Craftsbury Community School Collaborative
Summary of Major Points of Discussion
Stakeholder Meeting
Thursday, November 4
Participants:
Stakeholders: Elinor Osborne, Jenn Schoen, Joe Young, Bob Twiss, George Hall, Brian Machesney, John Zaber.
Steering Committee: Anne Morse, Steve Moffat, Stark Biddle, Susan Houston, Suzanne Griffiths
Discussion Leader: Heidi Krantz
Discussion
Anne Morse opened the meeting and presented a tentative agenda. As background the Group reviewed a summary of the principal parts of the Report that Anne had prepared. This summary is posted below.
Anne summarized the key components of Act 153 based in part on a conversation with Jo Anne Canning.
Heidi asked participants to indicate whether and to what degree they would like to continue with the process. In general, participants were reluctant to commit extensive time and energy without a clear mandate and a statement of role and function from the School Board. There was some concern that the Phase I study had not been adequately acknowleged by the School Board.
The Group discussed a variety of questions regarding the legislation, the time frame, the role of the Collaborative and how best to proceed in this uncertain atmosphere. The following points/questions surfaced:
With respect to the assessment of different merger options, is the Town limited to working within the current OSSU structure?
Does the template apply to Phase I or Phase II?
Who will hire the consultant? Will the Town have a role or veto power in the selection? How will costs be allocated and how much does each
Town get? If the Craftsbury School District wanted to study a scenario outside of OSSU, would there be funding available, and up to how much?
In general, what leverage does the Town have on the study process, the model that will be chosen and the Towns to work with. Can Craftsbury study a unique scenario?
To what extent will the study process reflect the qualitative themes discussed in the Phase I Report such as the value of a thematic curriculum?
How will the School Board incorporate the Phase I work of the Collaborative in the design of the strategy/model that it will pursue with the Committee established at the OSSU level.
It would make most sense to figure out an optimal model before we begin to discuss options with other Towns to make sure the Towns we want to collaborate with are at the table. How can this be done?
Summary/Conclusions
If the work of the Collaborative is to continue all agreed it was essential to expand Stakeholder membership and perhaps the size of the Steering Committee.
It is essential for the Collaborative (or whatever structure is adopted) to have a clear goal and mandate.
There was broad agreement that the Collaborative in one form or another could be of considerable benefit to the study process and to the building of constituent support in the Town. There was consensus that the work done in Phase I was directly relevant to the issues that the School Board and Town will be dealing with in responding to Act 153. There are many alternative roles the Collaborative can play but until these are clarified and codified it was difficult to proceed.
The Group adopted the following approach:
1. We should not reconvene the Collaborative until we have the School Board response to the Phase I Study and until the next step(s) in the Phase I school merger study have become more clear. Until these questions are answered (at least in part), there’s not much we can do as a group.
2. However, the Steering Committee should prepare and send a letter to the School Board that would:
a. Ask for clarification with regard to role and function of the Collaborative.
b. Emphasize the importance of clear goals.
c. Outline areas where the Collaborative or something like it could be effective in assisting the School Board and the Town.
d. Establish January 6 as a tentative date for the next meeting.
e. State that we would like to see the school board pursuing conversations with other towns outside of the phase I OSSU study
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Excerots from Phase I Report
Excerpts from the CSCC Phase I Report of July, 2010
Prepared for November 4, 2010 Stakeholder Meeting by Anne Morse
Mission/Vision
Stakeholders brainstormed the following elements of a new Craftsbury mission/vision:
1) Accountability for teachers, students, parents, and community (four legs)
2) Students challenged and expected to learn in a positive environment
3) Students expected to learn how to learn
4) Atmosphere of integrity and inspiration across the school creates citizens for the future
5) School grounded in our community, uses community as classroom and place-based education
6) For every privilege there is a responsibility
7) Financially sound school with enough students to sustain a healthy environment
8) Student honest feedbackconfidence can come from real achievement/mastery
These brainstormed elements inspired the following statement.
“The CSCC envisions a school where students will be challenged to become citizens of the future in an atmosphere of integrity, inspiration, and accountability, supported by teachers, parents, and community members.”
Indicators
How will we know when changes are successful? Any one of the three models described below would be considered successful if it resulted in the following:
1) Students engaged and happy to go to school
2) Reduced costs, saved money
3) Attracted students from away
4) Involved community
5) Success of students in—and admission to—post secondary schools
6) Periodic comprehensive evaluation
7) Positive school climate
8) Success in jobs
9) Teaching for learning, not teaching to the test (as long as there are objective measures)
10) Using Grade Expectations for Vermont’s Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities as curriculum guidelines
11) Students valuing the community
12) Staff stability (retain good teachers)
13) High quality staff
14) Opportunities to engage in sports programs
15) Talented, inspiring, knowledgeable teachers
16) Positive learning environment (kids want to learn)
17) Motivated teachers and students
What it will take to move ahead
We believe that all of us, including school staff, the School Board and leaders in the community must be vigorously proactive in charting our future. The pressures for change are immense and the imposition of external models and solutions are inevitable unless we take the initiative to create our own future. Indeed, change is inevitable and the community of Craftsbury must take responsibility for managing that process. In planning for the future it is critically important to develop long-range financial scenarios that can test the financial viability of alternative models. Year to year budget forecasting is not reliable enough and may lead to decisions that are not financially viable.
Recommendations
Stakeholders anticipate a second phase of the CSCC process will entail rigorous research related to one or more of the alternative models identified:
1) Keep K – 6 or K- 8 in Craftsbury and tuition out students to nearby schools. The resulting K – 6 or K – 8 school would be characterized by a mission-focused, interdisciplinary curriculum; small classes taught by motivated, knowledgeable teachers; and renewed emphasis on thematics.
2) Keep K – 12 in Craftsbury. Design and establish a mission-driven public school that would attract students from other communities.
a) With gradual improvements: Mission driven, creative curriculum; attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable, licensed teachers; continue and expand use of local resources, such as collaborations with Sterling and the Outdoor Center.
b) With thematic emphasis: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers; local collaborations with Sterling, Outdoor Center, and other resources.
3) Independent, whether K – 6, K – 8, or K - 12: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers (not necessarily licensed); town academy model; local collaborations possible with Sterling College, the Outdoor Center, and other resources.
Specific Research Needs
Specific research needs to include some or all of the following:
1) Determine definitive costs of our schools compared to other small schools, solidify those numbers.
2) Obtain accurate estimates of expected enrollment.
3) Check past projections that school has predicted, say 20 years back or more, and see if predictions materialized.
4) Determine whether it is possible to have an interim situation while issues such as enrollment are addressed.
5) Since attracting students is critical, would it be possible to develop a cooperative agreement within the supervisory union so that any student from other towns who want to attend Craftsbury schools would be free to do so?
6) Consider whether the “Hardwick effect” exists: can we anticipate increased local numbers despite state and nationwide student downturns.
7) Carefully weigh pros and cons of district consolidation, including any possible alternatives
8) Talk with new superintendent to determine what her vision is and if a new Craftsbury vision would be accepted.
9) Determine the full capacity of Craftsbury schools.
10) Use the newly developed spreadsheets to compare 7-12 vs. 9-12 costs. See Appendix C for examples.
Next Steps
The next phase of the collaborative process is follow-through. It is important that recommendations be carefully considered by the School Board and that an open dialog with Stakeholders follows. It is understood that the School Board will ultimately decide to accept, reject, or modify some or all recommendations. CSCC participants can provide explanation and insight to aid in these decisions.
• July 2010: Present recommendations to the School Board at a joint meeting.
• Fall 2010 (hopefully): Response from School Board.
• Next steps should include:
o CSCC Phase II works to modify/refine some or all recommendations.
o Formation of a School Board appointed collaborative task force (Stakeholders and experts) to further research some or all recommendations.
o Formalize a committee of Stakeholders and School Board members to modify/refine/research some or all recommendations.
Prepared for November 4, 2010 Stakeholder Meeting by Anne Morse
Mission/Vision
Stakeholders brainstormed the following elements of a new Craftsbury mission/vision:
1) Accountability for teachers, students, parents, and community (four legs)
2) Students challenged and expected to learn in a positive environment
3) Students expected to learn how to learn
4) Atmosphere of integrity and inspiration across the school creates citizens for the future
5) School grounded in our community, uses community as classroom and place-based education
6) For every privilege there is a responsibility
7) Financially sound school with enough students to sustain a healthy environment
8) Student honest feedbackconfidence can come from real achievement/mastery
These brainstormed elements inspired the following statement.
“The CSCC envisions a school where students will be challenged to become citizens of the future in an atmosphere of integrity, inspiration, and accountability, supported by teachers, parents, and community members.”
Indicators
How will we know when changes are successful? Any one of the three models described below would be considered successful if it resulted in the following:
1) Students engaged and happy to go to school
2) Reduced costs, saved money
3) Attracted students from away
4) Involved community
5) Success of students in—and admission to—post secondary schools
6) Periodic comprehensive evaluation
7) Positive school climate
8) Success in jobs
9) Teaching for learning, not teaching to the test (as long as there are objective measures)
10) Using Grade Expectations for Vermont’s Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities as curriculum guidelines
11) Students valuing the community
12) Staff stability (retain good teachers)
13) High quality staff
14) Opportunities to engage in sports programs
15) Talented, inspiring, knowledgeable teachers
16) Positive learning environment (kids want to learn)
17) Motivated teachers and students
What it will take to move ahead
We believe that all of us, including school staff, the School Board and leaders in the community must be vigorously proactive in charting our future. The pressures for change are immense and the imposition of external models and solutions are inevitable unless we take the initiative to create our own future. Indeed, change is inevitable and the community of Craftsbury must take responsibility for managing that process. In planning for the future it is critically important to develop long-range financial scenarios that can test the financial viability of alternative models. Year to year budget forecasting is not reliable enough and may lead to decisions that are not financially viable.
Recommendations
Stakeholders anticipate a second phase of the CSCC process will entail rigorous research related to one or more of the alternative models identified:
1) Keep K – 6 or K- 8 in Craftsbury and tuition out students to nearby schools. The resulting K – 6 or K – 8 school would be characterized by a mission-focused, interdisciplinary curriculum; small classes taught by motivated, knowledgeable teachers; and renewed emphasis on thematics.
2) Keep K – 12 in Craftsbury. Design and establish a mission-driven public school that would attract students from other communities.
a) With gradual improvements: Mission driven, creative curriculum; attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable, licensed teachers; continue and expand use of local resources, such as collaborations with Sterling and the Outdoor Center.
b) With thematic emphasis: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers; local collaborations with Sterling, Outdoor Center, and other resources.
3) Independent, whether K – 6, K – 8, or K - 12: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers (not necessarily licensed); town academy model; local collaborations possible with Sterling College, the Outdoor Center, and other resources.
Specific Research Needs
Specific research needs to include some or all of the following:
1) Determine definitive costs of our schools compared to other small schools, solidify those numbers.
2) Obtain accurate estimates of expected enrollment.
3) Check past projections that school has predicted, say 20 years back or more, and see if predictions materialized.
4) Determine whether it is possible to have an interim situation while issues such as enrollment are addressed.
5) Since attracting students is critical, would it be possible to develop a cooperative agreement within the supervisory union so that any student from other towns who want to attend Craftsbury schools would be free to do so?
6) Consider whether the “Hardwick effect” exists: can we anticipate increased local numbers despite state and nationwide student downturns.
7) Carefully weigh pros and cons of district consolidation, including any possible alternatives
8) Talk with new superintendent to determine what her vision is and if a new Craftsbury vision would be accepted.
9) Determine the full capacity of Craftsbury schools.
10) Use the newly developed spreadsheets to compare 7-12 vs. 9-12 costs. See Appendix C for examples.
Next Steps
The next phase of the collaborative process is follow-through. It is important that recommendations be carefully considered by the School Board and that an open dialog with Stakeholders follows. It is understood that the School Board will ultimately decide to accept, reject, or modify some or all recommendations. CSCC participants can provide explanation and insight to aid in these decisions.
• July 2010: Present recommendations to the School Board at a joint meeting.
• Fall 2010 (hopefully): Response from School Board.
• Next steps should include:
o CSCC Phase II works to modify/refine some or all recommendations.
o Formation of a School Board appointed collaborative task force (Stakeholders and experts) to further research some or all recommendations.
o Formalize a committee of Stakeholders and School Board members to modify/refine/research some or all recommendations.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Information Session
DRAFT Summary of Major Points of Discussion
Stakeholder Meeting
Thursday, October 28
Speaker: Rep. Peter Peltz, primary author of Act 153, An act relating to voluntary school district merger.
Note: The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the content and implications of Act 153 which is designed to encourage school consolidation. These minutes highlight major points that were made during the discussion. They do not constitute a comprehensive summary of the legislation and may not accurately record the process outlined in the Act. All are encouraged to read the bill itself and to review the format for preparing the study of merger options.
These documents can be found at:
The Act itself: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/Acts/ACT153.pdf
The Study template: http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/mainlaws.html
Background and Business. Heid Krantz introduced Anne Morse who has assumed responsibilities for chairing the Steering Committee. Anne briefly summarized the history of the collaborative, and current thinking regarding next steps. Harry Miller noted that the School Board has not re-established the Collaborative and that this matter is under consideration but that at this point we can assume re-appointment.
Anne noted that the Collaborative will meet again on November 4 at 6:30 at the Town Hall to further discuss the merger legislation and implications for Craftsbury.
Peter Peltz was introduced. He made several opening comments and then took questions. The following key points emerged.
Opening Comments and Discussion:
1. In the years ahead, school closures are inevitable. Fixed costs are not sustainable, student population appears to be on the decline and small schools lack resources needed to prepare students for the 21st century. (These themes were discussed in the Report to the Craftsbury School Board.)
2. Act 153 is designed to lead to savings, efficiencies and a qualitative improvement in education. Support for the bill was bi-partisan.
3. The legislation contains financial incentives to encourage merger. However it is difficult at this stage to determine their exact value to participating towns.
4. The legislation envisions a bottom up approach designed to respect local decision making. It is hoped that this approach will be more effective than top-down mandatory pressure to consolidate. (Vermont has 280 School Districts. In the last 100 years there have been numerous attempts to consolidate and they have failed because they are viewed as “top down”.)
5. Under the legislation, the new Regional Education Districts (REDs) will be unified School District under a single governing Board. They will comprise a boundary based on the boundaries of participating towns. Participating towns will have the same school tax rate.
6. Under 153, all grades (K-12) can be considered for possible merger
7. The pros and cons of merger will be addressed in a Study that will be reviewed by the Department of Education. Ultimate merger will require Town approval and Departmental approval.
8. The Supervisory Union will be responsible for preparing the Study. Those towns that are members of their Supervisory Union will work together to develop the Study.
9. The Orleans Supervisory Union has already decided to proceed with the optional study phase outlined in Act 153. This decision was supported by the Craftsbury Academy School Board. The Study itself will follow the format outlined in a template prepared the Department of Education. (See reference above) Up to $20,00 will be available to hire consulting services to assist with the research.
