of events by visiting our timeline page.

The School Committee’s preferred Master Plan scenario, "High Rock as Elementary School," is a multi-school plan to meet the above objectives. As originally proposed, it:

• a) Positions grades 6th-8th under one roof at the Pollard School.

• b) Repurposes High Rock as a sixth elementary school.

• c) Renovates the aging Mitchell School as a smaller, 3-section elementary school.

The execution of a Pollard project as a 6 – 8th grade Middle School would allow High Rock to serve as swing space for the Mitchell Elementary School students, until a new Mitchell School can be completed.

The 2020 School Master Plan (and 2022 Update) is available on the School Department’s website. Learn more about the history of events by visiting our timeline page.

The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is a state agency that helps cities and towns across Massachusetts pay for new or renovated school buildings. Because building schools is such a big expense, the MSBA provides funding support to communities that qualify.

Getting this support is not automatic—it’s a competitive process. The MSBA carefully reviews each project and partners with local communities to make sure the final plan is the most cost-effective, long-term solution for students, teachers, and taxpayers.

For the Pollard Middle School project, this partnership could mean that Needham gets back as much as 24% of the total project cost, reducing the burden on taxpayers.

The MSBA's ("Core Program") capital process is depicted in this process flow chart. It consists of the following phases:

• Module 1: Eligibility Period The Town of Needham completes preliminary requirements, including obtaining community authorization for the project and funding for a feasibility study.

• Module 2: Forming the Team The Town selected the consultant Owner's Project Manager (OPM). The Town-employed OPM then worked with the MSBA Designer Selection Board to select the Architect and Engineering Design Team.

• Module 3: Feasibility Study After successfully procuring Owner's Project Management and Designer services as outlined in Module 2, the District and its team collaborate with the MSBA to document their educational program, generate an initial space summary, document existing conditions, establish design parameters, develop and evaluate alternatives, and recommend the most cost-effective and educationally appropriate solution to the MSBA Board. During this phase, the OPM will submit a Preliminary Design Program (PDP) in September 2025 and a Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) in December 2025 on behalf of the District and its Designer. Approval by the MSBA Board is required for all projects to proceed into schematic design.

• Module 4: Schematic Design The District and its team develop a final design program and a robust schematic design of sufficient detail to establish the scope, budget, and schedule for the Proposed Project. The Project Funding Agreement (PFA) identifies the level of MSBA reimbursement for the project.

• Module 5: Funding the Project Based upon the completed Schematic Design, the District and MSBA staff establish and document the project scope, budget, schedule, and MSBA financial participation to forward to the MSBA Board of Directors for their approval. This approval establishes the MSBA's participation in the proposed project. Once the District secures community authorization and financial support, the MSBA and the District enter into a Project Funding Agreement (PFA), which defines the scope, budget, and schedule for the Proposed Project. A town-wide ballot question will be presented to voters in November 2026 to approve the necessary funding for the project's construction. This tax override vote is a crucial and required step to secure the local share of the project's cost and ultimately authorize the Town to move forward with the project.

• Module 6: Detailed Design, Construction Documentation & Bidding The District and its team advance the design, generate construction documentation, procure bids, and award a construction contract in accordance with the agreed-upon project scope, budget, and schedule as documented in the Project Funding Agreement (PFA). The MSBA continues to monitor the project to ensure it remains on track and meets the expectations of both the District and the MSBA as defined in the PFA.

• Module 7: Construction Administration This is the phase where the approved design is brought to life through active construction of the school facility. The MSBA continues to monitor the progress of the project to confirm that it remains on track and meets the expectations of both the District and the MSBA as defined in the Project Funding Agreement.

• Module 8: Completing the Project This module involves the substantial completion of construction, commissioning of building systems, and final closeout procedures, leading to occupancy of the new or renovated facility.

• Module 9: Post Occupancy Evaluation Approximately three years after a project reaches substantial completion, the MSBA and its consultants coordinate with districts to conduct a Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE). This involves distributing surveys, pre-visit questionnaires, and scheduling building visits to collect both qualitative (user satisfaction) and quantitative (building system performance like energy and water usage) data. The goal is to ensure the building is operating as intended, performing as designed, and to apply lessons learned to future school building projects and the ongoing maintenance and operations of MSBA-funded schools.

