6:00 -
I. Call to Order -
a. Roll Call b. Approval of Agenda (Additions or Deletions)
........................................................... Action
II. Welcoming Remarks—Sebastian Frank a. b. c.
Introductions Establish quorum Approve Minutes - November 1, 2016 ................................................................................... Action
6:05 -
III. Overview on Where Things Stand
6:15 -
IV. Review of Four Options for Committee Consideration (Attached).
7:15 7:40 8:15 -
V. Agree on Criteria to be Used for Deciding a Direction VI. Public Input VII. Are you ready to set General Direction? Seek Consensus on a General Option to
Pursue. Or, Decide on Additional Work to Be Done to Finalize on December 6th and Push Back Vote. 8:30 - VIII.
Committee Members:
Lauren Deborah Bill Alison Sebastian Joe Rebecca Doug
Baker Brown Dakin, Esq. DesLauriers Frank Fromberger Geary McBride
Adjourn .................................................................................................................................. Action
Board/Community
Town
Community
Chester
Community
Chester
Community
Chester
Board
Chester
Board
Mt. Holly
Board
Andover
Board
Plymouth
Community
Cavendish
Alternates
Alt: Bob Herbst
Committee Members:
Marilyn Fred Kathy Bruce George Heather David
Mahusky Marin Muther Schmidt Thomson n Tucker Venter
Board/Community
Town
Board
Chester
Board Board
Cavendish Baltimore
Community Community
Ludlow Ludlow
Board
Ludlow
Community
Mt Holly
Alt: Gene Bont, MD
FOR MORE BOARD INFORMATION: please go to trsu website: http://SU.TRSU.ORG Page 1 of 19
Alternates Alt: Gene Bont, MD Alt: Wayne Wheelock Alt: Angela Benson-Ciufo Alt: Jennifer Shepard Alt: Bob Herbst
ACT 46 COMMITTEE CHARGE: To Study the Advisability of Forming a Union School District
~Adopted by Act 46 Study Committee: September 20, 2016
TRSU Vision Statement Students and adults of the Two Rivers Supervisory Union will collaborate, think critically, acquire and apply knowledge and solve problems creatively. ~ Adopted by TRSU Executive Committee 9/3/15
TRSU ACT 46 STUDY COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES A proposal must:
Increase opportunities for students. There must be measurable benefits for students.
Achieve equity for all students through increased quality—not through reducing quality in some schools (i.e.—an atmosphere of excellence).
Decrease overall cost per student. Provide for efficiencies.
Maintain the integrity of current elementary schools. Any decision to close a school must assure involvement of board and town involved.
Assure that transportation times are acceptable and reasonable.
Be so attractive to families that they want to move to the district.
Build on what has been created—and recognize the great work that has been done.
Promote strong relationships among students, adults, and community members. ~Act 46 Committee Fall 2016 FOR MORE BOARD INFORMATION: please go to trsu website: http://SU.TRSU.ORG Page 2 of 19
PACKET DETAIL
Page 3 of 19
unapproved
TRSU Act 46 Planning Committee Regular Meeting Ludlow Elementary School, Presidential Hall November 1, 2016 6:00 p.m. I.
Call to Order A. Roll Call Committee Members: Sebastian Frank, Dave Venter, Lauren Baker, Bill Dakin, Alison DesLauriers, Kathy Muther, Dan Buckley (A), Fred Marin, Gene Bont (A), George Thomson, Heather Tucker, Marilyn Mahusky Others: Meg Powden, Stephen Dale, Wayne Wheelock, Amy Jones, Pam O’Neil, Christa Valente, Paul Orzechowski, Shawn Cunningham, Jim Rumrill, Dennis Devereaux, Mariel Meringolo, Bob Herbst, Ross Jones, Mike Ripley, Ashley Carafiello, Chris Perino, Melissa Perino, Jenn Shepard, Paul Orzechowski, Patty Rumrill, Barbara Dickey, Kristen Garvey, Wendy Regier, Erin Boxer, Annmarie Christensen, Logan Nicoll, Heather Miele, Chris Miele, Chris Valente, Alice Nitka, Craig Hutt Vater, Venissa White, Karen Surma, Leslie Boyle Mr. Frank called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Dakin moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Venter seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
II. New Business: A. Welcoming Remarks i. Introductions Mr. Frank welcomed the new members of the audience who haven’t been with the meetings previously, along with the other members who have been attending meetings. He gave a brief history of the work that has been done thus far and the work that still needs to be done. He noted that they will be completing a financial analysis and working on challenges like tax rates and transportation issues. He invited the public to share their feedback and input. He noted that there isn’t a specific plan as yet, but it will be more defined over the next few months. ii.