10. There are a variety of questions regarding the location of authority for conducting the Merger Study. These include:
i. Who chooses the consultant?
ii. Who does the consultant work for?
iii. Who determines the options to be studied?
iv. Who has ultimate authority when Towns within the Supervisory Union may disagree regarding the configuration of the merger proposal?
11. The Study must show cost savings and demonstrate a qualitative improvement in education in order to be approved.
12. The study phase will involve a group process of negotiation. The Towns with the strongest, most creative and most convincing models and approach will be the most successful.
13. The Study process is likely to be competitive. Towns with a clear and strong vision and strategy are more likely to be successful in reaching an outcome that suits their desires and needs. The School Board will need to determine the “Rules of Engagement” when negotiating with other Towns.
14. With respect to transportation issues, this matter will be up to participating Towns to address during the study process
15. The future of School Choice is not clear at this time.
16. Concluding observations:
i. It is critically important that the Town develop a viable and attractive proposal that reflects the needs and desires of citizens.
ii. It is likely that the Study process will be competitive. Creative and cost effective models that demonstrate savings and enhanced educational quality are likely to be successful.
iii. The Collaborative has a potentially important role in:
1. Evaluating pros and cons of different models;
2. Educating citizens.
3. Building consensus in support of a particular approach.;
4. Demonstrating community support and building an active constituency for a particular strategy.
Stakeholder Meeting
Thursday, October 28
Speaker: Rep. Peter Peltz, primary author of Act 153, An act relating to voluntary school district merger.
Note: The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the content and implications of Act 153 which is designed to encourage school consolidation. These minutes highlight major points that were made during the discussion. They do not constitute a comprehensive summary of the legislation and may not accurately record the process outlined in the Act. All are encouraged to read the bill itself and to review the format for preparing the study of merger options.
These documents can be found at:
The Act itself: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/Acts/ACT153.pdf
The Study template: http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/mainlaws.html
Background and Business. Heid Krantz introduced Anne Morse who has assumed responsibilities for chairing the Steering Committee. Anne briefly summarized the history of the collaborative, and current thinking regarding next steps. Harry Miller noted that the School Board has not re-established the Collaborative and that this matter is under consideration but that at this point we can assume re-appointment.
Anne noted that the Collaborative will meet again on November 4 at 6:30 at the Town Hall to further discuss the merger legislation and implications for Craftsbury.
Peter Peltz was introduced. He made several opening comments and then took questions. The following key points emerged.
Opening Comments and Discussion:
1. In the years ahead, school closures are inevitable. Fixed costs are not sustainable, student population appears to be on the decline and small schools lack resources needed to prepare students for the 21st century. (These themes were discussed in the Report to the Craftsbury School Board.)
2. Act 153 is designed to lead to savings, efficiencies and a qualitative improvement in education. Support for the bill was bi-partisan.
3. The legislation contains financial incentives to encourage merger. However it is difficult at this stage to determine their exact value to participating towns.
4. The legislation envisions a bottom up approach designed to respect local decision making. It is hoped that this approach will be more effective than top-down mandatory pressure to consolidate. (Vermont has 280 School Districts. In the last 100 years there have been numerous attempts to consolidate and they have failed because they are viewed as “top down”.)
5. Under the legislation, the new Regional Education Districts (REDs) will be unified School District under a single governing Board. They will comprise a boundary based on the boundaries of participating towns. Participating towns will have the same school tax rate.
6. Under 153, all grades (K-12) can be considered for possible merger
7. The pros and cons of merger will be addressed in a Study that will be reviewed by the Department of Education. Ultimate merger will require Town approval and Departmental approval.
8. The Supervisory Union will be responsible for preparing the Study. Those towns that are members of their Supervisory Union will work together to develop the Study.
9. The Orleans Supervisory Union has already decided to proceed with the optional study phase outlined in Act 153. This decision was supported by the Craftsbury Academy School Board. The Study itself will follow the format outlined in a template prepared the Department of Education. (See reference above) Up to $20,00 will be available to hire consulting services to assist with the research.
10. There are a variety of questions regarding the location of authority for conducting the Merger Study. These include:
i. Who chooses the consultant?
ii. Who does the consultant work for?
iii. Who determines the options to be studied?
iv. Who has ultimate authority when Towns within the Supervisory Union may disagree regarding the configuration of the merger proposal?
11. The Study must show cost savings and demonstrate a qualitative improvement in education in order to be approved.
12. The study phase will involve a group process of negotiation. The Towns with the strongest, most creative and most convincing models and approach will be the most successful.
13. The Study process is likely to be competitive. Towns with a clear and strong vision and strategy are more likely to be successful in reaching an outcome that suits their desires and needs. The School Board will need to determine the “Rules of Engagement” when negotiating with other Towns.
14. With respect to transportation issues, this matter will be up to participating Towns to address during the study process
15. The future of School Choice is not clear at this time.
16. Concluding observations:
i. It is critically important that the Town develop a viable and attractive proposal that reflects the needs and desires of citizens.
ii. It is likely that the Study process will be competitive. Creative and cost effective models that demonstrate savings and enhanced educational quality are likely to be successful.
iii. The Collaborative has a potentially important role in:
1. Evaluating pros and cons of different models;
2. Educating citizens.
3. Building consensus in support of a particular approach.;
4. Demonstrating community support and building an active constituency for a particular strategy.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Phase I Report to Craftsbury School Board
Note: The complete report, with figures and appendices, is available on the CSCC page of the Craftsbury Schools website (www.craftsburyschools.org).
Introduction
The Craftsbury School system is one of the smallest in Vermont, and has been the subject of controversy in the Town for many years. Small schools can offer special benefits and opportunities, but low student numbers can be limiting. The high cost of Craftsbury Schools is a challenge, yet the schools bring the community together. Five bonds for school construction and renovation were narrowly defeated between 2002 and 2009. A survey distributed by the School Board between bond votes showed the Town evenly divided on whether to maintain grades 9-12 in Craftsbury. Also, a consultant hired by the School Board in 2006 (Ray Proulx) interviewed a selection of town residents about the future of the schools. 54% of respondents favored tuitioning out grades 9-12, 25% favored maintaining K-12 in Craftsbury, and 21% wanted more information.
After a very narrow bond defeat in January 2009, community member Gina Campoli organized and facilitated a citizens’ meeting to discuss school issues. About sixty citizens with diverse perspectives attended the meeting. The time seemed ripe for a Collaborative Process.
If you bring appropriate people together in constructive ways with credible information, they will create authentic visions and strategies for addressing the shared concerns for the organization or community. –David Chrislip
A Steering Committee grew out of the citizens’ meetings and the Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration (CSCC) was formed as an independent subcommittee of the School Board. The group was charged with producing a set of consensus recommendations from the community for the Board to consider, regarding possible future directions for Craftsbury schools.
A successful collaborative process brings together as many perspectives as possible and must not be perceived as advocating for a particular viewpoint or solution. Therefore, efforts were made to develop a credible Steering Committee by recruiting members with different perspectives, who were also familiar with “group process.” The role of the Steering Committee was to guide the process and provide logistical support for the Collaboration. Steering Committee members Stark Biddle, Susan Houston, Tina Sweet, Perry Thomas, Anne Volmer, and School Board liaison members Harry Miller and Steve Moffatt worked closely with professional facilitator Heidi Krantz to create and guide the collaborative process. The Steering Committee remained neutral and did not participate in group discussions, other than as facilitators.
The CSCC was open to all Craftsbury residents and taxpayers. Again, the Steering Committee made a concentrated effort to collect a broad group, reflective of the community. Diverse perspectives were represented in the resulting CSCC Stakeholder group. The CSCC held nineteen Stakeholder meetings from October 2009 through July 2010, facilitated by Craftsbury resident and professional facilitator Heidi Krantz. Twenty four Stakeholders participated in at least five meetings; and thirty one Stakeholders participated in at least two meetings (see Appendix A for participants and perspectives). Note that not all Stakeholders listed were involved with developing the recommendations presented in this report. Some were more active in early stages; some participated intermittently, and some were involved throughout. Stakeholders spent an estimated (conservatively) 465 “person hours” on this project, in meeting time alone.
The Steering Committee and facilitator met over thirty times, and spent many more hours with phone and email contacts, Stakeholder communication, typing minutes, maintaining a blog, drafting reports, etc. The Steering Committee members and facilitator spent an estimated (conservatively) 260 “person hours” in meetings, and many additional hours working on logistics.
The first step of the Collaboration involved defining the issues and generating questions. Stakeholders generated the following initial list of topics to explore: grade configuration, economics, alternative models, physical plant, in-school culture, school-community culture and constraints.
The second step of the process was education, and considerable time was spent digging into the first three topics noted above. The Stakeholders formed research groups and gave presentations on tuitions of area high schools, transportation costs, possibilities for building consolidation, academic offerings at area high schools, and alternative models. Research included interviews with experts. In addition, the group held four panel discussions. Panelists included headmasters and principals from private and public schools, the Associate Director of the Vermont School Board Association, a professor of school finance from UVM, and the Vermont Department of Education General Counsel (see Appendix B for a complete list of experts consulted and panelists).
Stakeholder and economist Ann Ingerson created a professional economic cost workbook to analyze school costs for various scenarios. Appendix C describes the tool, and provides a series of charts as examples of how changing variables impact costs. This tool was used by the Stakeholder group to examine the impact of various assumptions, and it will be of significant value to the School Board for future studies.
The third step of the Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration was agreeing on a set of recommendations, contained in this report.
Findings
The CSCC envisions a school where students will be challenged to become citizens of the future in an atmosphere of integrity, inspiration, and accountability, supported by teachers, parents, and community members.
Stakeholders involved with the Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration understand the benefits and deficiencies of a small school education. Stakeholders are interested in exploring options to sustain schools in Craftsbury, providing that costs per pupil can be comparable to statewide averages while offering a quality education that meets the needs of all students.
There are strong pressures to dilute local control and management of community schools. These reflect demographic trends, budgetary pressures and issues regarding the quality and breadth of curriculum. The pressure to consolidate and/or merge schools will increase and the incentives to do so will increasingly influence decisions made by local school boards and communities. In other words, given new legislation, the complex picture currently faced by local school boards is likely to become more complex over the coming year.
Regardless of the pros and cons of small school education, political and budgetary realities will tend to push Craftsbury toward the merger option. The Incentive Education Act provides attractive rewards for towns that decide to merge and there may be financial costs to those who don’t. Current demographic trends suggest a continuing decline in enrollment and a consequent increase in the per pupil costs. Craftsbury schools already have the highest teacher/student ratio in Vermont and Vermont has the highest in the nation. If the Town does not act proactively to change the school, to define a new academic model, and to reach out to students in adjoining towns and beyond, the decision about whether to tuition students to other schools may be taken out of our hands.
There is a sense among some Stakeholders that Craftsbury Schools may be well positioned to benefit from being in close proximately to the Hardwick effect—a phenomenon perhaps best described in the July/August 2010 edition of Yankee Magazine. In an article titled “Hardwick and the New Frontier of Food,” Hardwick is described as a “Vermont town that has discovered that its future lies in what has always been there—its soil.”
While pressures to consolidate are inevitable, the decision to do so is not inevitable. Whether consolidation is cost effective is not clear. Indeed, there are arguments for and against consolidation.
Timing is critical. In December of this year, the School Board will be required by statute to decide whether or not it wishes to explore the feasibility of a school district merger. With state funding for studies available, a merger study could provide a timely opportunity to research our recommended alternatives.
The current Craftsbury Academy K-12 school model cannot be sustained. Although year-by-year costs can be misleading, the fact remains that on a per student basis, Craftsbury has been the most expensive school in Vermont for five of the last ten years (see Figure 1). While high schools of modest size can be excellent centers of education and fill an essential niche in every school system, at the current time the Academy is too small to be financially sustainable and to offer an adequate range of educational and social opportunities to meet the needs of our 21st century students.
Alternative Models for Craftsbury Schools
Stakeholders identified three different categories of alternatives:
1) Keep K – 6 or K- 8 in Craftsbury and tuition out students to nearby schools. The resulting K – 6 or K – 8 school would be characterized by a mission-focused, interdisciplinary curriculum; small classes taught by motivated, knowledgeable teachers; and renewed emphasis on thematics.
2) Keep K – 12 in Craftsbury. Design and establish a mission-driven public school that would attract students from other communities.
a) With gradual improvements: Mission driven, creative curriculum; attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable, licensed teachers; local collaborations with Sterling, Outdoor Center, and other resources.
b) With thematic emphasis: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers; local collaborations with Sterling, Outdoor Center, and other resources.
3) Independent, whether K – 6, K – 8, or K - 12: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers (not necessarily licensed); town academy model; local collaborations possible with Sterling College, the Outdoor Center, and other resources.
Mission/Vision
Note that descriptions of all three alternatives emphasize a “mission-driven” program. Stakeholders brainstormed the following elements of a new Craftsbury mission/vision:
1) Accountability for teachers, students, parents, and community (four legs)
2) Students challenged and expected to learn in a positive environment
3) Students expected to learn how to learn
4) Atmosphere of integrity and inspiration across the school creates citizens for the future
5) School grounded in our community, uses community as classroom and place-based education
6) For every privilege there is a responsibility
7) Financially sound school with enough students to sustain a healthy environment
8) Student confidence can come from real achievement/masteryhonest feedback
These brainstormed elements inspired the following statement.
The CSCC envisions a school where students will be challenged to become citizens of the future in an atmosphere of integrity, inspiration, and accountability, supported by teachers, parents, and community members.
Indicators
How will we know when changes are successful? Any one of the three models described above would be considered successful if it resulted in the following:
1) Students engaged and happy to go to school
2) Reduced costs, saved money
3) Attracted students from away
4) Involved community
5) Success of students in—and admission to—post secondary schools
6) Periodic comprehensive evaluation
7) Positive school climate
8) Success in jobs
9) Teaching for learning, not teaching to the test (as long as there are objective measures)
10) Using Grade Expectations for Vermont’s Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities as curriculum guidelines
11) Students valuing the community
12) Staff stability (retain good teachers)
13) High quality staff
14) Opportunities to engage in sports programs
15) Talented, inspiring, knowledgeable teachers
16) Positive learning environment (kids want to learn)
17) Motivated teachers and students
Appendix D contains examples of learning outcomes (or “ends”) consistent with different approaches described above. Appendix E lists characteristics of a theme-based school—in this case a Burlington-based, K – 5 school focused on sustainability.
Cost Comparisons
A set of cost comparison spreadsheets developed by local economist Ann Ingerson is available for the School Board’s consideration. Ann’s summary is included in this report as Appendix C. These comparisons include projections based on current enrollment levels, ten-year average annual cost increase, other financial data reported in Craftsbury Town Meeting Reports, and the cost of a new gymnasium. Stakeholders note that demographic trends in Vermont indicate the student population will decrease statewide. These trends will affect Craftsbury schools, neighboring towns from which we might draw tuition students, and any schools to which we might send students.
