Questions & Answers

Frequently Asked Questions & School Board Questions

Essential Question: 

Does this design effectively address the issues outlined in the problem statement while making sound financial choices, and does it set Amherst's elementary schools up for success over the next 30 years?

1. Building Systems and Infrastructure Deficiencies

2. Educational Adequacy and Programmatic Misalignment

3. Space Utilization and Capacity Constraints

4. Life Safety, Code Compliance, and Security

5. Operational Inefficiencies

Educational Program & Learning Environment

1.  How well does this design support SAU 39's Framework for Success and educational vision?

Both designs support the SAU 39 Framework for Success by creating learning environments that support academic achievement, social-emotional development, staff collaboration, family engagement, and responsible stewardship of resources. The designs work hand-in-hand with the Framework to emphasize student learning, MTSS, differentiated instruction, small-group instruction, technology integration, support for the whole child, and collaborative professional practice. The proposed plans provide the physical infrastructure necessary to support these priorities. 

2. Are classroom sizes (approximately 800–875 SF) appropriate for current and future instructional needs?

Classrooms in the 800–875-square-foot range are consistent with contemporary elementary school design standards and provide sufficient space for flexible furniture arrangements, small-group instruction, differentiated learning, technology integration, and collaborative activities. The two model classrooms have shown us that with properly sized and situated storage, the classrooms allow for enough space for instruction and movement. 

3. Are grade-level classrooms organized to promote collaboration among teachers and students?

Yes, classrooms are organized by grade level in both designs. Organizing classrooms this way creates opportunities for teacher collaboration, shared planning, common intervention strategies, and efficient use of resources. This approach supports the Framework's emphasis on professional collaboration and continuous instructional improvement while fostering stronger connections among students and staff. It also allows for organized movement of students and grade levels through the building.

4. Does the design provide adequate spaces for intervention, special education, ESOL, counseling, speech, and related services?

Yes, both designs include adequate spaces for these needs. The existing facility lacks sufficient space for special education, intervention services, student support functions, and confidential meeting spaces for counselors and school psychologists. The proposed designs address these deficiencies by providing dedicated, appropriately sized spaces for intervention, special education, ESOL services, school counseling, speech and language services, occupational therapy, and other related supports. These spaces better support the district's commitment to meeting diverse student needs through a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). 

Based on the conceptual floor plans included in the September 9 project packet, both options provide essentially the same special education and student-support program. The plans essentially include:

• Five instructional or small-group rooms specifically labeled "SPED," totaling approximately 1,050 square feet.

• Dedicated spaces for the STARS and My Turn programs, including calming rooms and BCBA support, totaling approximately 3,500-3,700 square feet.

• Approximately 700 square feet for occupation and physical therapy.

• Approximately 600 square feet for speech and language services.

• Additional space for a special education conference room and LEA/administrative functions.

Using this narrower definition, the current concept provides approximately 6,500-6,700 square feet associated with special education programming and related services. That figure does not include guidance offices, reading and mathematics intervention rooms. ESPOL, psychological testing, or other flexible small-group spaces that serve student with disabilities as part of the District's broader Multi-Tiered System of Supports.

Addressing this deficiency has been a major focus of the proposed design. The goal is not simply to assign a fixed number of rooms to a particular department, but to provide an appropriate range of spaces for specialized instruction, small-group services, confidential meetings, evaluations, therapy, behavioral support, and collaboration with families and staff to meet the wide and varying needs of the student population.

These plans remain conceptual and will continue to be refined during the design-development process. The final allocation will need to account for enrollment, student needs, programming, staffing , and each student's individualized education program. Our legal obligation to provide appropriate services in suitable educational settings will remain the guiding standard; room labels alone will not determine how services are delivered. 

5. Are art, music, physical education, and technology spaces appropriately sized and located?

The current building's reliance on a multipurpose room for physical education, assemblies, and cafeteria functions limits scheduling flexibility and program quality. There are also no dedicated technology or music spaces (although the new modular allowed for a music room this year). The proposed designs include dedicated spaces for art, music, physical education, and technology programming that are appropriately sized and strategically located to support instructional delivery and student engagement. These improvements create opportunities for a richer educational experience and support the Amherst School District's goal of providing well-rounded learning opportunities. 