Brief Introductory Overview Mr. Dale gave some information about his history with the TRSU, particularly during the creation of the new SU. He explained some of the work that the committee has been doing. He noted that they are working to achieve the goals of Act 46 with the complications of the districts involved. He noted that TRSU is the only SU in the state with two Union high schools and they will have to extricate themselves from union agreements if they were to move forward with a unified district. He gave information about the passage of Act 46. He noted that
Page 4 of 19
the legislature was looking at the state wide themes including enrollment dropping 20% in last 5 years and costs per pupil increasing dramatically. He noted that budgets haven’t been increasing dramatically, but the primary driver of the tax bills is the cost per student. He noted that if a school of 100 loses 20 students, it is difficult to cut 20% of its staff and still run a viable education program. Mr. Dale explained the five purposes of Act 46, including promoting equity and transparency and creating efficiency of scale. He noted that a purpose is to strengthen and retain small schools within larger districts. He noted that Vermont values small schools, but the chance of them surviving on their own is less than if they are part of a larger district. Mr. Dale noted that the general strategy is to create larger districts with a single board or a multi board structure with as few boards as practicable. He also noted that current patterns of choice and operating are protected. The bill provides some elements of approach: boards talking with each other, incentives, financial pressures that apply without compliance, AOE quality review which will influence the process, and AOE/State Board realignment in fall 2018, effective July 2019. Mr. Dale explained the incentives available to the TRSU group if approved by July 1, 2017: The new tax rate would be a blended figure and there would be an 8 cent savings the first year, 6 cent savings the next year, 4 the next and 2 in the final. He noted that even with these tax savings, there will be an increase in the tax rate in some towns. The small schools grants will be transitioned into Merger Grants. The ADM hold harmless rule is protected. This affects some of the districts in the SU significantly. Another incentive is that the new district would be exempt from state realignment action. Mr. Dale gave a timetable for the Act 46 actions. He noted that if the SU can’t reach an agreement, they have until November 30, 2017 to put through a proposal for an alternative structure, but they will have to explain how the proposal meets the goals of the Act. If that isn’t approved, the Secretary will create a proposed realignment by June 1, 2018 with the state board to approve by November 30, 2018 and implementation for July 1, 2019. Mr. Dale noted some early actions and recommendations. He suggested that they need to focus on the outcomes and what is the bill trying to achieve and where does the SU stand with the key outcomes. He suggested that the committee needs to put their energy in to doing things that will benefit students and taxpayers. They need to understand the financial environment—including the incentives and the loss of the buffers/protections. He also suggested that the committee needs to understand the end game and try to keep in mind what the state board is likely to decide if this group can’t come to an agreement that the voters approve. Mr. Dale explained the three possible approaches: Create a union district— however major concerns need to be addressed in order for this to be successful; develop an alternative plan that achieves the quality and cost objectives—being aware that there are risks to that plan; or do nothing and completely take their
Page 5 of 19
chances. He noted that he absolutely does not recommend option 3. Mr. Buckley questioned if there is a provision in the law that allows for an alternative if one of the necessary towns votes down a plan that the committee presents. Mr. Dale suggested that the committee must work to create a plan that achieves the goals and that can be tolerated, accepted and likely approved by the voters, along with explaining to the voters why it is important that the voters know that this is the best plan available. He noted that if a plan is voted down, he would hope that there is some ability to buy some time if they are deeply into a merger process. There is no guarantee at this point, however from the state perspective, the more work that is done by the local communities, the better. He noted the challenges. Geography is challenging. There are two smallish high schools one of which graduates 25-30 students. There is a wide range of per pupil spending that would need to be melded together to create a unified district. The spending is $14,000-high $16,000 per student. He also noted that there are 3 schools with small schools grants and two with hold harmless protections. Mr. Dale noted the work that this committee has done. He noted that a proposal must meet certain criteria: Increase opportunities for students in tangible ways, Achieve equity, through increases in quality, not reductions in quality, Show Efficiencies, Maintain integrity of current elementary schools, Assure that transportation times are acceptable and reasonable, Be so attractive to families that they want to move to the district, Promote strong relationships among students, adults and communities, Build on the great work that has been done to date, including the work of merging supervisory unions. Mr. Dale explained each of the criteria and some of the reasons why the committee felt that they were important. Mr. Dale noted that there were some specific improvements that have been discussed overall and in the elementary, middle and high schools. B. Establish Quorum A Quorum was established. C. Approve Minutes i. October 25, 2016 Mr. Venter moved to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2016 meeting. Ms. DesLauriers seconded. The committee noted some typographical corrections. The motion to approve the minutes as corrected carried unanimously. D. Public Comment Period Ms. Mahusky highlighted some of the improvements that the committee noted: such as overall the committee wants great teachers, private school quality with public school prices, promote understanding and respect. She noted that at the elementary school level the committee wants to expand foreign language, and reduce seat times. At the high school level, they wanted to promote technical learning and arts and drama and increase sports opportunities.
