LETTER: Why I Cannot Support the Elementary School Facilities Plan

Board of Education Meeting of February 19, 2026. PHILIP THIBODEAU PHOTO

The elementary facilities plan is an ambitious proposal to rebuild schools that could cost local taxpayers more than $100 million dollars. When accounting for possible cost overruns and inflation, the impact on local taxes may be even greater. This proposal is complicated and contains numerous uncertainties.

Having been elected just three and a half months ago, I have worked very hard to get caught up to speed on decisions and discussions that took place over the past two years, before I recently rejoined the Board of Education. This is why I have several concerns that prevented me from voting yes this evening.

First, I strongly support the concept of small neighborhood schools. Closing Flanders elementary school while expanding Kelley elementary school and creating an even larger South End elementary school moves us away from that model.

Second, abandoning a well-constructed brick school in the center of town presents a significant concern. As a Board of Education member, I have never received complaints about Derynoski elementary school. Building a new school behind the existing site raises additional questions and concerns. As a lifelong resident of Southington, I have heard that the property may have a high water table that could make construction challenging. I do not know if that is accurate, but it is an uncertainty that deserves clarity.

Let me be clear: I support rebuilding Flanders and Kelley elementary schools. However, I do not support constructing larger elementary schools that fail to preserve the advantages of smaller neighborhood schools. Southington already has a large high school and two very large middle schools.

Modern and well-maintained schools are essential for a thriving community. I would support a plan to rebuild Flanders now if one were presented. Unfortunately, the option before us does not allow for that. I support upgrading Kelley, but not in a way that closes Flanders, increases busing times, eliminates walkability, and leaves major unanswered questions about the future of the Derynoski and Flanders properties.

What happens to the existing Derynoski building? Will the Main Street school be demolished or sold for private development? What becomes of the 17 acres of Flanders property? These questions remain unanswered. Prior to proceeding, it is important to ensure meaningful community outreach and dialogue, enabling the Board of Education to clearly and effectively communicate its vision regarding these properties to both municipal leaders and residents.

For these reasons, I cannot support the plan as presented tonight.

I understand that voting against the majority on an issue like this can be politically difficult. My responsibility, however, is to vote on what I believe is best for the children of the Southington Public School system. I hope my colleagues will respect that position and avoid unnecessary political attacks and division.

I want to thank the many residents who have reached out to share their perspectives. Their input reflects a deep commitment to our schools, our children, and the dedicated staff who serve them every day.

Sincerely,

Dawn Derynoski-Anastasio

Note: The author is a current member of the Southington Board of Education. Any opinions expressed in the Letter are not necessarily those of the Southington Outsider.

The Anxious Generation, Part II: Some Solutions

CREATIVE COMMONS IMAGE

Research shows that differences in generations are caused not only by life experiences (wars, famine, etc.) but also changes in technology. Since WW II, technological innovation has increased more rapidly every year. (Some people may remember Future Shock from the 1960s. Well, it has gotten exponentially worse!) And while such innovation does make our lives easier, the motives behind it – huge profits—are not always aligned with what is best for our future. 

Growing up in the 1950s and 60s, I was always outside playing baseball, basketball, football, tag and more with other kids. No adults were around. We learned to resolve our differences. We behaved in ways that kept us connected to our circle of friends. 

Now we have internet technology, as I described in my last column – cell phones, social media, and video games. Excessive use of these can in some cases trigger suicide attempts, substance abuse, and other serious mental health challenges.

The big question then becomes, what can we do about all of this?

Three solutions emerge. One involves the presence of smartphones in schools. A second is governmental legal restrictions both concerning access and content young people are exposed to, state, national or local. A third is the role of parents in placing limits.

Take cell phones first. Should our schools ban cell phones outright? Will our state do this, or should our local Board of Education? New York City recently did this, and recent reports are of wonderfully positive changes in student interactions, a more positive vibe and fewer student behavioral/emotional issues. There are even recent studies claiming many students and parents support these bans, with students willing to rebel against being manipulated by big tech companies.

Technology does not always improve teaching. I know when I taught, my class was extremely interactive—I would ask questions and craft lessons based on students responses, encouraging student debate and an open exchange of differing opinions. History is not only facts, but it is also why things happened and what the consequences are, plus how we can apply it to our lives and learn from it. We all benefit from a welcome exchange of differing opinions, from the clash of ideas, done respectfully with an aim of growth. I found advancing technology sometimes got in the way—watching a movie or looking things up on a computer did not always promote a lively, healthy exchange of clashing ideas. 