Conclusions
Craftsbury Schools’ best chance to grow into the twenty first century is to implement significant changes. Stakeholders report that during the past nine months their ideas have changed. For many, there is a greater appreciation of the complexity involved in mapping future directions for our schools. Despite the sometimes overwhelming amount of information available related to Stakeholder questions, a sense of unity emerged as the group wrestled with alternative models to present to the School Board. No matter which of these models the School Board ultimately decides to take, Stakeholders envision Craftsbury Schools as places where students, staff, teachers, parents, and community members collaborate to fulfill a clearly-articulated mission.
The changed school should be affordable. The cost structure of the Craftsbury Schools should be reasonable for tax payers in the town. Stakeholders emphasize that a larger student body would reduce costs as well as provide educational and diversity benefits. On the other hand, there are significant challenges for a school in our rural location seeking to attract a larger student body, as school-age population is declining in most nearby towns. Furthermore, a specialized curriculum may attract some students from further away, but be less attractive to some of our own students.
The decision about the future of the schools must balance needs of the children and community. While the latter is important and should certainly influence the decisions, they must be secondary to the priority of providing our children with the best possible preparation for responsible adulthood. However, in dealing with the difficult issue of the future of Craftsbury Schools we must be aware of and sensitive to the negative and positive consequences to our community. The decisions that we will face are larger than the future of the Academy and involve the future character and identity of the Craftsbury community.
We believe that all of us, including school staff, the School Board and leaders in the community must be vigorously proactive in charting our future. The pressures for change are immense and the imposition of external models and solutions are inevitable unless we take the initiative to create our own future. Indeed, change is inevitable and the community of Craftsbury must take responsibility for managing that process. In planning for the future it is critically important to develop long-range financial scenarios that can test the financial viability of alternative models. Year to year budget forecasting is not reliable enough and may lead to decisions that are not financially viable.
The approach envisioned in this Report is fully consistent with national recommendations, including those of Tom Carroll, President of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF): “. . . if all we do is to fix the schools we have, the future is already over . . . To make this vision a reality our schools must be transformed into 21st century learning organizations.” By learning organizations, Carroll refers to schools where teachers participate in the kind of collaboration that Craftsbury community members have practiced the CSCC.
Our process over the last nine months included many perspectives and voices in our Town (see Appendix C for a list of participating stakeholders and perspectives). We acknowledge that some voices may not have been adequately heard. Nevertheless, we believe that the research and study that we have done for the past year provides a strong and credible base for our recommendations. While we cannot know everything about this complex issue, we believe that our work has placed us in a position to make recommendations that are sensitive to a broad and representative spectrum of our community.
With respect to the physical infrastructure, we welcome the renovations that are occurring this summer, designed to improve aesthetics and efficiency and to insure that the school building is safe and in compliance with code. However, we do not believe that significant future investments should be made unless and until the school has developed a strategy to address long-term viability.
Recommendations
Stakeholders anticipate a second phase of the CSCC process will entail rigorous research related to one or more of the alternative models identified:
1) Keep K – 6 or K- 8 in Craftsbury and tuition out students to nearby schools. The resulting K – 6 or K – 8 school would be characterized by a mission-focused, interdisciplinary curriculum; small classes taught by motivated, knowledgeable teachers; and renewed emphasis on thematics.
2) Keep K – 12 in Craftsbury. Design and establish a mission-driven public school that would attract students from other communities.
a) With gradual improvements: Mission driven, creative curriculum; attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable, licensed teachers; continue and expand use of local resources, such as collaborations with Sterling and the Outdoor Center.
b) With thematic emphasis: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers; local collaborations with Sterling, Outdoor Center, and other resources.
3) Independent, whether K – 6, K – 8, or K - 12: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers (not necessarily licensed); town academy model; local collaborations possible with Sterling College, the Outdoor Center, and other resources.
Specific research needs include some or all of the following:
1) Determine definitive costs of our schools compared to other small schools, solidify those numbers.
2) Obtain accurate estimates of expected enrollment.
3) Check past projections that school has predicted, say 20 years back or more, and see if predictions materialized.
4) Determine whether it is possible to have an interim situation while issues such as enrollment are addressed.
5) Since attracting students Is critical, would it be possible to develop a cooperative agreement within the supervisory union so that any student from other towns who want to attend Craftsbury schools would be free to do so?
6) Consider whether the “Hardwick effect” exists: can we anticipate increased local numbers despite state and nationwide student downturns.
7) Carefully weigh pros and cons of district consolidation, including any possible alternatives
8) Talk with new superintendent to determine what her vision is and if a new Craftsbury vision would be accepted.
9) Determine the full capacity of Craftsbury schools.
10) Use the newly developed spreadsheets to compare 7-12 vs. 9-12 costs. See Appendix C for examples.
Next Steps
The next phase of the collaborative process is follow-through. It is important that recommendations be carefully considered by the School Board and that an open dialog with Stakeholders follows. It is understood that the School Board will ultimately decide to accept, reject, or modify some or all recommendations. CSCC participants can provide explanation and insight to aid in these decisions.
• July 2010: Present recommendations to the School Board at a joint meeting.
• Fall 2010 (hopefully): Response from School Board.
• Next steps should include:
o CSCC Phase II works to modify/refine some or all recommendations.
o Formation of a School Board appointed collaborative task force (Stakeholders and experts) to further research some or all recommendations.
o Formalize a committee of Stakeholders and School Board members to modify/refine/research some or all recommendations.
Introduction
The Craftsbury School system is one of the smallest in Vermont, and has been the subject of controversy in the Town for many years. Small schools can offer special benefits and opportunities, but low student numbers can be limiting. The high cost of Craftsbury Schools is a challenge, yet the schools bring the community together. Five bonds for school construction and renovation were narrowly defeated between 2002 and 2009. A survey distributed by the School Board between bond votes showed the Town evenly divided on whether to maintain grades 9-12 in Craftsbury. Also, a consultant hired by the School Board in 2006 (Ray Proulx) interviewed a selection of town residents about the future of the schools. 54% of respondents favored tuitioning out grades 9-12, 25% favored maintaining K-12 in Craftsbury, and 21% wanted more information.
After a very narrow bond defeat in January 2009, community member Gina Campoli organized and facilitated a citizens’ meeting to discuss school issues. About sixty citizens with diverse perspectives attended the meeting. The time seemed ripe for a Collaborative Process.
If you bring appropriate people together in constructive ways with credible information, they will create authentic visions and strategies for addressing the shared concerns for the organization or community. –David Chrislip
A Steering Committee grew out of the citizens’ meetings and the Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration (CSCC) was formed as an independent subcommittee of the School Board. The group was charged with producing a set of consensus recommendations from the community for the Board to consider, regarding possible future directions for Craftsbury schools.
A successful collaborative process brings together as many perspectives as possible and must not be perceived as advocating for a particular viewpoint or solution. Therefore, efforts were made to develop a credible Steering Committee by recruiting members with different perspectives, who were also familiar with “group process.” The role of the Steering Committee was to guide the process and provide logistical support for the Collaboration. Steering Committee members Stark Biddle, Susan Houston, Tina Sweet, Perry Thomas, Anne Volmer, and School Board liaison members Harry Miller and Steve Moffatt worked closely with professional facilitator Heidi Krantz to create and guide the collaborative process. The Steering Committee remained neutral and did not participate in group discussions, other than as facilitators.
The CSCC was open to all Craftsbury residents and taxpayers. Again, the Steering Committee made a concentrated effort to collect a broad group, reflective of the community. Diverse perspectives were represented in the resulting CSCC Stakeholder group. The CSCC held nineteen Stakeholder meetings from October 2009 through July 2010, facilitated by Craftsbury resident and professional facilitator Heidi Krantz. Twenty four Stakeholders participated in at least five meetings; and thirty one Stakeholders participated in at least two meetings (see Appendix A for participants and perspectives). Note that not all Stakeholders listed were involved with developing the recommendations presented in this report. Some were more active in early stages; some participated intermittently, and some were involved throughout. Stakeholders spent an estimated (conservatively) 465 “person hours” on this project, in meeting time alone.
The Steering Committee and facilitator met over thirty times, and spent many more hours with phone and email contacts, Stakeholder communication, typing minutes, maintaining a blog, drafting reports, etc. The Steering Committee members and facilitator spent an estimated (conservatively) 260 “person hours” in meetings, and many additional hours working on logistics.
The first step of the Collaboration involved defining the issues and generating questions. Stakeholders generated the following initial list of topics to explore: grade configuration, economics, alternative models, physical plant, in-school culture, school-community culture and constraints.
The second step of the process was education, and considerable time was spent digging into the first three topics noted above. The Stakeholders formed research groups and gave presentations on tuitions of area high schools, transportation costs, possibilities for building consolidation, academic offerings at area high schools, and alternative models. Research included interviews with experts. In addition, the group held four panel discussions. Panelists included headmasters and principals from private and public schools, the Associate Director of the Vermont School Board Association, a professor of school finance from UVM, and the Vermont Department of Education General Counsel (see Appendix B for a complete list of experts consulted and panelists).
Stakeholder and economist Ann Ingerson created a professional economic cost workbook to analyze school costs for various scenarios. Appendix C describes the tool, and provides a series of charts as examples of how changing variables impact costs. This tool was used by the Stakeholder group to examine the impact of various assumptions, and it will be of significant value to the School Board for future studies.
The third step of the Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration was agreeing on a set of recommendations, contained in this report.
Findings
The CSCC envisions a school where students will be challenged to become citizens of the future in an atmosphere of integrity, inspiration, and accountability, supported by teachers, parents, and community members.
Stakeholders involved with the Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration understand the benefits and deficiencies of a small school education. Stakeholders are interested in exploring options to sustain schools in Craftsbury, providing that costs per pupil can be comparable to statewide averages while offering a quality education that meets the needs of all students.
There are strong pressures to dilute local control and management of community schools. These reflect demographic trends, budgetary pressures and issues regarding the quality and breadth of curriculum. The pressure to consolidate and/or merge schools will increase and the incentives to do so will increasingly influence decisions made by local school boards and communities. In other words, given new legislation, the complex picture currently faced by local school boards is likely to become more complex over the coming year.
Regardless of the pros and cons of small school education, political and budgetary realities will tend to push Craftsbury toward the merger option. The Incentive Education Act provides attractive rewards for towns that decide to merge and there may be financial costs to those who don’t. Current demographic trends suggest a continuing decline in enrollment and a consequent increase in the per pupil costs. Craftsbury schools already have the highest teacher/student ratio in Vermont and Vermont has the highest in the nation. If the Town does not act proactively to change the school, to define a new academic model, and to reach out to students in adjoining towns and beyond, the decision about whether to tuition students to other schools may be taken out of our hands.
There is a sense among some Stakeholders that Craftsbury Schools may be well positioned to benefit from being in close proximately to the Hardwick effect—a phenomenon perhaps best described in the July/August 2010 edition of Yankee Magazine. In an article titled “Hardwick and the New Frontier of Food,” Hardwick is described as a “Vermont town that has discovered that its future lies in what has always been there—its soil.”
While pressures to consolidate are inevitable, the decision to do so is not inevitable. Whether consolidation is cost effective is not clear. Indeed, there are arguments for and against consolidation.
Timing is critical. In December of this year, the School Board will be required by statute to decide whether or not it wishes to explore the feasibility of a school district merger. With state funding for studies available, a merger study could provide a timely opportunity to research our recommended alternatives.
The current Craftsbury Academy K-12 school model cannot be sustained. Although year-by-year costs can be misleading, the fact remains that on a per student basis, Craftsbury has been the most expensive school in Vermont for five of the last ten years (see Figure 1). While high schools of modest size can be excellent centers of education and fill an essential niche in every school system, at the current time the Academy is too small to be financially sustainable and to offer an adequate range of educational and social opportunities to meet the needs of our 21st century students.
Alternative Models for Craftsbury Schools
Stakeholders identified three different categories of alternatives:
1) Keep K – 6 or K- 8 in Craftsbury and tuition out students to nearby schools. The resulting K – 6 or K – 8 school would be characterized by a mission-focused, interdisciplinary curriculum; small classes taught by motivated, knowledgeable teachers; and renewed emphasis on thematics.
2) Keep K – 12 in Craftsbury. Design and establish a mission-driven public school that would attract students from other communities.
a) With gradual improvements: Mission driven, creative curriculum; attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable, licensed teachers; local collaborations with Sterling, Outdoor Center, and other resources.
b) With thematic emphasis: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers; local collaborations with Sterling, Outdoor Center, and other resources.
3) Independent, whether K – 6, K – 8, or K - 12: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers (not necessarily licensed); town academy model; local collaborations possible with Sterling College, the Outdoor Center, and other resources.
Mission/Vision
Note that descriptions of all three alternatives emphasize a “mission-driven” program. Stakeholders brainstormed the following elements of a new Craftsbury mission/vision:
1) Accountability for teachers, students, parents, and community (four legs)
2) Students challenged and expected to learn in a positive environment
3) Students expected to learn how to learn
4) Atmosphere of integrity and inspiration across the school creates citizens for the future
5) School grounded in our community, uses community as classroom and place-based education
6) For every privilege there is a responsibility
7) Financially sound school with enough students to sustain a healthy environment
8) Student confidence can come from real achievement/masteryhonest feedback
These brainstormed elements inspired the following statement.
The CSCC envisions a school where students will be challenged to become citizens of the future in an atmosphere of integrity, inspiration, and accountability, supported by teachers, parents, and community members.
Indicators
How will we know when changes are successful? Any one of the three models described above would be considered successful if it resulted in the following:
1) Students engaged and happy to go to school
2) Reduced costs, saved money
3) Attracted students from away
4) Involved community
5) Success of students in—and admission to—post secondary schools
6) Periodic comprehensive evaluation
7) Positive school climate
8) Success in jobs
9) Teaching for learning, not teaching to the test (as long as there are objective measures)
10) Using Grade Expectations for Vermont’s Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities as curriculum guidelines
11) Students valuing the community
12) Staff stability (retain good teachers)
13) High quality staff
14) Opportunities to engage in sports programs
15) Talented, inspiring, knowledgeable teachers
16) Positive learning environment (kids want to learn)
17) Motivated teachers and students
Appendix D contains examples of learning outcomes (or “ends”) consistent with different approaches described above. Appendix E lists characteristics of a theme-based school—in this case a Burlington-based, K – 5 school focused on sustainability.
Cost Comparisons
A set of cost comparison spreadsheets developed by local economist Ann Ingerson is available for the School Board’s consideration. Ann’s summary is included in this report as Appendix C. These comparisons include projections based on current enrollment levels, ten-year average annual cost increase, other financial data reported in Craftsbury Town Meeting Reports, and the cost of a new gymnasium. Stakeholders note that demographic trends in Vermont indicate the student population will decrease statewide. These trends will affect Craftsbury schools, neighboring towns from which we might draw tuition students, and any schools to which we might send students.