Page 6 of 19
Mr. Dale noted that many of the things listed sound like a wish list, but there should be tangible ways to achieve some of them. He noted that a proposal has been presented. No decision has been made, but the committee did decide that it would like to vet the proposal further. He noted that the proposal allows for all four elementary schools would operate, a single middle school and a specialty high school program of excellence will be housed at the current BRHS and a single high school will be housed at the current GMUHS. He noted that the proposal would have to account for the fact that there are students in the district that live so far from GMUHS that transportation would be unacceptable. There has been some beginning research on the feasibility of sending some affected students to MRUHS as a result of the transportation issues. Ms. Powden has been working with the teachers and some students on their feedback and how to make such a proposal successful. He noted that the committee is not closed to other ideas, but without other suggestions, this is the proposal that they will be vetting. Mr. Thomson noted that middle school would be 6-8. The elementary schools would be preK-5 at LES/MHS and K-5 at CTES/CAES. There was discussion about MRUHS starting middle school at grade 7. Mr. Frank noted that they are operating with two mysteries—what does the AOE want and what does the public want? He opened the floor to the public. Mr. Miele noted that he has been watching the Act 46 meetings on TV, but they are difficult to watch. He noted that this is a tough topic and difficult to hear in this venue. He suggested that it is an important topic to make sure is heard in its entirety. He felt that the right questions are being asked. He explained some of his feelings with regard to Act 60 and noted that Act 46 brings more overwhelming problems with being forced to make knee-jerk reactions. He noted that the legislature is not looking at each individual situation. 46 SU’s have entered this process and 16 have voted on a plan at this point. He noted that it is not fair for the state to make everyone do the same plan when it may not work for TRSU’s situation. He felt that the penalties that will apply if a plan is not created and approved by 2017 are the cause of knee-jerk reactions of the committee. He noted that the 8 cent savings on the tax rate will be lost when he has to travel to GMUHS to see his child’s school events. He explained that he is not eager to give up his $80 in taxes, but he is also not anxious to give up other benefits when the tax savings will just go away over the next few years. Ms. Meringolo noted that this committee wasn’t formed just to take advantage of a tax savings, but rather to respond to the reality of a law that the legislature passed. She noted that they are not looking at it as a way to save money and she didn’t feel that they are not looking at it in a knee-jerk fashion. Rather they are looking at the timeline that the state has presented them, with an eye on the penalties if they take too long. She also felt that they are looking at the educational benefits for all the students. She felt that the committee is looking to improve opportunities for students, not just for tax payers. Mr. Buckley noted that the tax incentives are minor, but the disincentives can be traumatic. The loss of the hold harmless protections and the small schools grant will cause more of an increase in taxes. Mr. Venter noted that not everyone on this committee wants to rush into the preferred structure. He noted that the Act states that one size does not fit all and therefore the alternative model is a possibility. However the state has made it difficult to meet all the requirements of the proposal in the alternative structure. Mr. Frank noted that all the work that is produced from this process is still good information to have about the districts involved in the TRSU. Plus if they end up at a point where they can’t make a proposal that the AOE approves and the voters approves, that forms the
Page 7 of 19
basis for an argument for an alternative structure. Ms. Regier noted that the vision statement sets forth a great plan for the communities even if nothing else is achieved through this process. Mr. Buckley noted that one of the biggest frustrations is the feeling that we have done this work before with the TRSU merger. Mr. Frank noted that there isn’t an option to not follow the law. Ms. Mahusky noted that it isn’t productive to continue to talk about why they don’t like the bill. Rather the time would be better spent talking about what they like or don’t like about the proposed district structure. Ms. Miele noted that the BRMS team has worked hard as a team to provide for the middle school students and they can collaborate very well. Ms. Boyle noted that she was very unhappy with the middle school sports program at BRMS. She felt that if there were one middle school there would be better participation in the sports programs. Ms. Surma noted that she is part of the GMUHS middle school team that collaborates well. But she is concerned about the class size increasing too much. Mr. Perino questioned what the proposed class sizes would