Infrastructure Deficiencies

6. Which deficiencies identified in the problem statement are fully resolved by this design?

The following areas are resolved in the two design proposals:

• Inadequate classroom size and flexibility.

• Lack of spaces for differentiated instruction and collaborative learning.

• Insufficient special education, intervention, and student support spaces.

• Lack of meeting spaces for professional learning, family meetings, and teacher collaboration.

• Inadequate facilities for educational delivery.

• Insufficient building capacity.

• Reliance on portable classrooms.

• Reliance on mobile carts.

• Undersized and repurposed program spaces.

• Lack of confidential spaces for counselors and school psychologists.

7. Which deficiencies remain unresolved or need further work?

A few of the major deficiencies identified in the problem statement remain unresolved. However, their resolution depends on the completion of detailed design and construction documents. Areas that will continue to require ongoing attention include:

• Long-term maintenance planning and lifecycle replacement of future building systems.

• Future technology upgrades as educational technology evolves.

• Enrollment monitoring to ensure capacity assumptions remain appropriate over time.

• Continued operational planning to maximize use of instructional spaces.

8. Does the design eliminate the need for modular classrooms?

Yes, modular classrooms will be eliminated with either design. One of the most significant goals of the project is to eliminate reliance on modular classrooms, which currently create safety, accessibility, and operational challenges. By incorporating sufficient permanent classroom capacity within the building, the proposed design removes the need for portable facilities and provides a more consistent educational experience for all students. 

Space Utilization and Capacity Constraints

9. Are the STARS, My Time, intervention, guidance, OT/PT, BCBA, and special education spaces appropriately sized and located?

Yes, the specialized program and related service provider spaces have been designed to meet the programmatic needs of the students working and learning in these special education and related service environments. That was one of the major focus areas of the designs.

Life Safety, Code Compliance, and Security

10. Does the main entrance provide a secure, controlled point of entry?

Yes, the entrance becomes secure in both designs. The proposed designs include a secure main entrance that requires all visitors to enter through a single controlled access point. Unlike the current Wilkins entrance, the proposed design places the office adjacent to the access point to the school, within the first double doors, but before access to the main building. This allows for more secure, controlled entry to the school building, while creating a welcoming and efficient experience for students, families, and community members. 

11. Does the design improve emergency response capabilities, traffic, parent drop-off, buses, and pedestrian circulation?

Yes, the loop road will allow for first responders and emergency vehicles to access the building more efficiently. Additionally, the loop road will allow coordination of parent drop-off and pick-up, separate from the bus loop. The bus drop-off and pick-up will be more efficient and will be designed to be safer for students and staff. This will allow more cars to be off the main roads, particularly the Boston Post Road, during the day's high-traffic arrival and dismissal times.

12. How does the design improve accessibility and ADA compliance compared to the existing facility?

The new Wilkins project represents a significant improvement in accessibility compared to the existing facility. The design is being developed to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and modern accessibility standards. Improvements include accessible entrances, barrier-free circulation routes, accessible classrooms and restrooms, and equitable access to all educational spaces. These features will provide a more inclusive environment for students, staff, families, and visitors of all abilities. 

Building Systems and Operational Inefficiencies

13. Does the design comprehensively address the building-system and infrastructure deficiencies in the problem statement?

Yes. The proposed design replaces or modernizes deficient mechanical, electrical, plumbing, ventilation, lighting, and building-control systems and eliminates reliance on portable classrooms. The building envelope, structural systems, technology, and supporting infrastructure are also addressed as necessary to support the renovated facility. These improvements address system reliability, indoor air quality, energy performance, accessibility, technology demands, and long-term building functionality.

14. Will the renovated facility be easier and more cost-effective to operate and maintain?

Yes. The design provides appropriately sized and accessible mechanical, electrical, custodial, and building support spaces with adequate access for inspection, preventive maintenance, repair, equipment replacement, and future upgrades. More durable materials, improved equipment access, and elimination of the portable classrooms will reduce operational complexity and support a transition from reactive maintenance toward planned lifecycle management. Choice of flooring materials will also positively impact custodial cleaning times and cleaning product use.