Conclusions
Craftsbury Schools’ best chance to grow into the twenty first century is to implement significant changes. Stakeholders report that during the past nine months their ideas have changed. For many, there is a greater appreciation of the complexity involved in mapping future directions for our schools. Despite the sometimes overwhelming amount of information available related to Stakeholder questions, a sense of unity emerged as the group wrestled with alternative models to present to the School Board. No matter which of these models the School Board ultimately decides to take, Stakeholders envision Craftsbury Schools as places where students, staff, teachers, parents, and community members collaborate to fulfill a clearly-articulated mission.
The changed school should be affordable. The cost structure of the Craftsbury Schools should be reasonable for tax payers in the town. Stakeholders emphasize that a larger student body would reduce costs as well as provide educational and diversity benefits. On the other hand, there are significant challenges for a school in our rural location seeking to attract a larger student body, as school-age population is declining in most nearby towns. Furthermore, a specialized curriculum may attract some students from further away, but be less attractive to some of our own students.
The decision about the future of the schools must balance needs of the children and community. While the latter is important and should certainly influence the decisions, they must be secondary to the priority of providing our children with the best possible preparation for responsible adulthood. However, in dealing with the difficult issue of the future of Craftsbury Schools we must be aware of and sensitive to the negative and positive consequences to our community. The decisions that we will face are larger than the future of the Academy and involve the future character and identity of the Craftsbury community.
We believe that all of us, including school staff, the School Board and leaders in the community must be vigorously proactive in charting our future. The pressures for change are immense and the imposition of external models and solutions are inevitable unless we take the initiative to create our own future. Indeed, change is inevitable and the community of Craftsbury must take responsibility for managing that process. In planning for the future it is critically important to develop long-range financial scenarios that can test the financial viability of alternative models. Year to year budget forecasting is not reliable enough and may lead to decisions that are not financially viable.
The approach envisioned in this Report is fully consistent with national recommendations, including those of Tom Carroll, President of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF): “. . . if all we do is to fix the schools we have, the future is already over . . . To make this vision a reality our schools must be transformed into 21st century learning organizations.” By learning organizations, Carroll refers to schools where teachers participate in the kind of collaboration that Craftsbury community members have practiced the CSCC.
Our process over the last nine months included many perspectives and voices in our Town (see Appendix C for a list of participating stakeholders and perspectives). We acknowledge that some voices may not have been adequately heard. Nevertheless, we believe that the research and study that we have done for the past year provides a strong and credible base for our recommendations. While we cannot know everything about this complex issue, we believe that our work has placed us in a position to make recommendations that are sensitive to a broad and representative spectrum of our community.
With respect to the physical infrastructure, we welcome the renovations that are occurring this summer, designed to improve aesthetics and efficiency and to insure that the school building is safe and in compliance with code. However, we do not believe that significant future investments should be made unless and until the school has developed a strategy to address long-term viability.
Recommendations
Stakeholders anticipate a second phase of the CSCC process will entail rigorous research related to one or more of the alternative models identified:
1) Keep K – 6 or K- 8 in Craftsbury and tuition out students to nearby schools. The resulting K – 6 or K – 8 school would be characterized by a mission-focused, interdisciplinary curriculum; small classes taught by motivated, knowledgeable teachers; and renewed emphasis on thematics.
2) Keep K – 12 in Craftsbury. Design and establish a mission-driven public school that would attract students from other communities.
a) With gradual improvements: Mission driven, creative curriculum; attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable, licensed teachers; continue and expand use of local resources, such as collaborations with Sterling and the Outdoor Center.
b) With thematic emphasis: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers; local collaborations with Sterling, Outdoor Center, and other resources.
3) Independent, whether K – 6, K – 8, or K - 12: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers (not necessarily licensed); town academy model; local collaborations possible with Sterling College, the Outdoor Center, and other resources.
Specific research needs include some or all of the following:
1) Determine definitive costs of our schools compared to other small schools, solidify those numbers.
2) Obtain accurate estimates of expected enrollment.
3) Check past projections that school has predicted, say 20 years back or more, and see if predictions materialized.
4) Determine whether it is possible to have an interim situation while issues such as enrollment are addressed.
5) Since attracting students Is critical, would it be possible to develop a cooperative agreement within the supervisory union so that any student from other towns who want to attend Craftsbury schools would be free to do so?
6) Consider whether the “Hardwick effect” exists: can we anticipate increased local numbers despite state and nationwide student downturns.
7) Carefully weigh pros and cons of district consolidation, including any possible alternatives
8) Talk with new superintendent to determine what her vision is and if a new Craftsbury vision would be accepted.
9) Determine the full capacity of Craftsbury schools.
10) Use the newly developed spreadsheets to compare 7-12 vs. 9-12 costs. See Appendix C for examples.
Next Steps
The next phase of the collaborative process is follow-through. It is important that recommendations be carefully considered by the School Board and that an open dialog with Stakeholders follows. It is understood that the School Board will ultimately decide to accept, reject, or modify some or all recommendations. CSCC participants can provide explanation and insight to aid in these decisions.
• July 2010: Present recommendations to the School Board at a joint meeting.
• Fall 2010 (hopefully): Response from School Board.
• Next steps should include:
o CSCC Phase II works to modify/refine some or all recommendations.
o Formation of a School Board appointed collaborative task force (Stakeholders and experts) to further research some or all recommendations.
o Formalize a committee of Stakeholders and School Board members to modify/refine/research some or all recommendations.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Stakeholder Meeting Minutes from July 1, 2010
6:30 p.m. Craftsbury Town Hall
15 Stakeholders present: Gina, Elinor, Cedar, Leslie, Gayle, Mary Lou, Jen, Marie, Kent, Bob T., Bob G., George, Jeanine, Joe, Allison
3 Steering Committee present: Heidi, Annie, Susie
Heidi opened the meeting asking the stakeholders to offer recommendations for research to the school board which had been stakeholder homework. These are the recommendations and also some general comments:
*definitive costs of our schools compared to other small schools, solidify those numbers,
*accurate expected enrollment
*check past projections that school has predicted , say 20 years back or more, and see if predictions materialized,
*pupil numbers are critical
*is it possible to have interim situation while issues such as enrollment are addressed,
*attracting students is crucial; could an agreement be reached within district so any student could attend Craftsbury who wanted to.
*local population is critical. “Hardwick effect” may increase local numbers in spite of state and nationwide student downturn,
*re-evaluate new model after reasonable time, five years,
*merger issue…be sure school board fully understands and what it means to our schools,
*merger issue…do alternative options fit,
*talk to new superintendent and see what her vision is and if a new Craftsbury vision would be accepted
*would merger work to our advantage,
*Insist we have a vote,
*concern about labels-magnet, school choice, etc
*what is full capacity of Craftsbury schools,
*compare 7-12 vs. 9-12 costs
Introduction
Line 6 &7…”The high cost of Craftsbury Schools is a challenge yet the schools bring the community together.”
Line 9…should be “2009”
Line 11…should be “Jan. 2009”
Lines 22 &23 …stronger language “very concentrated effort to collect a broad group”. mention hard work, rigor, people hours (could be in appendix)
Findings
Lines 7-9…change to quality “and breadth of curriculum”,
Line 15…add “Current “ demographic trends…
Alternatives
Clearly define three alternatives (1,2,3) and add more to descriptions as these are “meat ‘ of the report,
Page 4
Line 12…delete
Conclusions
Line 3…delete “structure”
Line 4….add “7-12”.
Add something like “educational and diversity benefits from a larger student body” somewhere.
Page 6, line 28-page 7, line 12…delete
Stakeholders will look for other credible citations to insert in recommendation and send to Annie or Perry.
Page 7, line 20…put in present tense “renovations that are occurring…”
Recommendations
Put vision/mission before findings; do not label it vision/mission but start sentence “The CSCC envision a school where students…”
Next Steps
Line 2..”The next phase…” (delete final)
Line 9…delete possible, Be More Directive!
Some final comments from stakeholders:
Hard work and rigor needs to be more evident,
So many people hours invested (put in appendix?)
Explain why spread sheets are as they are….what were the “drivers”. School Board will then be better able to understand our intentions.
Use graphs as tools as they show process and structure-“here’s what we were thinking”…shows our thought process.
Submitted by recorder Susan Houston who has these personal comments:
This was a very thoughtful, courteous, and reflective group. They have investigated. listened, and worked hard for the future of Craftsbury Schools, our children, and our community. Thank you so much.
15 Stakeholders present: Gina, Elinor, Cedar, Leslie, Gayle, Mary Lou, Jen, Marie, Kent, Bob T., Bob G., George, Jeanine, Joe, Allison
3 Steering Committee present: Heidi, Annie, Susie
Heidi opened the meeting asking the stakeholders to offer recommendations for research to the school board which had been stakeholder homework. These are the recommendations and also some general comments:
*definitive costs of our schools compared to other small schools, solidify those numbers,
*accurate expected enrollment
*check past projections that school has predicted , say 20 years back or more, and see if predictions materialized,
*pupil numbers are critical
*is it possible to have interim situation while issues such as enrollment are addressed,
*attracting students is crucial; could an agreement be reached within district so any student could attend Craftsbury who wanted to.
*local population is critical. “Hardwick effect” may increase local numbers in spite of state and nationwide student downturn,
*re-evaluate new model after reasonable time, five years,
*merger issue…be sure school board fully understands and what it means to our schools,
*merger issue…do alternative options fit,
*talk to new superintendent and see what her vision is and if a new Craftsbury vision would be accepted
*would merger work to our advantage,
*Insist we have a vote,
*concern about labels-magnet, school choice, etc
*what is full capacity of Craftsbury schools,
*compare 7-12 vs. 9-12 costs
Introduction
Line 6 &7…”The high cost of Craftsbury Schools is a challenge yet the schools bring the community together.”
Line 9…should be “2009”
Line 11…should be “Jan. 2009”
Lines 22 &23 …stronger language “very concentrated effort to collect a broad group”. mention hard work, rigor, people hours (could be in appendix)
Findings
Lines 7-9…change to quality “and breadth of curriculum”,
Line 15…add “Current “ demographic trends…
Alternatives
Clearly define three alternatives (1,2,3) and add more to descriptions as these are “meat ‘ of the report,
Page 4
Line 12…delete
Conclusions
Line 3…delete “structure”
Line 4….add “7-12”.
Add something like “educational and diversity benefits from a larger student body” somewhere.
Page 6, line 28-page 7, line 12…delete
Stakeholders will look for other credible citations to insert in recommendation and send to Annie or Perry.
Page 7, line 20…put in present tense “renovations that are occurring…”
Recommendations
Put vision/mission before findings; do not label it vision/mission but start sentence “The CSCC envision a school where students…”
Next Steps
Line 2..”The next phase…” (delete final)
Line 9…delete possible, Be More Directive!
Some final comments from stakeholders:
Hard work and rigor needs to be more evident,
So many people hours invested (put in appendix?)
Explain why spread sheets are as they are….what were the “drivers”. School Board will then be better able to understand our intentions.
Use graphs as tools as they show process and structure-“here’s what we were thinking”…shows our thought process.
Submitted by recorder Susan Houston who has these personal comments:
This was a very thoughtful, courteous, and reflective group. They have investigated. listened, and worked hard for the future of Craftsbury Schools, our children, and our community. Thank you so much.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Comparative Costs
Ann Ingerson updated her spreadsheet to include an independent school option. The result is available here. This spreadsheet is designed to support a comparative cost analysis for the different possible models to be included in recommendations to the School Board. Ann cautions us that it is still a work in progress. She looks forward to refining inputs further, thereby improving the accuracy of predictions.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Brainstormed Comments from May 20th
Stakeholders May 20 Meeting
Clip Board Notes
• Needs of students is priority not needs of community.
• Collaborative process may not represent/include all voices. How to assess this? Survey.
• Are we fully utilizing the resources of our community?
• Tuitioning isn’t clear answer.
• Large % of residents feel that supporting k-12 is too expensive.
• Investigate source of tuition students near and far.
• Get our report out to community to see if they can agree.
• The issue is complex.
• The Academy can’t continue as it is now!
• Consolidation may not be best for us.
• We need to merge or we will have to pay others to merge.
• Magnet and choice vouchers schools may not be best - segregation, achievement.
• Close Academy and open as an independent school.
• We must change direction.
• Academic options enhanced while providing savings to Craftsbury if 7-12 attend Hazen (Ann’s tool).
• Can’t continue unless something changes.
• We know Hazen can take our students.
• In order to keep the HS academically and economically we need to be creative.
• Can’t sustain high costs.
• We need 120 students.
• Teachers need to be accountable.
• We need to attract tuition students.
• Is quality what we want or do we want something better?
• “Flight” – core issue for diversity in our schools.
• Need to take what panelists say from the perspective of who they are and their agendas.
• CA has been considered a fine school in the past.
• A small school can be “fine” with quality leadership.
• Need to examine teacher hiring practice to keep teachers accountable.
• Small schools are good. But what is too small?
• Small Schools are vulnerable.
• Kids need to work together in small groups.
• Great movement toward sustainability will influence.
• Sterling is receptive to working with Academy.
• We may have opportunity to bring back students from Wolcott/Stannard.
• We have a wonderful opportunity here.
• Can we measure cost factors of an independent school?
• State re-districting (REDs) may render our recommendations moot. Pressure from State.
• Craftsbury courses similar to other area schools.
• Be proactive.
• CA NECAPs comparable to area schools.
• If we are independent school are we subject to the new RED merger rules.
• Would other towns join us in a RED if we had a unique place and curriculum?
• How do we present ourselves to teachers looking for a job?
• Everyone does RED no cost savings.
• What would it cost to make our faculty what it needs to be?
• If we designate what are the facilities like at that school?
• REDs, looks like it removes local control.
• Small schools close the socio-economic achievement gap.
• Can teachers afford to live here?
• With our low teacher student ratio we should aim for higher NECAP scores.
• Important to consider factors such as post oil, quality of life, Vermont attracting more population etc when looking into the future.
• We need to attract really diverse teachers, maybe we can w/good press for creative solutions
• Our entire economy may change as we run out of oil need to consider the value of “local”.
• Look at model of sustainability Academy
• Consider teacher job loss.
Clip Board Notes
• Needs of students is priority not needs of community.
• Collaborative process may not represent/include all voices. How to assess this? Survey.
• Are we fully utilizing the resources of our community?
• Tuitioning isn’t clear answer.
• Large % of residents feel that supporting k-12 is too expensive.
• Investigate source of tuition students near and far.
• Get our report out to community to see if they can agree.
• The issue is complex.
• The Academy can’t continue as it is now!
• Consolidation may not be best for us.
• We need to merge or we will have to pay others to merge.
• Magnet and choice vouchers schools may not be best - segregation, achievement.
• Close Academy and open as an independent school.
• We must change direction.