be. Ms. Powden noted that with a regional middle school there would be 210 students and 320 students in 9-12. Mr. Perino questioned the quality of the BRHS structure and whether it is in good enough condition to hold a middle school. Mr. Buckley discussed several of the improvements that have been done at BRHS, including the ledge work and the Presidential Hall renovations. He noted that the mason who did the ledge work stated that “they don’t build them like this anymore” and that the building has great bones. There will be no incentives for capital improvements. Mr. Dale noted that something has to be done about construction assistance in schools. There was discussion about the number of students in the BRHS building and there was concern about whether it could manage the capacity of the 210 proposed. Mr. Dale noted that the specifics of the plan and the details would need to be worked out. Ms. Powden noted that Mr. Eppolito and his team have been working with the teaching teams on fleshing out some details of the plan. And there will be some student representatives that will participate in the discussions. Ms. Shepard noted that the discussions seem to be about making the merger more appealing. She noted that she would be interested in seeing a survey about who would leave the area if such a merger were to go through. There was discussion about whether Mt. Holly and Ludlow would be willing to send their students to GMUHS. She noted that there are Cavendish students who are on the bus for over an hour and a half. Mr. Frank noted the committee isn’t ignorant of the problem. Mr. Venter noted that this is the only suggestion that has been floated, but it hasn’t yet been fully costed out yet. Ms. Shepard noted that she would like to see both high schools remain. Mr. Dakin suggested that the public should get more involved and help share ideas. He noted that the voters will ultimately tell us with their vote, so they should share their input sooner. Mr. Orzechowski noted that he just moved up here recently. He suggested that Ludlow should have a high school/middle school centrally located, at the Ludlow campus with LES students going to Mt. Holly or Cavendish. He suggested that the GMUHS building could be used as a college or some other purpose. Ms. Perino discussed her history at Plymouth and her choice to attend Woodstock high school with its many academic and athletic opportunities. Ms. O’Neil noted that as a Ludlow resident, the 6-8 schools work well and the 9-12 schools work well. She noted that the committee keeps coming up with transportation as
Page 8 of 19
an issue, and she wondered why a proposal has not been created that addresses the transportation issue. She questioned how else to explore other ideas in the limited time left. Ms. Meringolo discussed her status as the head of an independent school and the process that they have to follow to maintain their status. She questioned if anything has been discussed about becoming an all choice district and whether that helps to solve any issues with transportation or costs. Ms. DesLauriers discussed Chester, Andover and Cavendish’s prior discussions about creating a RED, but it was doubtful that the state would allow them to orphan Ludlow and Mt. Holly. There was discussion about whether Ludlow and Mt. Holly could become choice districts. Ms. DesLauriers noted that many of the Chester middle school parents feel similarly and wouldn’t want their students sent to Ludlow. She noted that the administration was tasked with reducing costs such that the blended tax rates would not have a negative impact on Chester and Cavendish tax payers. She noted that this was a goal to achieve in order to have a better chance to get voter buy-in. She suggested that there are a lot of questions that get generated by each of these discussions. Mr. Buckley noted that if they became a choice town, they were not allowed to operate a school. BRHS would have to become an independent school in order to move forward. Mr. Dale explained how the process would have to flow, including voter and state board approval for the “divorce”. He also noted that the independent school would be a private entity and costs that will need to be paid with tuition. Mr. Thomson noted that as an administrator who helped to make this plan, they didn’t look to just cut costs. Rather they were looking for what the best opportunity for the students was their focus. He discussed theater, sports, and other academic opportunities. Mr. Perino questioned how there is a cost savings if no schools are closed. There was discussion about how the staffing could be combined to save money. Mr. Dakin noted that the lower student:teacher ratio, the higher the costs. He noted that if they can raise that ratio, they can save money. He explained that VT has some of the lowest ratios in the country. Mr. Miele questioned how the students can be involved in more things and do it successfully with more travel. He noted his concerns with the students commuting to school. Ms. Garvey noted that she has a concern about merging staff and who would oversee the hiring process. She noted that they would need to be concerned with the process. Mr. Dale noted that that is spelled