15. Does the design improve energy performance and reduce long-term operating costs?

Yes. Moving away from oil and embracing modern HVAC and ventilation systems, energy-efficient lighting and controls, improved building envelope performance, and advanced building automation are expected to substantially improve energy performance compared with the existing facility.   

Site Planning & Community Use

16. Does the proposed addition fit well on the existing site?

The proposed addition fits well on the existing site and does not disrupt wetlands or take away significant field or green space (Option A takes away less). 

17. Are outdoor learning and play opportunities included?

Dedicated play spaces are available, including open field space and an interior courtyard. This courtyard space will promote outdoor learning opportunities for students. The playground will be relocated to the back of Wilkins. 

Both options will affect the existing playground because the proposed new wing will occupy a portion of the current playground area. As a result, the playground will be relocated behind the school. The newest equipment was installed with the option to move it.

The precise location, configuration, size, and access points have not yet been finalized and will depend on which option the Amherst School Board selects. During the next phase of design, the project team will develop a detailed playground plan that considers student safety, age-appropriate play areas, accessibility, supervision, emergency access, drainage, site circulation, and separation from vehicle and construction activity.

Financial Stewardship

18. What are the primary cost drivers in this concept?

The largest cost areas are:

• Renovation of the existing building: approximately $10.8–$11.0 million

• Classroom, entry, and gym additions: approximately $8.8–$9.0 million

• Sitework: approximately $2.8–$2.9 million

• HVAC, electrical, plumbing, roofing/envelope work, and interior finishes

• General conditions, insurance, bonds, escalation, and contingencies: approximately $5.2 million

19. Does retaining approximately 50,729 SF and adding approximately 30,844 SF represent the most cost-effective solution?

The renovation concept is estimated at approximately $213-$216 per square foot, compared with approximately $266 per square foot for the classroom and entry addition, and $323-$371 per square foot for the gym addition.

Value-engineering should examine the gym structure and finishes, sitework, exterior materials, window and door quantities, and other non-instructional spaces. Option A offers several efficiencies: a more compact layout, less sitework, shared gym/cafeteria toilets, and no need to relocate the art room. 

When considering value engineering, the design team will identify major existing systems and components proposed to remain, including their age, condition, remaining useful life, capacity, known deficiencies, and anticipated replacement cost. Retained systems will be evaluated for compatibility with the expected service life and performance goals of the renovated facility so that significant deferred capital needs are not inadvertently carried forward into the completed project. 

20. Which components provide the greatest long-term value to taxpayers?

The strongest long-term investments are:

• Retaining and modernizing usable portions of the existing building

• Replacing temporary modular classrooms with permanent instructional space

• Improving HVAC, electrical, plumbing, roofing, and building-envelope systems

• Improving the entrance, administration area, security, accessibility, and traffic flow

• Preserving flexibility for future building expansion

Future Readiness

21. Will this facility still support educational programming 20–30 years from now?

Yes, Wilkins is being designed with a long-term perspective in mind, including additional classroom capacity to accommodate future enrollment growth and evolving educational needs. The dedicated gymnasium and flexible learning spaces will support a wide range of academic, extracurricular, wellness, and community activities. By incorporating modern building systems and adaptable spaces, the school is intended to remain educationally relevant and functional for the Amherst community for decades to come. 

22. How does the Wilkins Project go from being historically around a $ 52 million project in years past to a 32/33 million project 

The reduction from approximately $52 million in earlier proposals to approximately $32–$33 million today reflects a fundamentally different project scope. This is not the same project at a lower price, and it is not a proposal to construct an entirely new school. It is primarily a renovation of the existing Wilkins School with targeted new additions.

In short, the project moved from approximately $52 million to $32–$33 million because it was rethought, right-sized, and redesigned. 

First, Superintendent Berry took a fresh approach to the educational specifications and started from scratch. The specifications were considered on the basis of current and projected enrollment, educational programming, the Framework for Success, and expectations of the community. In addition, at last year’s listening session, we heard from the community how important cost was in considering the support of a Wilkins project. That was forefront in Superintendent Berry’s mind as he planned and reviewed the specifications. 

Second, Banwell, Harvey Construction, and Trident took a completely fresh look at the project. Instead of beginning with the assumptions and designs from earlier proposals, the team focused on the issues outlined in the problem statement. 