• Academic options enhanced while providing savings to Craftsbury if 7-12 attend Hazen (Ann’s tool).
• Can’t continue unless something changes.
• We know Hazen can take our students.
• In order to keep the HS academically and economically we need to be creative.
• Can’t sustain high costs.
• We need 120 students.
• Teachers need to be accountable.
• We need to attract tuition students.
• Is quality what we want or do we want something better?
• “Flight” – core issue for diversity in our schools.
• Need to take what panelists say from the perspective of who they are and their agendas.
• CA has been considered a fine school in the past.
• A small school can be “fine” with quality leadership.
• Need to examine teacher hiring practice to keep teachers accountable.
• Small schools are good. But what is too small?
• Small Schools are vulnerable.
• Kids need to work together in small groups.
• Great movement toward sustainability will influence.
• Sterling is receptive to working with Academy.
• We may have opportunity to bring back students from Wolcott/Stannard.
• We have a wonderful opportunity here.
• Can we measure cost factors of an independent school?
• State re-districting (REDs) may render our recommendations moot. Pressure from State.
• Craftsbury courses similar to other area schools.
• Be proactive.
• CA NECAPs comparable to area schools.
• If we are independent school are we subject to the new RED merger rules.
• Would other towns join us in a RED if we had a unique place and curriculum?
• How do we present ourselves to teachers looking for a job?
• Everyone does RED no cost savings.
• What would it cost to make our faculty what it needs to be?
• If we designate what are the facilities like at that school?
• REDs, looks like it removes local control.
• Small schools close the socio-economic achievement gap.
• Can teachers afford to live here?
• With our low teacher student ratio we should aim for higher NECAP scores.
• Important to consider factors such as post oil, quality of life, Vermont attracting more population etc when looking into the future.
• We need to attract really diverse teachers, maybe we can w/good press for creative solutions
• Our entire economy may change as we run out of oil need to consider the value of “local”.
• Look at model of sustainability Academy
• Consider teacher job loss.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Stakeholder Minutes from May 20th
Craftsbury Community School Collaborative
Summary of Major Points of Discussion
Stakeholder Meeting
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Panelists: Winton Goodrich, Associate Director of the Vermont School Boards Association, William Mathis, Adjunct Professor of School Finance at UVM and Managing Director of the Education and Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Mark Oettinger, Vermont Department of Education General Counsel.
Annie Volmer opened the meeting, introduced panelists, and comed the new principal of Craftsury Schools: Merri Greenia
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
Note: The May 20 meeting was packed with an immense amount of detailed information from excellent presenters. These “minutes” do not attempt to repeat that information. Where possible we have identified web sites for reference. The following notes are designed to identify themes, points of information and perspectives that may be helpful to stakeholders in preparing the Report to the School Board. This Summary is not comprehensive and may have missed important items or misinterpreted points that were made.)
Legislative Report
Challenges for Change. Vermont needs to reduce costs and increase efficiency; Change is painful but inevitable.
• State must reduce education funding in 2012 by $23 million. By August of this year, Supervisory Unions will know how much they must cut. If the Schools themselves don’t come up with the savings the Legislature will have to do it. Most schools will have to level fund and cut costs.
• If all Vermont schools were to increase student/teacher ration from 10.7: 1 to 11.7: 1 the State would save $43 million.
• From charts provided, the education spending per pupil for Craftsbury for FY 2010 is $16,090 compared to a State average of $11,639. Craftsbury was third from the top out of 309 schools.
• For FY 2010, the equalized education homestead tax rate for Craftsbury was $1.83, the highest of the 309 schools.
H 66 Merger Incentive Legislation
The Legislature rejected consolidation in favor of a bill that would encourage mergers. (H66) School consolidation is top down, and State directed. Mergers are bottom up and occur when school boards from towns work together to achieve savings and efficiencies.
(Note: Steering Committee will attempt to upload a full analysis of this bill.)
Following are brief points:
• Establishes new administrative entity called a Regional Education District (RED).
• Must include at least 4 school districts, a high school and a K-6 school and contain at least 1250 students.
• Managed by a single School Board (previous local Boards terminate.)
• All State school boards must decide whether to study this option by December 2010.
• If merge, Towns will receive tax incentives designed to cover transition costs.
• Formula tends to equalize tax rates so that non-participating towns may bear an increased burden.
• RED boundaries are not restricted in any way and District may contain more than one high school.
• Two year budgeting will be permitted and funds to conduct feasibility study will be available from State.
• If a town If decide to be part of RED then will have till 2012 to study it and move forward.
Supervisory Unions are acquiring more power:
• Policy Governance clarifies roles and responsibilities and in process takes local School Board out of day-to-day management.
• Growing importance of teacher oversight for purposes of security inevitably places more authority in Supervisory Unions.
• Superintendents now hire all non-licensed staff and are deeply involved in hiring teaching staff.
• School Boards will be required to develop class size policies.
School Choice
In Vermont, 90 schools have school choice. School choice exists when a community lacks a school and thus has to send students out of town. Craftsbury also has Act 150 school choice. I.e. a partner high school. Every town must have at least 1 partner school choice.
Charter Schools
Vermont does not have Charter Schools but there is authority to design schools with many of the attributes of a Charter School. However, research indicates that Charter schools do no better and that they tend to segregate by socio-economic class. Charter schools are popular because they are small, an existing characteristic of many Vermont schools.
Consolidation vs. Small schools
• Vermont has 91,00 students, dropping to 85,000 in next few years. Birth rates will continue to drop. Fewer students mean that per pupil costs will increase.
• The average School district in Vermont has 313 students. This means a huge infrastructure and process cost.
• Vermont has highest teacher to student ratio in the country and Craftsbury has the highest teacher to student ratio in the State. (This assertion needs to be double-checked
• The teacher to student ratio is main cost driver. Vermont is highest in country with 1 teacher to 10.7 students. Caftsbury is even higher with 1 teacher for every 8.37 students.
• There are four approaches to greater efficiency: Close school and tuition out; close a school and designate another school alternative; create a joint contract school; establish a union school.
• Within State, 40 Governance studies have been conducted. They demonstrate diversity and creativity in dealing with structural and organizational problems. Examples are available on DOE web site. Several studies have resulted in mergers involving substantial financial benefits to the participating Towns. Funds are available to conduct these studies
Arguments against centralization and consolidation
• Transitional costs are very large and savings are way down the road.
• Since 1989 14 states have passed legislation toward smaller schools or decentralization. Vermont is going the other way.
• Small schools: narrow the socioeconomic achievement gap; have higher achievement scores, reduce the incidence of violence, combat anonymity; have higher attendance and higher graduation rates and lower cost per graduation. Teacher satisfaction is higher, community involvement is greater and there are important efficiencies and flexibilities not available to larger schools. Small schools do better in terms of socialization measures.
• There is a significant community cost to school consolidation. Loss of management erodes the sense of ownership and responsibility participation declines.
• Cost savings of consolidation may be illusory. Cost assumptions must be very carefully analyzed. For small schools, annual costs can vary dramatically because of small changes in enrollment and/or staffing levels. (Smaller the unit, the greater the variation
• Studies are by no means unanimous that consolidation saves money. Initially costs may increase. It depends on situation.
• It is very difficult to identify a “viable” school size. This is a value decision that must be made by every community and cannot be answered by empirical research
• Research in Indiana indicates that the optimal school Supervisory District appears to be about 1800 to 2400 students, which is about what Vermont currently has.
(See epicpolicy.org for more information on small schools.)
Arguments for consolidation and centralization
• It is not the small school that is better it is the small class size that is better. The research is very clear. The most important factor related to student achievement is the student teacher ratio, the better the ratio the better the outcomes in achievement and social indicators. There is a direct correlation. This can be achieved in a large school as well as a small school. So you get what you pay for. At some point you have to draw the line.
• Larger districts encourage efficiencies such as staff sharing, greater student choice and better utilization of facilities.
• School closure is inevitable and will be forced by demographics. So some Towns will be forced to close schools. It is far preferable to be proactive and attempt to design a future structure than to wait
• If Craftsbury decides to not become a RED, we would shoulder more of the cost burden. Because of the blended rate, those who consolidate may receive a tax advantage while those who don’t may shoulder a disproportionate tax burden.
• The tax subsidy will cover the transition costs.
• There are a variety of different approaches that towns can come up with that are tailored to their own situations. There is a wonderful opportunity to think ahead and be creative and design a system that is both right for the student and the town and that is cost effective.
Summary of Major Points of Discussion
Stakeholder Meeting
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Panelists: Winton Goodrich, Associate Director of the Vermont School Boards Association, William Mathis, Adjunct Professor of School Finance at UVM and Managing Director of the Education and Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Mark Oettinger, Vermont Department of Education General Counsel.
Annie Volmer opened the meeting, introduced panelists, and comed the new principal of Craftsury Schools: Merri Greenia
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
Note: The May 20 meeting was packed with an immense amount of detailed information from excellent presenters. These “minutes” do not attempt to repeat that information. Where possible we have identified web sites for reference. The following notes are designed to identify themes, points of information and perspectives that may be helpful to stakeholders in preparing the Report to the School Board. This Summary is not comprehensive and may have missed important items or misinterpreted points that were made.)
Legislative Report
Challenges for Change. Vermont needs to reduce costs and increase efficiency; Change is painful but inevitable.
• State must reduce education funding in 2012 by $23 million. By August of this year, Supervisory Unions will know how much they must cut. If the Schools themselves don’t come up with the savings the Legislature will have to do it. Most schools will have to level fund and cut costs.
• If all Vermont schools were to increase student/teacher ration from 10.7: 1 to 11.7: 1 the State would save $43 million.
• From charts provided, the education spending per pupil for Craftsbury for FY 2010 is $16,090 compared to a State average of $11,639. Craftsbury was third from the top out of 309 schools.
• For FY 2010, the equalized education homestead tax rate for Craftsbury was $1.83, the highest of the 309 schools.
H 66 Merger Incentive Legislation
The Legislature rejected consolidation in favor of a bill that would encourage mergers. (H66) School consolidation is top down, and State directed. Mergers are bottom up and occur when school boards from towns work together to achieve savings and efficiencies.
(Note: Steering Committee will attempt to upload a full analysis of this bill.)
Following are brief points:
• Establishes new administrative entity called a Regional Education District (RED).
• Must include at least 4 school districts, a high school and a K-6 school and contain at least 1250 students.
• Managed by a single School Board (previous local Boards terminate.)
• All State school boards must decide whether to study this option by December 2010.
• If merge, Towns will receive tax incentives designed to cover transition costs.
• Formula tends to equalize tax rates so that non-participating towns may bear an increased burden.
• RED boundaries are not restricted in any way and District may contain more than one high school.
• Two year budgeting will be permitted and funds to conduct feasibility study will be available from State.
• If a town If decide to be part of RED then will have till 2012 to study it and move forward.
Supervisory Unions are acquiring more power:
• Policy Governance clarifies roles and responsibilities and in process takes local School Board out of day-to-day management.
• Growing importance of teacher oversight for purposes of security inevitably places more authority in Supervisory Unions.
• Superintendents now hire all non-licensed staff and are deeply involved in hiring teaching staff.
• School Boards will be required to develop class size policies.
School Choice
In Vermont, 90 schools have school choice. School choice exists when a community lacks a school and thus has to send students out of town. Craftsbury also has Act 150 school choice. I.e. a partner high school. Every town must have at least 1 partner school choice.
Charter Schools
Vermont does not have Charter Schools but there is authority to design schools with many of the attributes of a Charter School. However, research indicates that Charter schools do no better and that they tend to segregate by socio-economic class. Charter schools are popular because they are small, an existing characteristic of many Vermont schools.
Consolidation vs. Small schools
• Vermont has 91,00 students, dropping to 85,000 in next few years. Birth rates will continue to drop. Fewer students mean that per pupil costs will increase.
• The average School district in Vermont has 313 students. This means a huge infrastructure and process cost.
• Vermont has highest teacher to student ratio in the country and Craftsbury has the highest teacher to student ratio in the State. (This assertion needs to be double-checked
• The teacher to student ratio is main cost driver. Vermont is highest in country with 1 teacher to 10.7 students. Caftsbury is even higher with 1 teacher for every 8.37 students.
• There are four approaches to greater efficiency: Close school and tuition out; close a school and designate another school alternative; create a joint contract school; establish a union school.
• Within State, 40 Governance studies have been conducted. They demonstrate diversity and creativity in dealing with structural and organizational problems. Examples are available on DOE web site. Several studies have resulted in mergers involving substantial financial benefits to the participating Towns. Funds are available to conduct these studies
Arguments against centralization and consolidation
• Transitional costs are very large and savings are way down the road.
• Since 1989 14 states have passed legislation toward smaller schools or decentralization. Vermont is going the other way.
• Small schools: narrow the socioeconomic achievement gap; have higher achievement scores, reduce the incidence of violence, combat anonymity; have higher attendance and higher graduation rates and lower cost per graduation. Teacher satisfaction is higher, community involvement is greater and there are important efficiencies and flexibilities not available to larger schools. Small schools do better in terms of socialization measures.
• There is a significant community cost to school consolidation. Loss of management erodes the sense of ownership and responsibility participation declines.
• Cost savings of consolidation may be illusory. Cost assumptions must be very carefully analyzed. For small schools, annual costs can vary dramatically because of small changes in enrollment and/or staffing levels. (Smaller the unit, the greater the variation
• Studies are by no means unanimous that consolidation saves money. Initially costs may increase. It depends on situation.
• It is very difficult to identify a “viable” school size. This is a value decision that must be made by every community and cannot be answered by empirical research
• Research in Indiana indicates that the optimal school Supervisory District appears to be about 1800 to 2400 students, which is about what Vermont currently has.
(See epicpolicy.org for more information on small schools.)
Arguments for consolidation and centralization
• It is not the small school that is better it is the small class size that is better. The research is very clear. The most important factor related to student achievement is the student teacher ratio, the better the ratio the better the outcomes in achievement and social indicators. There is a direct correlation. This can be achieved in a large school as well as a small school. So you get what you pay for. At some point you have to draw the line.
• Larger districts encourage efficiencies such as staff sharing, greater student choice and better utilization of facilities.
• School closure is inevitable and will be forced by demographics. So some Towns will be forced to close schools. It is far preferable to be proactive and attempt to design a future structure than to wait
• If Craftsbury decides to not become a RED, we would shoulder more of the cost burden. Because of the blended rate, those who consolidate may receive a tax advantage while those who don’t may shoulder a disproportionate tax burden.
• The tax subsidy will cover the transition costs.
• There are a variety of different approaches that towns can come up with that are tailored to their own situations. There is a wonderful opportunity to think ahead and be creative and design a system that is both right for the student and the town and that is cost effective.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Stakeholder Minutes from May 6, 2010
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
(Note to reader: This meeting of the Stakeholders addressed a number of complicated financial issues and questions. These questions will be addressed in a focused and comprehensive manner at the meeting scheduled for May 20. While the following minutes attempt to report accurately on financial matters, they should not be regarded as definitive or fully reliable.)