At its June 8 meeting, the School Building Committee (SBC) voted unanimously to approve the schematic design for the new Pollard Middle School at a total project budget of $325.4 million, $10.9 million less than an earlier $336 million estimate, even as the building grew by 11,000 square feet to meet the educational program.

The savings stem from a faster construction schedule, reducing Phase 2 to only the sixth grade wing, and right-sizing the building envelope. Locating the geothermal well field on Warner Field also contributed significantly, avoiding the complications of multi-phase drilling on the existing sloped site and eliminating the need for temporary mechanical systems during Phase 1. Bond Building Construction has been instrumental in refining construction logistics and scheduling, and value engineering will continue at each step of the design process.

Based on the Project Scope and Budget Conference held in August 2026, the MSBA is expected to reimburse the Town up to $80 million, which is about 24% of the total project cost. 

The MSBA's share of the overall project cost is determined after the feasibility study is completed, following a funding formula established by state law (MGL c. 79B s 10). The statutory formula starts all districts at a base rate of 31 percentage points, which is then adjusted based on three sliding-scale socioeconomic factors:

• Community income formula: This considers the district's per capita income as a percentage of the statewide average per capita income.

• Community property wealth factor: This looks at the district's per capita equalized property valuations as a percentage of statewide average per capita valuations.

• Community poverty factor: This is measured by the district's proportion of low-income students (defined by federal eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch) as a percentage of the statewide average proportion of low-income students.

The final step in the reimbursement process is for the MSBA, in its sole discretion, to award incentive points to eligible districts. Current categories for incentive points include:

• Routine and Capital Maintenance Rating: Up to 2 percentage points.

• Green School Program: Up to 4 percentage points. In June 2023, the MSBA updated its policies to change the standard for receiving additional incentive points under the green schools program. Now, districts may receive an additional reimbursement of up to 3% for meeting the minimum energy efficiency requirements in the "Opt-in-Specialized Code" and up to an additional 1% for achieving a minimum of five points in the LEED indoor air quality points. These standards exceed those in place during the Sunita Williams project, which granted up to two additional reimbursement percentage incentive points for meeting LEED Silver. The LEED-Silver rating is now a minimum requirement. More details can be found here.

• Overlay Zoning District: 1 percentage point.

• Newly Formed Regional School District: Up to 6 percentage points.

• Renovation or Reuse of an Existing Facility: Up to 5 percentage points, if the project is a renovation of an existing facility that requires no new construction. The MSBA may award a lesser amount for an Approved Project that combines renovation of an existing facility with the building of some additional square footage for new educational space. This is based on a sliding scale that relates the percentage of renovated space to the percentage of newly constructed space.

The sum of the base rate, plus any additional points from the socioeconomic factors and incentive points, results in the MSBA's reimbursement rate for the project.

No, in the MSBA regulations, certain costs are ineligible for reimbursement. These include, but are not limited to:

• All costs associated with site acquisition.

• Swimming pools, skating rinks, and field houses.

• Needham’s debt issuance, legal, inspection, and permitting expenses.

• District administrative space.

• Auditoriums for middle schools.

• The lease, purchase, or rental of storage space, storage facilities, storage trailers, storage containers, or other moving costs.

• Costs associated with the purchase, lease, improvement, or maintenance of temporary modular units.

• All costs associated with the abatement or remediation of any contaminated soils, fuel storage tanks, or floor and ceiling tiles.

In addition, the regulations cap the reimbursement of certain eligible costs as follows:

• Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment: In excess of a $1,200 per student allowance.

• Technology: In excess of a $1,200 per student allowance.

• Soft Costs: That exceed 20% of the Construction Cost.

• Owner's Project Manager (OPM) fees: Often capped around 3.5% of the construction costs, subject to MSBA participation caps.

• Contingency: MSBA typically has caps on reimbursable owner's contingency (e.g., 0.5%) and construction contingency (e.g., 1%).