• Aging HVAC, electrical, plumbing, roofing, ventilation, and building-envelope systems

• Inadequate spaces for special education, intervention, counseling, speech, OT/PT, and related services

• Undersized or repurposed instructional spaces

• Reliance on modular classrooms and mobile carts

• Safety, accessibility, security, traffic, and operational deficiencies

Third, the design preserves Amherst’s existing public assets. The current concept retains and renovates approximately 50,729 square feet of Wilkins while adding approximately 30,000–31,000 square feet. Renovation is estimated at approximately $213–$216 per square foot, compared with approximately $266 per square foot for classroom and entrance additions and $323–$371 per square foot for the gym. Reusing the existing building is therefore a major source of savings.

It retains Clark as a preschool and kindergarten school, keeps fifth grade at AMS, renovates the usable majority of Wilkins, limits new construction to necessary additions, and preserves the ability to expand in the future. 

School Board Questions

The following questions were asked by school board members in this cycle. (Note: some of these questions refer to “Option A,” “Option B,” and” two designs.” The board elected to pursue one design, Option A, at their September 9th meeting)

1. For multiple iterations of previous projects, there has been discussion about the need to move grade 5 out of AMS due to space. We showed pictures of expensive special education equipment being stored in hallways and creating unsafe spaces. How is not moving grade 5 beneficial, or is there going to be some future project needed at AMS to accommodate those needs?

Earlier facility proposals considered moving fifth grade from Amherst Middle School to Wilkins, partly because of space constraints at AMS. Those concerns, including specialized equipment being stored in hallways, were legitimate and must continue to be addressed. However, the educational and facility context has evolved.

Over the past three years, AMS has developed a two-tier model consisting of a lower middle school and an upper middle school. This structure has proven effective in supporting students academically, socially, and developmentally. Moving fifth grade would disrupt a model that is now functioning well and would also require additional space in the Wilkins project.

Retaining fifth grade at AMS also supports the broader goal of using available space efficiently across SAU 39. Based on current enrollment and programming, we do not presently anticipate needing an addition at AMS solely to accommodate fifth grade. However, this does not mean that every space concern at AMS has been resolved. Storage, specialized-program space, accessibility, building systems, and the safe placement of equipment will need to be evaluated through the SAU-wide facilities master-planning process.

In summary, the current recommendation is to:

• Keep fifth grade at AMS because the lower- and upper-middle-school model is educationally effective.

• Avoid adding unnecessary square footage and cost to the present Wilkins project.

• Address remaining AMS facility and storage needs through long-term capital planning.

• Design Wilkins so that a future grade-level expansion remains possible.

Therefore, keeping fifth grade at AMS is the preferred current approach, but it does not remove the need to assess and responsibly address  Clark Wilkins Elementary School and Amherst Middle School’s longer-term facility needs.

2. The AMS educational model has evolved

Over the past three years, Amherst Middle School has developed a two-tier structure consisting of a lower middle school and an upper middle school. Fifth-grade students receive an experience designed specifically for their developmental stage while also benefiting from access to middle-school specialists, interventionists, facilities, programs, and a coordinated transition into the upper grades.

Research does not identify one universally superior grade configuration. Outcomes depend substantially on school organization, relationships, instructional practices, and the quality of transitions. 

3. Adding fifth grade would create an unusually large elementary school

Clark-Wilkins currently enrolls approximately 635  students in preschool through grade four. Based on current New Hampshire enrollment data, it is the fourth-largest elementary school in the state. Adding approximately 128 fifth-grade students would create an elementary population of more than 750 students.

The New Hampshire communities Amherst frequently uses for comparison generally distribute their elementary students among smaller schools or separate buildings. Constructing an even larger elementary school would move Amherst further away from that model.

This is different from class size. A large school can still have reasonably sized classes, but its overall enrollment affects circulation, scheduling, supervision, student relationships, common-space demands, arrival and dismissal, and the complexity of school operations. We want to make the school feel small as we keep the educational experience personal for students and families.

4. It makes more efficient use of existing public facilities

Fifth grade is already housed and programmed at AMS. Moving it would require Amherst taxpayers to construct additional elementary space while leaving corresponding space available elsewhere in the district. Keeping fifth grade at AMS reduces the size and cost of the Wilkins project and supports the goal of using existing public assets efficiently.