Panelists were introduced: Joanne Vana, Principal from the Brownington School in Orleans County, David Houck, Director of the Mountain School in Winhall, Vermont and Perry Thomas, Craftsbury resident and expert on the Coalition of Essential Schools.
Our facilitator Heidi Krantz began the discussion and introduced Joanne Vana .Her presentation and the following discussion included the following points.
Brownington Central School is a K-6 public elementary school in the Brownington School District. It is among the few public elementary schools in Vermont to receive a distinguished Great Schools Rating of 9 out of 10.
Brownington is unusual in that the town decided to reverse an earlier decision to tuition out grades 7 and 8 to North Country and instead to construct their own facility The decision was very difficult and controversial and took 8 years and several bond votes. The transition is currently underway and will occur over a 2 year period.
Lessons learned include the following:
• The Town was able to save money. For Brownington, it was determined that the costs of community schooling were lower than the costs of tuitioning out. Transportation costs in particular were high cost item. (Per pupil costs for Brownington students are the lowest in the state which contradicts the traditional view that small rural schools are necessarily high-cost.)
• A disadvantage of tuitioning out is that sending towns have no control over tuitions costs which are established by the receiving school.
• Assimilation of young students into a larger, distant school is problematic especially for students from a poorer background.
• Because recipient schools are able to choose students (in grades 7 and 8) there is the danger of subtle discrimination particularly with regard to tudents with special education needs.
• A community school is better able to identify and deal with academic and behavioral issues at an early stage of student development.
• From experience and in general, transitioning out is appropriate and feasible for most students at the 9th grade level, but not before. Students in grades 7th and 8th do better and develop more effective social and learning skills if they are educated in the community.
• Even at 9th grade the transition process can be very difficult for some students. Children without developed social skills have a particularly difficult time.
Heidi Krantz introduced David Houck, the Director of the Mountain School in Winhall, Vermont. Mr. Houck gave a presentation on the history and educational philosophy of the School and described the funding system. The following points are drawn from his presentation. (Stakeholders may wish to refer to the Mountain School’s excellent web site at: www.themountainschool.org.)
• The Mountain School is a Pre-K-8 independent day school and the only Town Academy in the United States serving elementary students. It is private and under the governance of a self perpetuating Board of Board of Directors.
• The School is based on a unique model established in the 1770s called a “Town Academy.” This model combines the educational attributes of a public school (free education for all) with the fiscal responsibility, of the private system. In short, a private school with a public mission. Two of the first established Town Academies in the U.S.—Maine’s Fryeburg Academy in 1791 and Washington Academy in 1792—are still in existence.
• Students learn through an integrated, multi-disciplinary, thematic unit approach. Students experience three overarching themes per grade level per year with a general focus moving from local to national to global.
• In 1997 Winhall had the highest per-pupil spending in the state and was one of the lowest performing schools. In the spring of 1998, the citizens of Winhall voted to close the school and open an independent community day school, following the Town Academy model.( The newly formed Mountain School agreed to service all students in the towns of Stratton and Winhall, making it the 20th “Town Academy” in the United States—all of which are in New England—and the only town academy servicing elementary students in the United States.)
• A “blue ribbon panel” was established to oversee the transition and to design the new school. The teaching staff from the prior school were released. The new school was completely different and designed from the ground up.
• As a consequence, costs have dropped significantly and academic performance has improved dramatically.
• Students living in the towns of Stratton and Winhall are guaranteed admission to The Mountain School and tuition for students is paid to The Mountain School by the respective towns. Students living outside of Stratton and Winhall have the opportunity to attend as private-pay tuition students sometimes assisted through financial aid, scholarships, and/or Service-in-Kind. This partnership allows the Mountain School to enroll more students to help reduce overall tuition costs.
• The Mountain School calendar is divided into three trimesters per year: fall, winter, and spring. The emphasis is on over-arching multi-disciplinary themes to guide student learning. The arts, foreign language, physical education and technology are integrated throughout the curriculum along with the classic disciplines with an overall emphasis on experiential learning.
• The bulk of monies to operate the school comes from tuition dollars collected each year. In addition to tuition, The Mountain School and its partners work to raise funds through grants and donations that constitute roughly 20% of their revenue.
• The Mountain School believes that is has been able to offer families a quality private education at an affordable cost ($12,000 per student in 2009) lower than many local publics schools. Enrollment has more than doubled in the last 12 years and families have deliberately moved to Winhall to take advantage of the new school.
Challenges and issues include:
• Sustaining a clear educational philosophy that is relevant and effective.
• The importance of long range strategic planning to ensure that the school is well positioned to meet changing needs.
• Dealing with the culture of choice that creates uncertainty. (Parents and citizens can quickly change their minds and move elsewhere.)
• Fund raising demands and pressures.
• The necessity of sustaining community involvement and passionate support.
• Complexities that arise from a community with a large number of out of state and second home owners.
Benefits and strengths include:
• Independence encourages adaptation and increases the range and utility of academic choice.
• High quality teachers are attracted to independent schools.
• Independent schools have strong incentives to do better. They tend to be creative, mission driven and respond quickly to perceived weaknesses.
• Independent schools are more responsive to community needs, quicker at making decisions and have a greater sense of community ownership and participation.
Heidi Krantz introduced Perry Thomas who made a presentation on the Coalition of Essential Schools. (Stakeholders are encouraged to visit the web site: www.essentialschools.org.)
Perry began by referencing a debt of gratitude to Bob Twiss who has worked diligently with us and has offered valuable insights into working with Supervisory Unions in order to improve educational quality.
The Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) is an organization designed to create and strengthen equitable, and intellectually challenging schools. Essential schools are places of powerful learning where all students have the chance to reach their fullest potential.
The Coalition works with educators to support and promote innovative and effective teaching and with school districts to shape the policy conditions that encourage democracy, equity, intellectual vitality and excellence.
The CES Network includes hundreds of schools and more than two dozen Affiliate Centers.
CES practice is exemplified by small, personalized learning communities in which teachers and students know each other well in a climate of trust, decency and high expectations for all. Essential schools work to create academic success for every student by sharing decision-making with all those affected by the schools and deliberately and explicitly confronting all forms of inequity. Essential schools focus on helping all students use their minds well through standards-aligned interdisciplinary studies, community-based "real-world" learning and performance-based assessment.
The CES Common Principles, based on decades of research and practice, are a guiding philosophy rather than a replicable model for schools. These Principles are:
• Learning to use one’s mind well. Schools should not be "comprehensive" if such a claim is made at the expense of the school's central intellectual purpose
• Less is more, depth over coverage The aphorism "less is more" should dominate: curricular decisions should be guided by the aim of thorough student mastery and achievement rather than by an effort to merely cover content.
• Goals apply to all students The school's goals should apply to all students, while the means to these goals will vary as those students themselves vary.
• Personalization Teaching and learning should be personalized to the maximum feasible extent. Efforts should be directed toward a goal that no teacher have direct responsibility for more than 80 students in the high school and middle school and no more than 20 in the elementary school.
• Student-as-worker, teacher-as-coach The governing practical metaphor of the school should be student-as-worker, rather than the more familiar metaphor of teacher-as-deliverer-of-instructional-services.
• Demonstration of mastery The diploma should be awarded upon a successful final demonstration of mastery for graduation - an "Exhibition." As the diploma is awarded when earned, the school's program proceeds with no strict age grading and with no system of credits earned" by "time spent" in class. The emphasis is on the students' demonstration that they can do important things.
• A tone of decency and trust The tone of the school should explicitly and self-consciously stress values of unanxious expectation ("I won't threaten you but I expect much of you"), of trust (until abused) and of decency (the values of fairness, generosity and tolerance).
• Commitment to the entire school The principal and teachers should perceive themselves as generalists first (teachers and scholars in general education) and specialists second (experts in but one particular discipline
• Resources dedicated to teaching and learning To accomplish this, administrative plans may have to show the phased reduction or elimination of some services now provided students in many traditional schools.
• Democracy and equity The school should demonstrate non-discriminatory and inclusive policies, practices, and pedagogies. It should model democratic practices that involve all who are directly affected by the school. The school should honor diversity and build on the strength of its communities, deliberately and explicitly challenging all forms of inequity.
At the conclusion of the panel discussions, Anne Volmer discussed next steps and the preparation of the Report from the Collaborative to the School Board. She indicated that the Steering Committee had discussed this matter at length with the following conclusions:
It is essential that we wind up our work for the year and deliver a report to the School Board in June before the summer vacation.
• Despite best of intent, our energy may dissipate during the summer months.
• We need to record and capitalize on what we have learned. If we don’t, much of the valuable information we have collected will be diluted with time.
• It appears that the School will be hiring a new Principal. It is important for us to influence this process.
• As a sub-committee of the School Board, we have an obligation to provide them with a summary report. There is a good possibility that the work of the Collaborative will continue as Phase #2 in the fall.
• Finally and most importantly, the Stakeholders have done a terrific amount of very useful work. We have much to say and it is time to condense our knowledge and provide strong conclusions and recommendations to the School Board.
In order to compile the Report, the following schedule was agreed to:
• May 20: Panel Presentation and Discussion focused primarily on financial and funding issues and questions. Distribution of tentative Outline of Final Report. (Stakeholders were encouraged to begin to review their notes, previous Minutes and handouts and begin to think about key points they believe should be in the final Report.
• May 27: Report Preparation.
• June 10: If needed: Report Preparation
• June 17: Report Compilation.
• June 24 If needed: Report Compilation.
(Note to reader: This meeting of the Stakeholders addressed a number of complicated financial issues and questions. These questions will be addressed in a focused and comprehensive manner at the meeting scheduled for May 20. While the following minutes attempt to report accurately on financial matters, they should not be regarded as definitive or fully reliable.)
Panelists were introduced: Joanne Vana, Principal from the Brownington School in Orleans County, David Houck, Director of the Mountain School in Winhall, Vermont and Perry Thomas, Craftsbury resident and expert on the Coalition of Essential Schools.
Our facilitator Heidi Krantz began the discussion and introduced Joanne Vana .Her presentation and the following discussion included the following points.
Brownington Central School is a K-6 public elementary school in the Brownington School District. It is among the few public elementary schools in Vermont to receive a distinguished Great Schools Rating of 9 out of 10.
Brownington is unusual in that the town decided to reverse an earlier decision to tuition out grades 7 and 8 to North Country and instead to construct their own facility The decision was very difficult and controversial and took 8 years and several bond votes. The transition is currently underway and will occur over a 2 year period.
Lessons learned include the following:
• The Town was able to save money. For Brownington, it was determined that the costs of community schooling were lower than the costs of tuitioning out. Transportation costs in particular were high cost item. (Per pupil costs for Brownington students are the lowest in the state which contradicts the traditional view that small rural schools are necessarily high-cost.)
• A disadvantage of tuitioning out is that sending towns have no control over tuitions costs which are established by the receiving school.
• Assimilation of young students into a larger, distant school is problematic especially for students from a poorer background.
• Because recipient schools are able to choose students (in grades 7 and 8) there is the danger of subtle discrimination particularly with regard to tudents with special education needs.
• A community school is better able to identify and deal with academic and behavioral issues at an early stage of student development.
• From experience and in general, transitioning out is appropriate and feasible for most students at the 9th grade level, but not before. Students in grades 7th and 8th do better and develop more effective social and learning skills if they are educated in the community.
• Even at 9th grade the transition process can be very difficult for some students. Children without developed social skills have a particularly difficult time.
Heidi Krantz introduced David Houck, the Director of the Mountain School in Winhall, Vermont. Mr. Houck gave a presentation on the history and educational philosophy of the School and described the funding system. The following points are drawn from his presentation. (Stakeholders may wish to refer to the Mountain School’s excellent web site at: www.themountainschool.org.)
• The Mountain School is a Pre-K-8 independent day school and the only Town Academy in the United States serving elementary students. It is private and under the governance of a self perpetuating Board of Board of Directors.
• The School is based on a unique model established in the 1770s called a “Town Academy.” This model combines the educational attributes of a public school (free education for all) with the fiscal responsibility, of the private system. In short, a private school with a public mission. Two of the first established Town Academies in the U.S.—Maine’s Fryeburg Academy in 1791 and Washington Academy in 1792—are still in existence.
• Students learn through an integrated, multi-disciplinary, thematic unit approach. Students experience three overarching themes per grade level per year with a general focus moving from local to national to global.
• In 1997 Winhall had the highest per-pupil spending in the state and was one of the lowest performing schools. In the spring of 1998, the citizens of Winhall voted to close the school and open an independent community day school, following the Town Academy model.( The newly formed Mountain School agreed to service all students in the towns of Stratton and Winhall, making it the 20th “Town Academy” in the United States—all of which are in New England—and the only town academy servicing elementary students in the United States.)
• A “blue ribbon panel” was established to oversee the transition and to design the new school. The teaching staff from the prior school were released. The new school was completely different and designed from the ground up.
• As a consequence, costs have dropped significantly and academic performance has improved dramatically.
• Students living in the towns of Stratton and Winhall are guaranteed admission to The Mountain School and tuition for students is paid to The Mountain School by the respective towns. Students living outside of Stratton and Winhall have the opportunity to attend as private-pay tuition students sometimes assisted through financial aid, scholarships, and/or Service-in-Kind. This partnership allows the Mountain School to enroll more students to help reduce overall tuition costs.
• The Mountain School calendar is divided into three trimesters per year: fall, winter, and spring. The emphasis is on over-arching multi-disciplinary themes to guide student learning. The arts, foreign language, physical education and technology are integrated throughout the curriculum along with the classic disciplines with an overall emphasis on experiential learning.
• The bulk of monies to operate the school comes from tuition dollars collected each year. In addition to tuition, The Mountain School and its partners work to raise funds through grants and donations that constitute roughly 20% of their revenue.
• The Mountain School believes that is has been able to offer families a quality private education at an affordable cost ($12,000 per student in 2009) lower than many local publics schools. Enrollment has more than doubled in the last 12 years and families have deliberately moved to Winhall to take advantage of the new school.
Challenges and issues include:
• Sustaining a clear educational philosophy that is relevant and effective.
• The importance of long range strategic planning to ensure that the school is well positioned to meet changing needs.
• Dealing with the culture of choice that creates uncertainty. (Parents and citizens can quickly change their minds and move elsewhere.)
• Fund raising demands and pressures.
• The necessity of sustaining community involvement and passionate support.
• Complexities that arise from a community with a large number of out of state and second home owners.
Benefits and strengths include:
• Independence encourages adaptation and increases the range and utility of academic choice.
• High quality teachers are attracted to independent schools.
• Independent schools have strong incentives to do better. They tend to be creative, mission driven and respond quickly to perceived weaknesses.
• Independent schools are more responsive to community needs, quicker at making decisions and have a greater sense of community ownership and participation.
Heidi Krantz introduced Perry Thomas who made a presentation on the Coalition of Essential Schools. (Stakeholders are encouraged to visit the web site: www.essentialschools.org.)