• Areas exceeding MSBA guidelines for square footage: If the school design includes square footage significantly beyond the MSBA's guidelines for student enrollment, those additional square feet will not be reimbursed.

• Certain specialized athletic facilities/equipment: Beyond basic playgrounds/fields for elementary schools, specialized athletic stadiums, synthetic turf, spectator amenities, etc., are typically ineligible.

• Hazardous material abatement (for existing buildings) and demolition: While generally ineligible, the MSBA may deem these costs eligible in certain circumstances if it is the most cost-effective and educationally sound option, or as part of their Model School Program. These costs are often included within or in addition to the site cost allowance.

In April 2026, the Deputy Town Manager/Director of Finance analyzed the possible tax impact of the proposed Pollard project based on the most recent estimated gross cost available at that time of $336.3 million.  

• The analysis assumed a 7.00% long term interest rate, an MSBA reimbursement of $64.6 million, debt service payable over 36 years (FY2028 – FY2063), and a single tax rate for the purposes of analysis. Needham has a split tax rate, resulting in a lower impact on the residential taxpayer and higher impact on commercial property owners.  

• The additional tax to be paid for a reconstructed Pollard School by the average single-family home (based on the FY2026 average of $1,541,061) would range from $102 - $2,366 per year and would peak at $2,366 in FY2034.  

Since the above analysis was completed, the project budget has been reduced to $325.4 million. A debt financing analysis will be conducted prior to the October 2026 Special Town Meeting and November ballot vote based on this lower project cost.

Source: 2026 Debt Financing Outlook Report (pages 6-8)

A cost estimate was submitted to the MSBA as part of the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) of $1,003/sf. This is comparable to other secondary schools in the same phase of the MSBA process, with costs ranging from $1,003 - $1,036/sf. 

The most recent cost estimate, which was submitted as part of the Schematic Design (SD), has a lower cost of $978/sf.  

(Source MSBA School Construction Costs, as of August 2026)

If approved by MSBA, the feasibility study effort is expected to take approximately two years and lead to an October 2026 Special Town Meeting appropriation request and a November 2026 ballot override vote.

During the Feasibility phase of the project, seven possible building options were examined with two rounds of cost estimating. Because the options at that point in the process were only conceptual, the estimates were based on square footage and projected construction costs informed by comparable recent school projects. These estimates were intended as a comparison of the relative cost between options and not a prediction of the actual final cost of any individual option.

• First estimate (submitted 9/3/25 in the PDP): Showed major cost differences tied to grade configuration (which drives square footage) and renovation vs. new construction (which affects schedule and complexity).

• Second estimate (submitted 12/18/25 in the PSR): Provided more detail about cost differences between the Pollard and DeFazio sites. Considerations included:

  • • • Site preparation and/or the amount of field restoration required

      • Traffic mitigation

      • Existing building demolition

      • Field replacement

      • Length of construction period

      • Potential permitting delays

      • Potential impacts to the School Master Plan (e.g., if Mitchell construction is delayed)

      • Need for swing space or modular classrooms (for a 7–8 configuration)
        
        

Information from the second estimate was presented at the 11/24/25 All Board Summit, and full, detailed estimates from two independent estimators were provided in the Preliminary Schematic Report (PSR). These relative cost comparisons helped inform which option should be moved forward to the Schematic Design phase. In early December 2025, the School Building Committee (SBC) voted for a grade 6-8 building on the current Pollard site.

Over the following months, the project team developed a more precise building design, which was sent two separate cost estimators in May 2026.  Based on this latest estimate, the School Building Committee (SBC) voted unanimously to approve the schematic design for the new Pollard Middle School at a total project budget of $325.4 million.

• District Submitted SOI to MSBA – April 2023

• MSBA Invited Pollard SOI into Eligibility Period – December 2023

• Eligibility Period Began – May 1, 2024

• Approved Funding for Feasibility & Schematic Design – May 2024 Special Town Meeting (STM)

• Approve Funding for Construction – October 19, 2026 Special Town Meeting

• Override Vote/Ballot Question to Approve Construction Funding – November 3, 2026

• Two-Phase Construction
  Phase 1:  Spring 2028 – Summer 2030
  Phase 2: Summer 2030 – Summer 2032

 Learn more about the history and schedule by visiting our timeline page.