5. The plan preserves future flexibility

The Wilkins design team has been directed to preserve a practical expansion area so that another grade level could be added later if enrollment, programming, or future facility planning supports that decision. This allows Amherst to avoid paying now for space it does not currently need without closing the door on a different configuration in the future.

6. We secured funds from impact fees to get a land survey. What are the results of that survey? Can we ensure the proposed addition does not encroach on wetlands and that construction equipment will not damage the environment?

The results of the survey were an accurate size and location of the building, wetlands, and site utilities. We will not be encroaching on the wetlands, but we will be in the 100’ setback, which is allowable. No construction equipment will be allowed to drive down near the wetlands, and proper environmental protections like silt socks and straw waddles will be in place per environmental regulations. We will also have SWPPP inspections (Stormwater inspections) in place to monitor the site as required by the state.

7. How does this capital project fit into the broader scope of capital project needs for the entire SAU, including Souhegan? After all, despite the districts being separate, the tax contributors are largely the same?

This project must be considered within the broader context of SAU 39’s long-term facility needs, particularly because Amherst taxpayers also support the Souhegan Cooperative School District. We recognize that families and taxpayers experience these obligations collectively, even though each district is a separate legal and financial entity with its own governing board, budget, and voter approval process.

SAU 39 plans to begin developing a comprehensive facilities master plan in the summer of 2027. That work will help identify, prioritize, and coordinate anticipated capital needs across the SAU, including at Mont Vernon and Souhegan High School. However, the documented needs at Wilkins Elementary School cannot reasonably be deferred while that broader plan is developed. Regardless of other future capital priorities, Wilkins requires substantial renovation and improvement to provide a safe, appropriate, and sustainable educational environment.

8. Could Souhegan High School accommodate Amherst’s and Mont Vernon’s seventh- and eighth-grade students?

Not within the school’s current configuration and programming without significant changes. Although Souhegan has some capacity, the available studies do not establish that the Annex is an empty or readily available building capable of accommodating all Amherst and Mont Vernon’s seventh- and eighth-grade students. We would need 18 empty classrooms in order to fit 7th and 8th grade ELA, social studies, math, science, and special ed classes. We would need additional empty classrooms for music, art, computer science, wellness, FACS, makerspace, and gym time for a total of 10 classes each day. The Souhegan master schedule does not have 28 spaces available each day, either in the Annex or across both buildings.

Importantly, neither the Amherst School Board nor the Mont Vernon School District nor the Souhegan Cooperative School Board are currently pursuing this change. The documented direction has been to maintain grades seven and eight at Amherst Middle School and focus on improving Amherst’s existing schools. Additionally, the Amherst School District and the Mont Vernon School District negotiated an agreement for the 7th and 8th graders to attend Amherst Middle School, which both parties seem content with. 

Souhegan has some capacity, but the studies do not show that the Annex can presently accommodate Amherst’s and Mont Vernon’s seventh- and eighth-grade students without substantial programmatic, staffing, governance, and facility changes. No Board is currently pursuing the move, and the documented direction in Amherst and Mont Vernon is to keep grades seven and eight at Amherst Middle School while investing in Amherst’s existing facilities.

9. What is the future use of Clark School?

The Amherst School District should/could retain Clark School as a dedicated preschool and kindergarten facility, make targeted improvements through a pay-as-you-go capital plan, and evaluate relocating the SAU 39 central office to a clearly separated portion of the Clark campus.

This approach would preserve an age-appropriate early-childhood school, keep a valuable public asset in educational use, avoid unnecessarily enlarging the Wilkins project, and potentially allow the Town of Amherst to regain full use of the historic Brick School.

10. Why keep Clark as a preschool and kindergarten school?

Clark currently provides a small, developmentally appropriate environment for Amherst’s youngest students. Maintaining that configuration offers several advantages:

• Preschool and kindergarten students remain in a smaller setting designed around early-childhood needs.

• Clark can maintain specialized preschool, early-intervention, special education, speech, occupational therapy, and related student-support services.

• Wilkins can remain appropriately sized for grades 1-4.

• Amherst avoids adding approximately 175 younger students, their buses, family traffic, playground needs, and specialized spaces to an already large Wilkins campus.