out in statute. The teachers would be employees of a single entity. The new board would determine how many staff are needed and therefore there may be a reduction in force based on statute and the contracts. This would also be in the articles of agreement. There was a suggestion to look at the Twin Valley district as a potential model. Ms. White asked people to think about the opportunity that exists. She noted that you will drive anywhere to see your child thrive and follow their passion. What if my middle schooler could learn to cook and got wood shop and learned to change a tire? What if they got opportunities that we didn’t even know we were missing? Mr. Marin noted that in the absence of a concrete plan, they are thinking about solutions to the many problems that have been presented. He noted that the public is reinforcing the problems that the committee has seen and giving them things to think about. Ms. Mahusky thanked the public for giving their opinions. She noted that the concerns of this public are the same as those she is hearing in Chester. She noted that the GMUHS facility is a newer facility and while it might be ideal to create a centralized school, it might not be financially feasible. She also noted that the legal feasibilities of the choice
Page 9 of 19
option are also things to consider. Mr. Thomson welcomed other ideas about the structure. He noted that suggestions can be brought to the meeting or emailed to any member of the committee. Mr. Venter noted that he feels that the committee is chasing its tail because each community has its own set of circumstances that they may not be able to overcome. He suggested that the tax changes, the transportation, the perceived loss of opportunities, and many other issues may be insurmountable. Ms. Tucker thanked everyone for coming. She noted that as a parent it is frustrating to be away from her children, but she wants to prepare the school system in a way that is best for her children in the future. Mr. Buckley noted that as a U39 board member, he notes that as class size drops, course offerings and sports teams drop because there isn’t enough participation. He suggested that some of the rationale behind the proposal is to address the size issue. He noted that if they do nothing enrollment will continue to decline, they will lose tax incentives and costs per students will increase. He also discussed the penalty threshold and the likelihood of approaching it or severely cutting programming. Mr. Frank thanked everyone for attending and felt that they have just started scratching the surface of possibilities. He suggested looking at ways to improve transportation or education without being locked into a 20th century building and education model. He also noted that they need to come up with something because there is a state mandated timeline. Ms. Powden thanked everyone for coming and noted that this is the largest attendance at a committee meeting. She noted that the TRSU area mirrors the declining enrollment of the state. She noted that the admin team felt that if they come together they will be able to provide equitable access to quality programming. She noted that they want to be attractive to families in order to increase enrollment. Mr. Dakin noted that this is an opportunity that has been a long time coming. He acknowledged that Act 46 is challenging, but they can work together to take the diversities and pressures that each person brings to the discussion and make an appealing proposal. He noted that whatever is proposed will eventually be presented to the voters. But it will ultimately be up to the voters to approve or not. Ms. Muther felt that it has been good to listen to what everyone has to say, because Baltimore needs to decide whether or not to give up school choice and join with TRSU or Springfield. She noted that in order for Baltimore to come to TRSU, she will have to show the voters the opportunities that will be presented. She noted that currently they have no input on the tuition or on the hiring process and no voice on the school boards. Ms. DesLauriers thanked the public for the respectful conversation even though it is difficult on both sides of the SU. Ms. Baker noted her history with the school systems and the SU and with the merger. She acknowledged that sometimes it may feel like irreconcilable differences, but there are scary facts, including the declining enrollment. A few years ago, there were over 300 students in CAES and now there are less than 200. The appreciated the endless ideas. Dr. Bont noted that when he was chair of the board many years ago and they agonized over the decision of whether or not to unionize. He noted that they eventually agreed upon a new school. He noted that the things these parents wanted for their students he wanted for his students. He noted that at that time there were many opposed to the unionization for various reasons, but if they are looking at the best opportunities for their students, they need to agonize over these decisions. He noted that he appreciates the parents’ agony, but the world is different now than it was when these parents were students. He thanked the parents and community members for sharing their input.