Perry began by referencing a debt of gratitude to Bob Twiss who has worked diligently with us and has offered valuable insights into working with Supervisory Unions in order to improve educational quality.
The Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) is an organization designed to create and strengthen equitable, and intellectually challenging schools. Essential schools are places of powerful learning where all students have the chance to reach their fullest potential.
The Coalition works with educators to support and promote innovative and effective teaching and with school districts to shape the policy conditions that encourage democracy, equity, intellectual vitality and excellence.
The CES Network includes hundreds of schools and more than two dozen Affiliate Centers.
CES practice is exemplified by small, personalized learning communities in which teachers and students know each other well in a climate of trust, decency and high expectations for all. Essential schools work to create academic success for every student by sharing decision-making with all those affected by the schools and deliberately and explicitly confronting all forms of inequity. Essential schools focus on helping all students use their minds well through standards-aligned interdisciplinary studies, community-based "real-world" learning and performance-based assessment.
The CES Common Principles, based on decades of research and practice, are a guiding philosophy rather than a replicable model for schools. These Principles are:
• Learning to use one’s mind well. Schools should not be "comprehensive" if such a claim is made at the expense of the school's central intellectual purpose
• Less is more, depth over coverage The aphorism "less is more" should dominate: curricular decisions should be guided by the aim of thorough student mastery and achievement rather than by an effort to merely cover content.
• Goals apply to all students The school's goals should apply to all students, while the means to these goals will vary as those students themselves vary.
• Personalization Teaching and learning should be personalized to the maximum feasible extent. Efforts should be directed toward a goal that no teacher have direct responsibility for more than 80 students in the high school and middle school and no more than 20 in the elementary school.
• Student-as-worker, teacher-as-coach The governing practical metaphor of the school should be student-as-worker, rather than the more familiar metaphor of teacher-as-deliverer-of-instructional-services.
• Demonstration of mastery The diploma should be awarded upon a successful final demonstration of mastery for graduation - an "Exhibition." As the diploma is awarded when earned, the school's program proceeds with no strict age grading and with no system of credits earned" by "time spent" in class. The emphasis is on the students' demonstration that they can do important things.
• A tone of decency and trust The tone of the school should explicitly and self-consciously stress values of unanxious expectation ("I won't threaten you but I expect much of you"), of trust (until abused) and of decency (the values of fairness, generosity and tolerance).
• Commitment to the entire school The principal and teachers should perceive themselves as generalists first (teachers and scholars in general education) and specialists second (experts in but one particular discipline
• Resources dedicated to teaching and learning To accomplish this, administrative plans may have to show the phased reduction or elimination of some services now provided students in many traditional schools.
• Democracy and equity The school should demonstrate non-discriminatory and inclusive policies, practices, and pedagogies. It should model democratic practices that involve all who are directly affected by the school. The school should honor diversity and build on the strength of its communities, deliberately and explicitly challenging all forms of inequity.
At the conclusion of the panel discussions, Anne Volmer discussed next steps and the preparation of the Report from the Collaborative to the School Board. She indicated that the Steering Committee had discussed this matter at length with the following conclusions:
It is essential that we wind up our work for the year and deliver a report to the School Board in June before the summer vacation.
• Despite best of intent, our energy may dissipate during the summer months.
• We need to record and capitalize on what we have learned. If we don’t, much of the valuable information we have collected will be diluted with time.
• It appears that the School will be hiring a new Principal. It is important for us to influence this process.
• As a sub-committee of the School Board, we have an obligation to provide them with a summary report. There is a good possibility that the work of the Collaborative will continue as Phase #2 in the fall.
• Finally and most importantly, the Stakeholders have done a terrific amount of very useful work. We have much to say and it is time to condense our knowledge and provide strong conclusions and recommendations to the School Board.
In order to compile the Report, the following schedule was agreed to:
• May 20: Panel Presentation and Discussion focused primarily on financial and funding issues and questions. Distribution of tentative Outline of Final Report. (Stakeholders were encouraged to begin to review their notes, previous Minutes and handouts and begin to think about key points they believe should be in the final Report.
• May 27: Report Preparation.
• June 10: If needed: Report Preparation
• June 17: Report Compilation.
• June 24 If needed: Report Compilation.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Stakeholder Report on Virtual High School
Jeff Maher, Principal of Stowe High School, shared the following information.
Stowe High School is in its second year of membership in Virtual High School (vhs.org), which costs them $10,000 per year. About 20 students utilize the program per semester. Apparently Virtual High School is widely used in Vermont, but is only really cost effective for much larger numbers. It has highly qualified teachers and the courses are professionally developed and reviewed. The NH State Department of Education is developing a virtual high school program that will be much less costly as it can be accessed on a per pupil basis, and Jeff believes it will adhere to the same high standards as Virtual High School.
Jeff feels the best use of online classes is to augment and enrich an existing HS curriculum, or to allow a student to get around a scheduling conflict. He feels it is an essential part of any HS program, as long as it is used for these purposes. He does not think it can be or should be used as a cost saving measure. The success of online courses rests upon the motivation of the student taking the course, and it is imperative that there be a faculty member dedicated to supporting students taking online courses.
Stowe High School is in its second year of membership in Virtual High School (vhs.org), which costs them $10,000 per year. About 20 students utilize the program per semester. Apparently Virtual High School is widely used in Vermont, but is only really cost effective for much larger numbers. It has highly qualified teachers and the courses are professionally developed and reviewed. The NH State Department of Education is developing a virtual high school program that will be much less costly as it can be accessed on a per pupil basis, and Jeff believes it will adhere to the same high standards as Virtual High School.
Jeff feels the best use of online classes is to augment and enrich an existing HS curriculum, or to allow a student to get around a scheduling conflict. He feels it is an essential part of any HS program, as long as it is used for these purposes. He does not think it can be or should be used as a cost saving measure. The success of online courses rests upon the motivation of the student taking the course, and it is imperative that there be a faculty member dedicated to supporting students taking online courses.
Stakeholder Report on High School/College Partnerships
In order to re-vision the CA High School we need to “throw out the calendar, get out of the classroom, and utilize community resources” - Noel Ford
In Noel Ford’s comments during our Panel discussion several weeks ago he suggested we look into the potential of further collaboration between Sterling College and Craftsbury Academy grades 9-12, and referenced a model in which eligible high school students take college courses beginning in grade 12. First of all, existing collaboration between CA and Sterling College includes:
1. Since 2005 Sterling College has enrolled one to two CA high school students in a class at Sterling College each semester, for a very reduced per credit fee. Students earn college credit which is applied toward their HS graduation requirements and can be transferred to another college as needed. There is a short, straightforward application process.
2. Sterling College students are CA mentors & tutors, facilitate teambuilding and challenge course sessions for middle school students, teach Four Seasons and Four Winds classes in the elementary school, and help run the after school program at CA.
Below is some information on a model where eligible HS students begin taking a college course load in their senior year or earlier.
• reasons cited for interest in this model are: changing student population, students' frequent lack of skills preparedness, and the awareness of a need for new models of inservice staff development for high school teachers. Some differences exist between high school and college cultures, these differences can be overcome through planning and sensitivity.
• Five key recommendations for developing high school-college partnerships:
1. Identify the student population and program goals
2. Convene a meeting of Sterling & Academy faculty, administrators, students and community members to discuss: “How can we collaborate to improve learning outcomes for grades 11 - 16?”
3. Determine costs
4. Develop community support
5. Evaluate for program improvement
• Some further observations from Will Wootton (President of Sterling College) and Pavel Cenkl (Dean of Academics)
- Sterling is open to and interested in pursuing more extensive collaboration with CA than we have had in the past.
- High School/College collaboration is becoming increasingly popular, especially between community colleges and high schools.
- The first challenge in terms of implementation has to do with coordinating calendars
- How to handle tuition is another piece that has to be worked out
- There is a lot of money out there to support this kind of partnership
- Bard College in NY (attached) and the Five College Consortium in MA are examples of some interesting partnerships/programs.
Summary of Bard High School Early College Program, since 1999
• BHSEC is a public educational institution.
• No tuition is charged.
• Students from the five boroughs of New York City are eligible to apply.
• Enrollment is limited to approximately 500.
• The average student to teacher ratio is 20:1.
• Admission to BHSEC is based on the student's academic record, teacher recommendations, writing and math assessments, and an interview.
• Successful applicants typically have a minimum grade average 85. Evidence of ambition and intellectual curiosity is critical. Last year, BHSEC received roughly 4,000 applications for 135 places in the current class of 2008.
• Students entering in ninth grade complete their high school work and the required New York State Regents Exams in the first two years at BHSEC. At the end of tenth grade, their high school classes end. Students with a minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.0 for the ninth and tenth grades are eligible for entry into the early college program. At the end of four years, students have completed 60 college credits and receive the Associate in Arts (A.A.) degree in the liberal arts and sciences from Bard College as well as a New York State Regents diploma.
Faculty
• Some come from New York public high schools; others are experienced college professors with a special interest in working with younger students. In total, BHSEC has 37 full-time and 16 part-time faculty. Approximately two thirds of the full-time faculty hold Ph.D. degrees in their fields.
Continuation in 4-Year Colleges
• The A.A. curriculum is designed to enable students to transfer, with up to two years of college credit, to colleges and universities throughout the United States and abroad. Some students elect to continue for another three or four years of college as undergraduates.
Sources:
“Evidence of increasing interest in high school-college partnerships” (Education Resource Information Center)
Personal correspondence with Noel Ford
Interview with Will Wootton, President of Sterling College
Interview with Pavel Cenkl, Dean of Academics at Sterling College
Bard College Website
Submitted by Anne Morse (amorse@sterlingcollege.edu) to the Craftsbury Collaboration Group, April 29, 2010
In Noel Ford’s comments during our Panel discussion several weeks ago he suggested we look into the potential of further collaboration between Sterling College and Craftsbury Academy grades 9-12, and referenced a model in which eligible high school students take college courses beginning in grade 12. First of all, existing collaboration between CA and Sterling College includes:
1. Since 2005 Sterling College has enrolled one to two CA high school students in a class at Sterling College each semester, for a very reduced per credit fee. Students earn college credit which is applied toward their HS graduation requirements and can be transferred to another college as needed. There is a short, straightforward application process.
2. Sterling College students are CA mentors & tutors, facilitate teambuilding and challenge course sessions for middle school students, teach Four Seasons and Four Winds classes in the elementary school, and help run the after school program at CA.
Below is some information on a model where eligible HS students begin taking a college course load in their senior year or earlier.
• reasons cited for interest in this model are: changing student population, students' frequent lack of skills preparedness, and the awareness of a need for new models of inservice staff development for high school teachers. Some differences exist between high school and college cultures, these differences can be overcome through planning and sensitivity.
• Five key recommendations for developing high school-college partnerships:
1. Identify the student population and program goals
2. Convene a meeting of Sterling & Academy faculty, administrators, students and community members to discuss: “How can we collaborate to improve learning outcomes for grades 11 - 16?”
3. Determine costs
4. Develop community support
5. Evaluate for program improvement
• Some further observations from Will Wootton (President of Sterling College) and Pavel Cenkl (Dean of Academics)
- Sterling is open to and interested in pursuing more extensive collaboration with CA than we have had in the past.
- High School/College collaboration is becoming increasingly popular, especially between community colleges and high schools.
- The first challenge in terms of implementation has to do with coordinating calendars
- How to handle tuition is another piece that has to be worked out
- There is a lot of money out there to support this kind of partnership
- Bard College in NY (attached) and the Five College Consortium in MA are examples of some interesting partnerships/programs.
Summary of Bard High School Early College Program, since 1999
• BHSEC is a public educational institution.
• No tuition is charged.
• Students from the five boroughs of New York City are eligible to apply.
• Enrollment is limited to approximately 500.
• The average student to teacher ratio is 20:1.
• Admission to BHSEC is based on the student's academic record, teacher recommendations, writing and math assessments, and an interview.
• Successful applicants typically have a minimum grade average 85. Evidence of ambition and intellectual curiosity is critical. Last year, BHSEC received roughly 4,000 applications for 135 places in the current class of 2008.
• Students entering in ninth grade complete their high school work and the required New York State Regents Exams in the first two years at BHSEC. At the end of tenth grade, their high school classes end. Students with a minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.0 for the ninth and tenth grades are eligible for entry into the early college program. At the end of four years, students have completed 60 college credits and receive the Associate in Arts (A.A.) degree in the liberal arts and sciences from Bard College as well as a New York State Regents diploma.
Faculty
• Some come from New York public high schools; others are experienced college professors with a special interest in working with younger students. In total, BHSEC has 37 full-time and 16 part-time faculty. Approximately two thirds of the full-time faculty hold Ph.D. degrees in their fields.
Continuation in 4-Year Colleges
• The A.A. curriculum is designed to enable students to transfer, with up to two years of college credit, to colleges and universities throughout the United States and abroad. Some students elect to continue for another three or four years of college as undergraduates.
Sources:
“Evidence of increasing interest in high school-college partnerships” (Education Resource Information Center)
Personal correspondence with Noel Ford
Interview with Will Wootton, President of Sterling College
Interview with Pavel Cenkl, Dean of Academics at Sterling College
Bard College Website
Submitted by Anne Morse (amorse@sterlingcollege.edu) to the Craftsbury Collaboration Group, April 29, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Stakeholder Meeting April 29th
DRAFT MINUTES (to be approved May 6th)
April 29, 2010
6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Craftsbury Town Hall
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
1. Calendar. Heidi Krantz asked participants to review the question of whether or not the work of the group should end in June of this year, continue through the summer or end in the spring and resume in the fall. The preliminary sense of the meeting was that it was impractical to continue with Stakeholder meetings during the summer but a general willingness to continue with a phase # 2 effort in the fall. It was noted that since we are a sub-committee of the School Board, a decision to continue in the fall will depend on guidance from the Board. It was also noted that the composition of the Steering Committee will change if a decision is made to continue in the fall
2. Report Purpose. The group briefly discussed the timing and breadth and focus of the Report to the School Board. A question arose regarding the purpose of the Report and the original charter was reviewed. (“The purpose of the Collaborative is to support the community in developing a vision for the future of Craftsbury Schools…. Potential products include: a review of alternative educational models; a review of alternative affiliations…; an ;analysis of the pros and cons of outsourcing grades 9-12; a recommended plan…. Including the forging of broad citizen agreement….”)
It was also noted that our work should help the School Board “make an informed choice” and “guide their thinking.”
3. Report content. There was a brief discussion of content. It was noted that 1) the Report need not contain detailed recommendations 2) The Report could be offered as an interim effort 3) the timing and content of the Report should reflect developing conditions and opportunities.
4. Academic Offerings. Kate Tagai presented the work of her group comparing the curriculum of different schools in the area. (A copy of this information will be posted on the web site.) Kate noted that the report was factual and not analytical in order to allow people to draw their own conclusions. Some schools had strengths and some had areas of weakness. The following discussion noted the importance of identifying State requirements, that community groups like ours can influence curriculum content and the importance of starting with an overall strategy and developing a curriculum to reflect those goals.