• The Amherst School District preserves flexibility for enrollment changes and future early-childhood programming.

• Clark retains the educational purpose it has served since 1937.

The history of Clark also demonstrates its importance to Amherst. Built in 1937 and expanded several times as enrollment grew, it represents nearly ninety years of community investment in public education. Please reference Brief history of Clark School

11. Why consider moving SAU 39 to Clark?

Potentially, relocating the SAU central office to Clark could make sense if a formal feasibility study demonstrates that the school and administrative functions can coexist safely and efficiently. SAU 39 is planning on budgeting for a Master Facility Study to take place beginning in July 2027

Potential benefits include:

• Returning the Brick School to the Town for municipal, community, historical, or other public use.

• Keeping Clark under active educational and administrative ownership.

• Creating closer connections between SAU leadership and school operations.

• Consolidating certain meeting, training, records, technology, and administrative functions.

• Providing an ongoing administrative use for the building if preschool or kindergarten enrollment changes.

• Avoiding the acquisition or lease of separate commercial office space.

12. Do we have a breakdown of each segment of the proposed options? For example, does the gym cost a specific amount? Does each wing cost a specific amount?

01 Renovation 50,729.00 sf 212.53 /sf--- 10,781,158

02 Addition - Class & Entry 22,250.00 sf 265.75 /sf ---5,912,943

03 Addition - Gym 8,849.00 sf 322.86 /sf--- 2,856,954

04 Sitework 6.50 acre 426,923.08 /acre--- 2,775,000

13. What does the phasing, timeline, and/or impact on student learning look like during construction?

A detailed construction phasing plan and timeline have not yet been finalized. They will be developed with Banwell, Harvey Construction, Trident, and Amherst and SAU leadership as the design advances. The primary objective will be to keep the school operating safely while minimizing disruption to teaching and learning.

The anticipated approach would include:

• Completing the most disruptive work, such as demolition, utility shutdowns, and major building-system work, during summer vacations and school breaks whenever possible.

• Renovating the building in defined phases so only limited areas are unavailable at one time.

• Using modular classrooms or other temporary “swing spaces” to relocate students and staff from active construction areas.

• Completely separating construction zones from occupied school areas, including secured access, dust and air-quality controls, and designated contractor routes.

• Scheduling noisy or disruptive activities outside instructional hours when feasible.

• Communicating regularly with families and staff about room relocations, traffic patterns, construction milestones, and anticipated disruptions.

Some impact on school operations should be expected, including temporary classroom moves, altered entrances or traffic patterns, reduced access to portions of the building, and occasional noise.

14. The courtyard: In previous iterations, we have been told that having a courtyard in New England is unwise; it can create several problems, not excluding water getting into the building. Both options include a courtyard. I think that will have to be sufficiently answered.

The concerns about an enclosed, open-air courtyard in New England are valid and will need to be fully addressed during the design process. New Hampshire’s snow, ice, freeze-thaw cycles, rainfall, and temperature extremes require careful planning. Drainage, roof runoff, snow and ice management, building-envelope connections, emergency and maintenance access, security, and year-round usability will be considered. The project team will be expected to demonstrate that the courtyard can be constructed and maintained without creating unacceptable operational or water-infiltration risks.

The intended use of the courtyard also has not been predetermined. Amherst building leadership, SAU leadership, the Amherst PTA, and the Amherst Education Foundation could work together to identify appropriate educational, recreational, or community uses for the space. Those decisions will help inform its final design and ensure that the courtyard is both practical to maintain and beneficial to students and staff.

15. What is the plan if this project also fails?

If the proposed project does not receive voter approval, the facility needs at Wilkins will remain and the Amherst School Board will need to determine an alternative path. Continuing without significant investment is not a sustainable long-term plan.

The Board could consider several options:

• Revise the project’s scope, cost, or design and return to voters at a future election.

• Develop a phased renovation plan addressing the most urgent building systems first, recognizing that this approach may take longer and cost more overall.

• Continue annual capital repairs to maintain safe operations, although these investments would not resolve the building’s educational and functional limitations.

• Expand the use of modular classrooms or other temporary facilities while pursuing a permanent solution.