Page 10 of 19
Mr. Dale noted that this was terrific conversation and at the end of the last meeting they questioned whether they should have this meeting and he is glad they did. He suggested at the next meeting, they take brief community comments and then discuss tonight’s meeting as well as the meat of the proposal. Mr. Marin suggested taking advantage of the rail line as an opportunity to alleviate the transportation. Ms. Jones questioned if the committee would like to have a proposal by the end of December in order to bring it to a vote. There was discussion about whether or not the vote can be pushed back. They also noted that they will likely not present a proposal that they don’t like. Mr. Buckley noted that with only one bus in Mt. Holly and Cavendish, that adds to the length of time the students spend on the bus. If there were more busses and costs shared with a larger district. Mr. Herbst reminded the public that the next meeting will be 11/16 at 6:00 p.m. at Mt. Holly and 12/6 in Baltimore and 12/14 at BRHS. They also discussed that it is never the same meeting and the public should attend as many as they can. The public can help guide the committee in their discussions. There was discussion about the importance of the committee to have two hours to do its work with some limited time spent for community input. Ms. Mahusky noted that the committee felt that it didn’t want more public hearing meetings but they need to get their work done. Ms. DesLauriers suggested holding the work of the meeting first then hold the public forum afterward when there is more for them to discuss. Ms. Muther moved to set the agenda to hold the work session first at the next meeting and then leave public comments for the end. Ms. DesLauriers seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
III. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held on November 16, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. at Mt. Holly Elementary School. IV. Adjournment: Mr. Dakin moved to adjourn at 8:37 p.m. Ms. Muther seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amber Wilson Board Recording Secretary
Page 11 of 19
Draft 11/10/16
OPTIONS FOR TRSU UNIFICATIONS UNDER ACT 46
OPTION #1
All Districts Merge into a Single Unified District
One board will oversee the new district. Initially, there are two primary choices for how to operate: A. Continue basic operations as currently designed.
(or)
B. Continue elementary school operations. Operate a primary middle school at Black River. Operate the primary high school program at Green Mountain. Specialty high school program at Black River. Policy approach to allow Mill River attendance for high school students living on the west side of Mt. Holly
OPTION #2
Unified District between Chester, Ludlow, Cavendish, Andover, Baltimore
One board for all current districts except Mt. Holly. Black River Union is dissolved. Mt. Holly connects with Mill River. Continue three elementary schools. Unify middle and high schools.
OPTION #3
2 Side-by-Side K-12 Unified Districts
Ludlow-Mt.Holly Chester, Andover, Cavendish, Baltimore
Operations remain similar to current situation.
OPTION #4 2 Side-by-Side Districts—one PK-12 operating, one PK-6 or 8 operating with choice or designation thereafter
Chester, Andover, Cavendish, Baltimore (PK-12 Operating) Ludlow-Mt. Holly (Operate elementary and/or middle, Tuition middle and/or high school) A. PK-6 with choice for 7-12—open or designated B. PK-8 with choice for 9-12—open or designated
Ludlow and Mt. Holly cease operating grades 7-12 or 9-12. They decide whether to offer total choice or to designate 1-3 secondary schools.
Page 12 of 19
OPTION #1
All Districts Merge into a Single Unified District
One board will oversee the new district. Initially, there are two primary choices for how to operate: A. Continue basic operations as currently designed.
(or)
B. Continue elementary school operations. Operate a primary middle school at Black River. Operate the primary high school program at Green Mountain. Specialty high school program at Black River. Policy approach to allow Mill River attendance for high school students living on the west side of Mt. Holly
Considerations Creates a flexible district that is of a sustainable size to withstand continued declines in student population. Creates options for how to operate in the future as circumstances continue to change. Allows achievement of scale, avoids extremely small classes, and provides for more flexible staff assignments to respond to student needs. Provides greater equity and expanded student opportunity across the region. Qualifies for incentives and protections and exempts the districts from state action. Will affect town tax rates in varied ways as the tax rates get melded. Could create some uncertainty on the future fate of schools. Increased transportation time for many students. Can create uncertainty for staff in assignments across large territory.