To mitigate the lack of appropriate and appropriately-sized classroom space for core curriculum, the Pollard School has been required to increase class size, subdivide existing space, and/or modify the existing curriculum, to the detriment of the educational program. Given the lack of additional classrooms, teachers have modified the existing curriculum, particularly science experiments, to meet the existing facility constraints. Units are often designed with safety and facility conditions in mind, rather than promoting student interest or delivering middle school programming. Similarly, most teachers have limited the type and scope of student projects to those that can be accomplished within the limited classroom and storage space. As enrollment increases, the quality of instruction will be further eroded as more students are squeezed into these spaces or as additional standard classrooms are converted into shared spaces.

Additionally, non-traditional spaces have been used for specialized instruction, which has limited the educational program in other ways. For example, the lack of a dedicated space for ELL instruction compromises the type of focused and individualized instruction that our multilingual students require. Furthermore, due to the lack of available space, special education spaces are shared or public, thus compromising the program and confidentiality of our students.

Common spaces such as the Pollard Auditorium, the gymnasiums, the lecture hall, the Library, and the Fitness Center are not large enough to accommodate a whole grade for any activity. These spaces are also scheduled at 80-100% usage every day, which causes shared spaces and congestion/overcrowding throughout the building.

The inadequate space available for curriculum instruction has also compromised the professional development program for teachers. Teachers who participate in professional development workshops are either squeezed into too-small spaces or rotated through a series of venues, neither of which is conducive to promoting effective teacher learning. Additionally, the limited available space constrains Needham's plans to increase collaboration among professionals, as there are no teaching collaboration or workspaces.

Finally, the HVAC deficiencies, leaking roof and plumbing problems, lack of ADA compliance, and sprinkler systems negatively affect the educational program. The HVAC system, which has had multiple issues over the years, including the loss of heat and air conditioning on school days, and inadequate ventilation, has made teaching and learning even more difficult. These issues have resulted in staff grievances, school cancellations, and the relocation of classes. The constantly leaking roof has led to overcrowding, shared spaces, and mildew and mold concerns, especially with our library books. Lastly, although the student (larger) restrooms were updated in the past five years, the private restrooms, which are deemed All-Gender, have not been updated in more than 40 years. Plumbing issues are constant in each of the restrooms, causing congestion for staff and students in the few restrooms that do work.

The renovated space will support the middle school program in a number of ways:

• Appropriately sized classrooms and science labs/classrooms will provide space for students and teachers to work together to maximize the curriculum and contemporary instructional models.

• The renovated/new building will be fully accessible, enabling all students to participate in every space and access their learning regardless of handicap, need, or disability.

• The proposed educational plan, which is at the center of the new middle school design for Pollard, meets the academic and social-emotional learning goals of Needham's middle school students, as well as addressing the key competencies in the Portrait of a Needham Graduate.

High Rock as a “6th grade center” was viewed as a temporary fix almost 18 years ago when the School Committee authorized its use due to space constraints at Pollard. It was economical to make use of an existing building, but it has never fully fit the needs of our 6th grade students. 

Because High Rock was originally built as an elementary school, the classrooms, cafeteria, and gymnasium are all undersized relative to current middle school standards. Growing population needs have also led to a decrease in special education space and programming — some students with special needs do not attend High Rock at all, instead starting their sixth-grade year at Pollard. 

During the study for the School Master Plan, it was determined that fully meeting capacity and programmatic needs at High Rock as a permanent sixth-grade center would require an addition of approximately 15,000 square feet.

In addition, while the educational program at High Rock has been good for students and widely supported by the community, we have also learned that disrupting the middle school experience by separating 6th graders from 7th and 8th graders has some drawbacks, including: 

• Inefficient use of programs, staff, transportation, and other resources

• Increasing transition issues with an extra move between 6th and 7th grades

• Curtailing the 6th grade educational experience due to elementary-designed space that limits the curriculum and program 

• Losing the opportunity for 6th graders to develop the skills and maturity that are modeled by older peers in a mixed-aged setting

Yes, the Education Program Requirements call for an auditorium that adequately supports curricular and co-curricular performing arts programming, is able to accommodate various community based performing arts groups, will foster collaboration with the performing arts program at the High School, and is able to meet increasing demands within town for an appropriate space for municipality meetings and town forums.