• If conditions eventually prevent the building from operating safely or reliably, relocate students temporarily and undertake emergency work, likely at substantial cost and with significant disruption.

If the project fails, the need does not disappear; the community would still have to invest in Wilkins, but potentially through a more costly, disruptive, or incremental approach.

16. Do both options include completely renovating all bathrooms in the building?

Both options should identify the scope of bathroom renovations clearly. The current expectation is that all student and staff bathrooms affected by the project will be evaluated and renovated as necessary to meet applicable building-code and accessibility requirements. The design team will confirm whether every bathroom will receive a complete renovation or whether some will receive only targeted improvements.

“Code-compliant” means that the bathrooms meet the legally required state and local standards in effect for the project. These requirements may address plumbing, ventilation, electrical systems, fire safety, fixture counts, sanitation, materials, and other health and safety conditions.

“ADA-compliant” means that the bathrooms meet applicable accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related building requirements. This generally includes accessible routes, adequate turning and transfer space, properly positioned toilets and sinks, grab bars, accessible fixtures and controls, appropriate door widths, and required clearances.

Code compliance and ADA accessibility are related but not interchangeable. A bathroom may satisfy certain building-code requirements without fully meeting current accessibility standards. Before selecting an option, the Amherst School Board should request a bathroom-by-bathroom scope showing which spaces will be fully renovated, which will receive limited upgrades, and how each will meet current code and ADA requirements.

17. The problem statement states that classroom square footage is insufficient to provide modern teaching strategies such as differentiation and small group. We are not adding square footage to current classrooms, so how do we resolve that matter?

The project does not propose enlarging every existing classroom. Instead, it seeks to address this limitation by improving how instructional space is organized and used. The two model classrooms are an example of that. The new storage units and millwork allow for more instructional space and room for movement within the classroom, supporting differentiation and small-group instruction. Moving services or activities that currently occur inside classrooms into appropriately designed adjacent spaces can also increase the usable instructional area within each room.

18. In other project iterations, we talked about getting more cars off the road during drop-off and pick-up. Do either of these options do that?

The design includes developing a loop to coordinate parent drop-off and pick-up, separate from the bus loop. The bus drop-off and pick-up will be more efficient and will be designed to be safer for students and staff. This will allow more cars to be off the main roads, particularly the Boston Post Road, during the day's high-traffic arrival and dismissal times.

19. How is the playground space impacted by either option?

Both options will affect the existing playground because the proposed new wing will occupy a portion of the current playground area. As a result, the playground will be relocated behind the school. The newest equipment was installed with the option to move it.

The precise location, configuration, size, and access points have not yet been finalized and will depend on which option the Amherst School Board selects. During the next phase of design, the project team will develop a detailed playground plan that considers student safety, age-appropriate play areas, accessibility, supervision, emergency access, drainage, site circulation, and separation from vehicle and construction activity.

The final plan should also explain how playground access will be maintained during construction and whether temporary play areas will be necessary. The intent is not simply to move the playground, but to create a safe, accessible, and functional outdoor space that supports students’ developmental and recreational needs.

20. What benefits to the student experience should taxpayers and families reasonably expect?

This building promotes Clark-Wilkins' goals of helping students develop a strong sense of belonging and joy at the elementary level, fostering a love of learning at the earliest stages in the Amherst school district. By replacing aging infrastructure, eliminating portable classrooms, creating welcoming public spaces, and providing dedicated areas for learning, collaboration, and student support, the design helps establish a strong sense of identity and belonging. 

The design aligns closely with the SAU 39 Framework for Success by creating learning environments that support academic achievement, social-emotional development, staff collaboration, family engagement, and responsible stewardship of resources. The Framework emphasizes literacy, mathematics, MTSS, differentiated instruction, technology integration, support for the whole child, and collaborative professional practice. The proposed facility provides the physical infrastructure necessary to support these priorities and removes many of the barriers identified in the existing building. 

21. What are the Design criteria for Wilkins Elementary School? 

The design criteria for Wilkins Elementary School establish the capacity requirements for the building and site:

Design criterion Required capacity

Core Capacity 787 students

Design Capacity 632 students

Staff and faculty capacity 180

Parent drop-off queue At least 130 vehicles

Bus capcity 12 buses at one time

Parking 198 spaces