As for government restrictions, Jonathan Haidt points out in his book The Anxious Generation that when TV and movies came along, similar things started to happen. Our society realized this and put age and content restrictions on both. Most of us agree young people should not be exposed to extremely violent or graphic sexual content. Australia just went further—they banned many social media platforms for anyone under 16, requiring platforms to institute reasonable steps to verify the age of users, with penalties for tech companies that are not compliant. 

Finally, it can be challenging to tell a child who claims all their friends have cell phones that they will not have one. There are parental support groups forming across our country and in fact across the world, to help them. These support groups can do a number of things--help parents find other like-minded parents to support each other, be consistent in what they allow their kids to do. Two existing parent groups are Smartphone Free Childhood (formed UK) and Wait Until 8th, a US group. There are online groups and groups that can be formed locally. I would gladly help form such a support group in Southington! Such groups could also advocate for both state and national restriction laws and local school phone policies. Students can also be part of the conversation: Haidt has recently written a book for students to read about all of this.

Another consideration is also important--if we limit smartphone accessibility to young people, what do we replace that with? Can we come up with alternate activities for their kids? Young people will not simply go back and start playing baseball on their own in back of their school like they did in my childhood. Can parents collaborate to organize alternate activities?

These are discussions our town should have, especially as we add AI to this trend. We need to seriously evaluate how we can best help our young people navigate a very different world than the one most of us grew up in. 

Bob Brown is a longtime Southington teacher and current Board of Education member.

Please note that any opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The Southington Outsider.

The Anxious Generation, Part I: The Problem

CREATIVE COMMONS STOCK PHOTO

“Young people today are different.” Yes, it seems every older generation always says that. We also like to say, “when I was a kid, we walked to school, carried our lunch, were always outside…” While all of this may be a cliché, the harsh reality is that we are experiencing a dramatic increase in social, emotional, and mental health issues, as well as substance abuse and suicide, compared to previous generations. Should we be concerned about this? What has caused it? Is there anything we can really do about it? 

Jonathan Haidt, in his recent book The Anxious Generation, addresses many of the questions mentioned above. Members our Southington school system read his book a year ago, and it warrants a public airing. I have already discussed the issues raised in Haidt’s book at our Southington public library class on January 17.

Haidt points out that around 2009 some dramatic changes started appearing in young people, changes that can be tied to internet technology: cell phones, social media, and video games. I was still teaching at SHS then, and I saw changes in how students interacted with each other and with me – as well as an increase in suicide attempts, substance abuse, and mental health challenges. Haidt also cites evidence for physical changes in the developing brains of young people as a result of these technologies.

Technological progress makes our lives easier, enhances communication and connection in the world, and vastly increases the availability of information. Yet it also produces negative impacts. Tech companies study how to deliver quick rewards to young people, dopamine hits that keep them hooked. Many for-profit companies intentionally seek to hook young people, thus altering brain and cognitive development, and increasing rates of anti-social behavior.

While many parents were thrilled to find that smartphones or tablets could keep a child happily engaged and quiet for hours, few understood the mental health, developmental and socialization damage that was being done. The frontal cortex of our brains, essential for self-control, delaying gratification and resisting temptation, is not fully developed until the mid-20s, and preteens are particularly vulnerable. Gen Z became the first generation ever to go through puberty with a portal in their pockets that called them away from the people nearby and into an alternative universe that was exciting, addictive, unstable, and often unsuitable for children and adolescents. 

The average young person today spends five hours a day on the internet. COVID isolation did not help, either. No wonder that student self-reports of feeling isolated or lonely have escalated.

When studies started to show this, many parents and adults went into defensive denial. Few realized that the developing brains of impressionable young people were being rewired. Social media inflicted damage on girls, while video games, porn, and gambling damaged boys. In-person physical play and socialization were replaced by addictive internet content.

In addition to the Great Rewiring of Childhood, as Haidt describes it, parents have also became overprotective of their children, restricting their autonomy in the real world. Fears of kidnappers and sex offenders reduced free, unsupervised outdoor play. As a phone-based childhood replaced a play-based childhood, more young people prefer to stay indoors and play online. There some wandered into adult internet content with little adult supervision. Some even looked for emotional support in AI or online, with some shockingly negative consequences. The indoors is not much safer than the outdoors.

Haidt describes a grim situation. A law passed in 1998 called COPPA was supposed to protect children by requiring consent, and 13 became the “internet age” as a result, but it is easy to bypass this barrier.

Still, Haidt also suggests some other specific actions we as a society can do to counter this. I will talk about some of these ideas in my next column.