Special actions to consider related to Option 1B: Would need to work with Mill River on assuring acceptance of West Side Mt. Holly students. Need to develop article wording that pre-determines eligibility for students in designated region to qualify for school choice or tuitioning or, in the articles recommend policy action by the new board. Need to estimate how many students would likely be tuitioned out of the district and add those costs to estimates. Draft 11/10/16
Page 13 of 19
Page 14 of 19
OPTION #2
Unified District between Chester, Ludlow, Cavendish, Andover, Baltimore
One board for all current districts except Mt. Holly. Black River Union is dissolved. Mt. Holly connects with Mill River. Continue three elementary schools. Unify middle and high schools.
Considerations Five districts create a sustainable district that can withstand continued declines in student population. Mt. Holly connects with the Mill River District which creates sustainability and predictability. Distances are more acceptable for shared programming in both directions. Allows achievement of scale, avoids extremely small classes, and provides for more flexible staff assignments to respond to student needs. Provides greater equity and expanded student opportunity across the region. Qualifies for incentives and protections and exempts the districts from state action. Creates somewhat longer bus rides for students depending on location of schools Can create uncertainty for staff in assignments across large territory. Will affect town tax rates in varied ways as tax rates get melded. Will likely necessitate middle/high school consolidation within the new district with the loss of Mt. Holly students.
Special actions to consider: Articles would need to make sure to both Ludlow and Mt. Holly that they both need to approve the dissolution of Black River Union Jr.-Sr. High School and that they would each need to be successfully included in other union districts. Discussions need to begin immediately with Mill River. It is our understanding that Mt. Holly would get the remaining tax incentives that are continuing in the Mill River District. We would need to assure that the small schools grant would be protected. Draft 11/10/16
Page 15 of 19
Page 16 of 19
OPTION #3
2 Side-by-Side K-12 Unified Districts
Ludlow-Mt. Holly Chester, Andover, Cavendish, Baltimore
Operations remain similar to current situation.
Considerations Represents least change. Reduces number of districts within Supervisory Union, simplifying overall operations and opportunities for collaboration between two entities instead of many. Levels tax rates among former Black River towns and among former Green Mountain towns. Chester, Andover, Cavendish, and Baltimore would be creating a RED and would receive the incentives and protections. Mt. Holly and Ludlow would not receive any tax incentives. The proposal does not increase overall economies of scale, particularly at the middle and high school levels. It may be difficult to show how the proposal will achieve educational and financial objectives. If the creation of these union districts is not considered a “side-by-side”, there is no guarantee that the state board will not require the new Ludlow-Mt. Holly district to merge into the other district regardless of the action taken.
Specific actions to consider: If this is the preferred approach, a legislative fix would be needed to allow for two PK-12 districts to be considered for side-by-side incentives. Perhaps there should be a request just for this district to receive a special consideration given the uniqueness of the situation. There is no guarantee of such a request being successful. Draft 11/8/16
Page 17 of 19
Page 18 of 19
OPTION #4 2 Side-by-Side Districts—one PK-12 operating, one PK-6 or 8 operating with choice or designation thereafter
Chester, Andover, Cavendish, Baltimore (PK-12 Operating) Ludlow-Mt. Holly (Operate elementary and/or middle, Tuition middle and/or high school) A. PK-6 with choice for 7-12—open or designated B. PK-8 with choice for 9-12—open or designated
Ludlow and Mt. Holly cease operating grades 7-12 or 9-12. They decide whether to offer total choice or to designate 1-3 secondary schools.
Considerations Comes with incentives and protections since it qualifies as a “side-by-side”. Creates the ability for Ludlow and Mt. Holly students to pick their secondary school program, and allows families to select the program that is best for the family. Choice or designation is attractive to a number of families in the Ludlow-Mt. Holly region. Levels tax rates among former Black River towns and among former Green Mountain towns. Ludlow and Mt. Holly would lose a governance role in designing and overseeing secondary education for their students. Would involve the closing of all or a portion of Black River Jr.-Sr. High School and the layoff of staff. Being a choice district invites part-time residents to seek/claim residency for tuition assistance and can place added pressure on budgets. Districts lose control of secondary expenditures and this can place added pressures to cut elementary programs.
Special actions to consider: Mt. Holly and Ludlow would need to decide whether to operate PK-6 or PK-8. Part of the plan would need to be Ludlow and Mt. Holly agreeing on whether to provide open choice or whether to designate one-three public or private schools. The advantage of designating is that you can discourage residency manipulation. The new district may also be able to develop some type of advisory connection with the schools that are designated. Draft 11/8/16
Page 19 of 19
