Dear Parents,


Increase dining opportunities by adding cafeteria spaces.

Save time for students (especially elementary) in transitions between activities and classes and thereby increase instructional time.

Provide for the longevity and adaptability of our school buildings over time.

Provide better play, activity, and common spaces, which are not adequate for current enrollment (for example, the high school cafeteria, classrooms, workspaces, break out rooms).

Provide better purpose-built space for programs like STEM and the arts, as well as for learning support.

These are the top considerations as prioritized by our campus upgrade advisory group for us as a school leadership team to consider in looking at whether or not to rebuild our campus.  

During seven public meetings involving over 400 people, the committee members—made up of parents, teachers, and students of diverse backgrounds and viewpoints—wrestled with the many pros and cons of the upgrade project. In their last meeting, members each prioritized the most important considerations for the school to take into account. Their report and recommendations are linked here. As you can see, the considerations in favor of a rebuild received more support than those who wished to maintain the status quo, but you can also see the numerous concerns that committee members have with the project.

I would like to express my gratitude for the work that has been completed by our campus upgrade advisory group and the leadership of our co-chairs: Sushma Jobanputra, Bill Poorman, and Allison Cuthbert. I know that the issues around the campus upgrade are complex and controversial. No one decision will please everyone.  

Facing these types of decisions, I think it is important that the school:

  1. Be transparent with the facts and analysis we are considering;
  2. Provide our community with opportunities for feedback and discussion on key issues; and
  3. Explain our rationale for any decision reached and how we are addressing the feedback given by the community. 

Our next steps here are to look carefully at different options around the campus (including not doing a rebuild) and evaluate the pros and cons of different alternatives. The ideas and feedback raised by community members during this process have been especially helpful in putting forward different alternatives and framing important pros and cons. It is our goal to present a recommendation to our SAS board this spring on the future of the campus. 

For more information about our campus and potential upgrade, please visit our microsite. In addition, all of the data and comments raised during the advisory group sessions can be found here:

We look forward to continuing this conversation in the spring.


Tom Boasberg