The Feasibility Study is the first step in the design process for a new school in partnership with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). The Feasibility Study includes three stages ending with the Schematic Design and Project Funding Agreement (PFA). The PFA becomes the basis for the override vote and the MSBA reimbursement for a school project.

If approved by MSBA, the feasibility study effort is expected to take approximately two years and lead to an October 2026 Special Town Meeting appropriation request and a November 2026 ballot override vote.

The Feasibility Study investigated two main solutions:

1.  Status Quo: This maintained the current grade configuration, with 7th and 8th grades at Pollard and 6th grade remaining at High Rock.

2.  Relocation of 6th Grade: This option explored moving the 6th grade from High Rock to Pollard.

This part of the study investigated multiple options, including:

A) Renovation of the existing building with the removal of the existing 20+-year-old modular classrooms.

B) Addition/renovation options.

C) New construction and demolition on the current site.

D) New construction on an alternate site at the DeFazio Field parking lot.

It depends on the option the community ultimately decides to build. If the existing school is renovated and expanded, construction will take longer, and students and staff will need to be relocated within the building as construction progresses. The Town has had experience safely renovating an existing school while students are on campus (e.g., Newman and the high school). If a new middle school is constructed at DeFazio, construction time will be shorter, and there will be little disruption to students at Pollard, who would move into a new school at DeFazio once it is complete.

Under the School Committee’s preferred Master Plan scenario, "High Rock as Elementary School,” the High Rock School would eventually become the District’s sixth elementary and/or preschool.  Additionally, the Master Plan proposes that the Pollard and Mitchell renovation projects happen in coordination with one another, such that the High Rock School could serve as swing space for the Mitchell Elementary School project, with some students re-distributed to other elementary schools until a new Mitchell School could be completed.   The re-use of High Rock as an elementary school also would allow the District to renovate the Mitchell School as a smaller, three-section school, which is a size better suited to the constraints of the Mitchell site.

Yes. The School Committee and PPBC have a long and successful track record of engaging the community—and especially abutters and neighbors—in the design process. Neighbors were very much involved in design and traffic issues as part of the Needham High School, High Rock, Newman, and Sunita Williams construction projects. In fact, neighborhood participation and community interaction made each one of these projects better and improved traffic concerns and issues. The same will be true of the Pollard School project.

Both High Rock and Pollard currently use a cluster model to create a smaller “school within a school” feel. Each cluster of approximately 90-100 students has a team of teachers in the four core subjects — English Language Arts, mathematics, science, and social studies — who provide instruction and support, intentional communication, and planned opportunities. This approach helps the transition from elementary to high school by creating smaller, more supportive learning communities. 

The cluster model would continue to be used in a 6-8 Pollard school, with a building designed specifically to support this model. Each cluster will have a “neighborhood” setting within a distinct, grade-specific area of the building while a centrally-located “hub” will house the spaces and programs that are used by all students, including arts and wellness programs; the cafeteria, library, gyms, and auditorium; and nursing, guidance, and special education services.  

This instructional model and building design will allow students to benefit from the larger shared facilities and resources of a unified middle school campus while maintaining a smaller school feel. 

While it would make the Pollard project smaller and therefore less expensive, the cost of addressing all of the needs identified in the School Master Plan across the district might in fact increase. If High Rock remains a 6th grade center, additional investment would be needed to address its current space issues and also compensate for not having High Rock available first as swing space and then as a sixth elementary school. 

Added costs would include:

• Adding 15,000 square feet to High Rock to address overcrowding and programmatic deficiencies

• Building a temporary school to house students during the Mitchell project

• Build a larger Mitchell school — 4 or 5 sections, rather than 3

• Possibly putting an addition on Eliot (depending on updated enrollment projections)