LONGMEADOW – The School Committee Student Advisory Council (SCSAC), made up of students from Longmeadow High School (LHS), attended the Longmeadow School Committee meeting on Feb. 11 to run through their own agenda, in which they discussed a day off to recognize the Lunar New Year as well as traffic proposals for a potential new flow of cars at LHS.

Following discussing suggestion box recommendations from fellow students, a student representative from SCSAC started a discussion with the school committee on the celebration of the Chinese New Year, also known as the Lunar New Year. The student explained that the Lunar New Year is popularly known as the Chinese New Year, however considering the holiday is celebrated in other countries outside of China, it is also known as and referred to as the Lunar New Year.

The student representative continued to note that after speaking with some students who celebrate the Lunar New Year, they have explained that they either have to go to school on Lunar New Year and miss out on potential family time and relatives coming in to visit, or they end up missing the spring new years festival gala. The festival, the student explained, is aired at midnight overseas, and because there is a 12–hour time difference, students here are unable to view it if they went to school, as it will air mid–day our time.

 “Some students have skipped school to celebrate but they feel its unfair to some degree that there are days off for Jewish holidays, Christian holidays, and don’t exactly feel that even though they can skip the day for religious grounds, they do have to make up school work,” he explained to the school committee.

The SCSAC’s presentation on Lunar New Year did not come without statistics and research. A student explained that in New York City, schools no longer have school on Lunar New Year. In the New York City school district, according to data he found, there was reportedly 16 percent of students that identify as Asian. The student then noted that from what he could find online, in Longmeadow, 10 percent of students in their district identify as Asian. However, he explained, “it would be wrong to say 10 percent celebrates Lunar New Year,” as many other individuals may identify as Asian but perhaps are from India, celebrating Diwali instead.

The students then suggested two solutions to this concern – one being not having school on Lunar New Year to allow for students to celebrate the holiday. Another alternative, he explained, would be to place a professional development day on Lunar New Year each year. This would allow students who celebrate Lunar New Year to be home, however the day would not have to be made up at the end of the year because it would already be figured in with other professional development days.

The students turned back to the school committee, asking for their opinion on the matter. Longmeadow School Committee Chair Armand Wray explained that the calendar committee could take a look at this as part of their negotiations around the calendar, but he said that he does “think it will be difficult.”

“I think what you said earlier – 10 percent Asian – a lot of that Asian population is Indian as well. So does it stop here? Does it go to Diwali? What becomes the policy setting limit for when we start giving days off?” Wray asked. “So those are the kinds of considerations the calendar committee would have to take in the sensitivities to other cultures. And then, does it become practical against the calendar based in learning?” Wray continued to note, “We’re stuck at 180 days,” and cannot go past the end of June. He then said that he applauds the SCSAC for bringing the issue forward, and said he thought this was a “great concern” and it’s something that “definitely needs to be looked at and discussed more.”

Superintendent Martin O’Shea added that the students “timing is good,” and that he appreciated the SCSAC for bringing the issue to their attention.

 “Your timing is good because we happen to have a meeting of the calendar committee tomorrow. That is a committee made up of administrators and teachers and we had the calendar set for the 20–21 school year, we are starting to look at the 21–22 school year. I will fold that into the conversation tomorrow,” O’Shea said.

Wray added that he cautions to not “get hung up” on the percentages of population, and focus more on the cultural diversity that may exist.

 “Yes, this would make sense for a certain population, but there are other holidays that we don’t have a day off for or a PD [professional development] day for that you have to be careful, and say what makes one more significant than the other, and be sensitive to everybody’s concerns and needs.”

Moving on in the SCSAC’s discussion, the group proposed three options for renovations to the parking lot at Longmeadow High School. The reason that the renovations were being proposed, the group explained, was the issues with traffic flow during pick–up and drop–off times. Their overarching goals, the SCSAC explained, were to reduce congestion in the parking lot between 7:20 a.m. and 7:45 a.m., as well as between 2:15 p.m. and 2:45 p.m. In addition to these times, they were looking to reduce congestion on Grassy Gutter Road, enhance pedestrian safety and the potential for eliminating the need for a crossing guard.

Over the course of two months, the SCSAC worked up three proposals to bring to the school committee, noting that the former year’s student council started their efforts.

First, the group explained the current flow of traffic, noting that both parents and students use the entrance on the South side of the High School, closer to Williams Street, with parents and students converging. Parents take the right side, and students take the left and park. Parents then exit on the North side of LHS on Grassy Gutter Road, closer to Bliss Road. The students continued to explain that they came up with three proposals to aid in eliminating congestion on Grassy Gutter Road.

The first proposal, which they referred to as “fourth road,” involved in adding a fourth inroad to the school, which would be located on Grassy Gutter Road, but used specifically for students coming in. This entrance, according to the SCSAC, would be between both the North and South entrances, and would go directly into the student parking lot so student drivers would not be subjected to the congestion of parents dropping off other students.

Listed under pro’s for the fourth road proposal, the SCSAC noted that this would not place cars looking to park in the same line as the drop–off’s, the car line would move quicker because there are “no extraneous cars in the line,” the cars looking to park would have a fast route to their parking spaces, and this would be a “permanent solution with no ongoing costs.” Under con’s, however, the students listed, “High cost, new paves road having to be constructed, moat for runoff water that exists here, more people turning in from Bliss Road, Willet Drive and Terry Drive will also create traffic that residents may not be supportive of.”

Under their second proposal, called the “U–Turn Proposal,” the SCSAC proposed that parents continue to come in on the South side, Williams Street side of Grassy Gutter Road and enter where they normally enter, and drop off kids as usual. However, the difference is that they propose to cut granite curbing along the horseshoe that students are currently dropped off at, and have parents complete a u–turn, exiting from where they came. While parents did this, students would enter from the Bliss Road side of Grassy Gutter, and enter the parking lot on the North side of the school.

Following this proposal, Wray interjected, noting that this would involve a “change of behavior” in parents, which he sees as a “big issue.”

“One of the biggest issues they have right now is changing the behavior of parents, many parents don’t pull all the way up to the sign that says, ‘pull up to here,’ everyone just conveniently stops and drops their kid off, not thinking about the 30 other cars behind them,” Wray said.

Under pro’s for the u–turn proposal, the students explained that the proposal was already reviewed by Sgt. Mazzaferro, it was cheaper than making a new road and removes the need for a crossing guard for pedestrian safety. Under con’s, the students noted that cutting curbing does have a significant expense, the u–turn could be hard for parents to make and there would be a difficult adjustment period.

In their third proposal, there would be modifications but only to the existing traffic flow. In this proposal, the SCSAC recommended parents and enter into the school where they currently do on the South side, closest to Williams Street, however they continue through the school campus after drop off, and exit by passing the administrative wing directly onto Bliss Road. While parents do this, it was suggested that students enter and exit on the North entrance on Grassy Gutter Road, closest to Bliss Road.

Following the explanation of the third proposal, Wray noted that he believed the school committee should send the third proposal as a recommendation to the safety committee to see if the option is feasible without affecting the rest of the neighborhood. He then said he would let the SCSAC know the outcome of the safety committee’s review.