5. School Models: High School/College Collaboration. Ann Morse distributed and reported on high school/college partnerships. (To be included on web-site). Although Sterling and the Academy currently collaborate to a significant extent, there is room for deepening this relationship. In general there is growing interest in college collaboration and some research on this subject. It is important to identify the student population and program goals, convene meetings between Sterling the +
Academy to discuss options, evaluate costs, develop community support and evaluate pros and cons. Preliminary discussions with Sterling indicate considerable interest in moving forward.
6. School Models: Virtual High Schools and On-Line Learning. This is an important emerging area. There is considerable on-going research and web resources are emerging (VHS.org). It is not yet clear that costs can be reduced and the field is competitive.
7. School Models: Magnet Schools. A magnet school is a public school with a unique curriculum that is designed to attract students from adjacent districts or communities in the topical area or thematic area. While magnet schools provide the standard core curriculum, they incorporate a distinctive approach and such as an emphasis on sustainability or the arts. Jen Schoen and Marie Royer gave a report on the Place Based Education magnet school in Burlington. Although only K-5, this School may constitute a model with direct relevance to the situation in Craftsbury. Points made during the discussion:
The Sustainability Academy was visited. The Schools appears to possess energy, vitality and creativity and students appear highly motivated with high levels of parental involvement.
The Sustainability Academy has re-vitalized the community and is a source of community pride.
The thematic contents (community, sustainability, emphasis on place and tradition) would appear to fit quite well with Craftsbury’s identity.
The model would also appear to support and build on the potential for collaboration with Sterling and the Outdoor Center and with the local agricultural movement in Hardwick. (Center for Sustainable Agriculture)
The design of a magnet School would appear to respond to Noel Ford’s point that Craftsbury needs to re-invent the Academy based on our unique attributes if we are to attract a sufficient student population to be financially viable.
The thematic areas (sustainability, ecology, community) align quite well with the professional capacities of Academy and Sterling teachers. As a community we appear to have the human and institutional resources to pursue a model of this sort.
The theme of sustainability is of national importance and interest and constitutes a increasingly important area of educational concentration.
Financial grant support from government, foundations and corporations for the design of this type of educational initiative appears to be available.
A magnet school could be designed in way that would consolidate broad enthusiasm and Town-wide support and bring the community together.
Finally, while magnet schools are technically not Charter Schools, they are similar in important respects and thus may benefit from the increasing national interest in schools that brake away from the traditional mold.
Concerns and questions included the following:
How would we address the needs of those children in the community that are not interested in the thematic area pursued by the magnet school?
How would we know that the School would attract sufficient students from other communities to be financially sustainable?
Can we obtain funds for the considerable amount of research and design work that will be needed?
8. Financial Modeling. Ann Ingerson presented an extremely useful program that she has developed to help us evaluate the financial implications of different scenarios. The Program will allow the user to plug in different assumptions about such things as student enrollment to see the bottom line result. The program uses Microsoft Excel and the Steering Committee will attempt to upload a copy on our web site. Stakeholders are encouraged to “play” with the program in order to get a better sense of the most important variables that will determine financial viability.
9. Next Meeting. The Stakeholders will meet again on May 6 at 6:3o pm at the Town Hall
April 29, 2010
6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Craftsbury Town Hall
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
1. Calendar. Heidi Krantz asked participants to review the question of whether or not the work of the group should end in June of this year, continue through the summer or end in the spring and resume in the fall. The preliminary sense of the meeting was that it was impractical to continue with Stakeholder meetings during the summer but a general willingness to continue with a phase # 2 effort in the fall. It was noted that since we are a sub-committee of the School Board, a decision to continue in the fall will depend on guidance from the Board. It was also noted that the composition of the Steering Committee will change if a decision is made to continue in the fall
2. Report Purpose. The group briefly discussed the timing and breadth and focus of the Report to the School Board. A question arose regarding the purpose of the Report and the original charter was reviewed. (“The purpose of the Collaborative is to support the community in developing a vision for the future of Craftsbury Schools…. Potential products include: a review of alternative educational models; a review of alternative affiliations…; an ;analysis of the pros and cons of outsourcing grades 9-12; a recommended plan…. Including the forging of broad citizen agreement….”)
It was also noted that our work should help the School Board “make an informed choice” and “guide their thinking.”
3. Report content. There was a brief discussion of content. It was noted that 1) the Report need not contain detailed recommendations 2) The Report could be offered as an interim effort 3) the timing and content of the Report should reflect developing conditions and opportunities.
4. Academic Offerings. Kate Tagai presented the work of her group comparing the curriculum of different schools in the area. (A copy of this information will be posted on the web site.) Kate noted that the report was factual and not analytical in order to allow people to draw their own conclusions. Some schools had strengths and some had areas of weakness. The following discussion noted the importance of identifying State requirements, that community groups like ours can influence curriculum content and the importance of starting with an overall strategy and developing a curriculum to reflect those goals.
5. School Models: High School/College Collaboration. Ann Morse distributed and reported on high school/college partnerships. (To be included on web-site). Although Sterling and the Academy currently collaborate to a significant extent, there is room for deepening this relationship. In general there is growing interest in college collaboration and some research on this subject. It is important to identify the student population and program goals, convene meetings between Sterling the +
Academy to discuss options, evaluate costs, develop community support and evaluate pros and cons. Preliminary discussions with Sterling indicate considerable interest in moving forward.
6. School Models: Virtual High Schools and On-Line Learning. This is an important emerging area. There is considerable on-going research and web resources are emerging (VHS.org). It is not yet clear that costs can be reduced and the field is competitive.
7. School Models: Magnet Schools. A magnet school is a public school with a unique curriculum that is designed to attract students from adjacent districts or communities in the topical area or thematic area. While magnet schools provide the standard core curriculum, they incorporate a distinctive approach and such as an emphasis on sustainability or the arts. Jen Schoen and Marie Royer gave a report on the Place Based Education magnet school in Burlington. Although only K-5, this School may constitute a model with direct relevance to the situation in Craftsbury. Points made during the discussion:
The Sustainability Academy was visited. The Schools appears to possess energy, vitality and creativity and students appear highly motivated with high levels of parental involvement.
The Sustainability Academy has re-vitalized the community and is a source of community pride.
The thematic contents (community, sustainability, emphasis on place and tradition) would appear to fit quite well with Craftsbury’s identity.
The model would also appear to support and build on the potential for collaboration with Sterling and the Outdoor Center and with the local agricultural movement in Hardwick. (Center for Sustainable Agriculture)
The design of a magnet School would appear to respond to Noel Ford’s point that Craftsbury needs to re-invent the Academy based on our unique attributes if we are to attract a sufficient student population to be financially viable.
The thematic areas (sustainability, ecology, community) align quite well with the professional capacities of Academy and Sterling teachers. As a community we appear to have the human and institutional resources to pursue a model of this sort.
The theme of sustainability is of national importance and interest and constitutes a increasingly important area of educational concentration.
Financial grant support from government, foundations and corporations for the design of this type of educational initiative appears to be available.
A magnet school could be designed in way that would consolidate broad enthusiasm and Town-wide support and bring the community together.
Finally, while magnet schools are technically not Charter Schools, they are similar in important respects and thus may benefit from the increasing national interest in schools that brake away from the traditional mold.
Concerns and questions included the following:
How would we address the needs of those children in the community that are not interested in the thematic area pursued by the magnet school?
How would we know that the School would attract sufficient students from other communities to be financially sustainable?
Can we obtain funds for the considerable amount of research and design work that will be needed?
8. Financial Modeling. Ann Ingerson presented an extremely useful program that she has developed to help us evaluate the financial implications of different scenarios. The Program will allow the user to plug in different assumptions about such things as student enrollment to see the bottom line result. The program uses Microsoft Excel and the Steering Committee will attempt to upload a copy on our web site. Stakeholders are encouraged to “play” with the program in order to get a better sense of the most important variables that will determine financial viability.
9. Next Meeting. The Stakeholders will meet again on May 6 at 6:3o pm at the Town Hall
Monday, April 26, 2010
Minutes from April 8, 2010
DRAFT (to be approved April 29th)
*Present: 12 Stakeholders, 4 Steering Committee
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
As planned, individual groups gave presentations. Please note that large amounts of data, charts, etc were quoted. This scribe did not record all. Individual presenters may offer copies of data online or at subsequent meetings.
*Presentations:
Group 1…Tuition Comparisons
Jeanine Young presented tuition comparisons of grades 7-12 in over 20 area schools. This is what schools charge, not necessarily what it costs per student. She noted that if Craftsbury students are tuitioned out we have no control over the tuition numbers and the numbers seem to fluctuate regularly. Hazen is probably the only school that would provide transportation.
George Hall looked at Craftsbury student numbers and projected future numbers. He also commented on how budget is divided between the Academy and Elementary school, cost per student in Academy and Elementary and which costs are constant regardless.
Ann Ingerson volunteered sharing a spread sheet she has created next time that helps untangle and understand assumptions, results, and related costs. She reminded group that a number of grants come into the schools which alter costs and also looked at the census which indicates a stable population.
Kent Young spoke with Rita Davis. Some service costs will increase yet he feels there could be financial savings if we tuition out older students.
Group 2…Transportation
Elinor Osborn spoke with Wildcat busing. The use of three buses currently costs Craftsbury $105,000 annually. If students are transported from the Academy to Hazen for instance, the route would have to start earlier and thus elem. kids would be dropped off earlier so Academy kids could get to Hazen on time.Thus Elem. Kids would be at school longer and supervision would be needed. Wolcott Elem kids have longer day due to this situation. If Craftsbury goes to tuition out with school choice, we have no cost control. People wondered about other transport ideas-van pool, ride shares, etd.
Group 3…Consolidation on One Campus
Kent Young looked at building and space issues if K-6 moved to the Common. He went over current rooms in Minden and also potential Academy renovation ideas. As to overall costs for just K-6, Kent felt, since some costs are fixed, that we would have no financial savings.
*Following these presentations Heidi opened a discussion on where this group wants to go with the process. The stakeholder numbers are dwindling, summer is coming, people may be ready to end or have a break. Some people requested to take a summer break, then continue in fall; some would like to meet weekly now and wrap up; some felt we were just in the middle so we need to carry on. The group voted for now to continue to June17.
*Gayle would like the group to write down 3-5 top points gleaned from the two panel discussions. We have a panel planned May 20 and more may be organized.
The next meeting is April 29 (Please note we are not meeting during the school break.)
At the April 29 meeting Group 4 (Comparisons of academic offerings) and Group 5 (Alternative Models) will present. Ann Ingerson will also share her “assumptions & results” spread sheet.
Respectfully submitted by Susan Houston, scribe
*Present: 12 Stakeholders, 4 Steering Committee
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
As planned, individual groups gave presentations. Please note that large amounts of data, charts, etc were quoted. This scribe did not record all. Individual presenters may offer copies of data online or at subsequent meetings.
*Presentations:
Group 1…Tuition Comparisons
Jeanine Young presented tuition comparisons of grades 7-12 in over 20 area schools. This is what schools charge, not necessarily what it costs per student. She noted that if Craftsbury students are tuitioned out we have no control over the tuition numbers and the numbers seem to fluctuate regularly. Hazen is probably the only school that would provide transportation.
George Hall looked at Craftsbury student numbers and projected future numbers. He also commented on how budget is divided between the Academy and Elementary school, cost per student in Academy and Elementary and which costs are constant regardless.
Ann Ingerson volunteered sharing a spread sheet she has created next time that helps untangle and understand assumptions, results, and related costs. She reminded group that a number of grants come into the schools which alter costs and also looked at the census which indicates a stable population.
Kent Young spoke with Rita Davis. Some service costs will increase yet he feels there could be financial savings if we tuition out older students.
Group 2…Transportation
Elinor Osborn spoke with Wildcat busing. The use of three buses currently costs Craftsbury $105,000 annually. If students are transported from the Academy to Hazen for instance, the route would have to start earlier and thus elem. kids would be dropped off earlier so Academy kids could get to Hazen on time.Thus Elem. Kids would be at school longer and supervision would be needed. Wolcott Elem kids have longer day due to this situation. If Craftsbury goes to tuition out with school choice, we have no cost control. People wondered about other transport ideas-van pool, ride shares, etd.
Group 3…Consolidation on One Campus
Kent Young looked at building and space issues if K-6 moved to the Common. He went over current rooms in Minden and also potential Academy renovation ideas. As to overall costs for just K-6, Kent felt, since some costs are fixed, that we would have no financial savings.
*Following these presentations Heidi opened a discussion on where this group wants to go with the process. The stakeholder numbers are dwindling, summer is coming, people may be ready to end or have a break. Some people requested to take a summer break, then continue in fall; some would like to meet weekly now and wrap up; some felt we were just in the middle so we need to carry on. The group voted for now to continue to June17.
*Gayle would like the group to write down 3-5 top points gleaned from the two panel discussions. We have a panel planned May 20 and more may be organized.
The next meeting is April 29 (Please note we are not meeting during the school break.)
At the April 29 meeting Group 4 (Comparisons of academic offerings) and Group 5 (Alternative Models) will present. Ann Ingerson will also share her “assumptions & results” spread sheet.
Respectfully submitted by Susan Houston, scribe
Monday, March 29, 2010
Minutes of March 25th Stakeholder Meeting
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
1. Anne Volmer called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. She introduced the panelists for the evening: Eric Oberg Chair of the Albany School Board, Noel Ford, School administrator and teacher and Tom Levett, headmaster at St. Johnsbury Academy.
2. Panel Presentation: Each panelist responded to a series of questions. In general the questions dealt with the pros and cons of tuitioning in of students and the pros and cons of considering alternative educational models. (Note the following is intended as a brief overview of key points. It is not comprehensive or a verbatim transcript. Important points may have been left out or stated in a way that differs from intent.)
Tom Lovett, Principal St. Johnsbury Academy
Mr. Lovett described the programs at the Academy and efforts made to facilitate and support students who tuition in from a distance. He mentioned the importance of a student advisor, equal access to services and programs for all students, the value of the low class size (average of 11 students) and the high educational background of Academy teachers. He noted that 90% of students proceed to some type of after graduation training and 80% go to college. As a measure of the Academy’s ability to handle the transition process he noted that students come from 45 towns in Vermont, from 20 states and 20 countries. With respect to funding, the parent is responsible for payment and in most cases the Town reimburses the parent. The current tuition rate is $13,875. With respect to parental involvement it is true that the closer the parent the easier it is to stay involved. However, he noted that distance does not seem to deter parental involvement in the case of special events. Studies indicate that long bus rides (in excess of 30 minutes) appear to have a negative effect particularly in the case of lower income students. However, there are creative ways to put together car-pooling arrangements and many parents actually value this time spent with their children. With respect to the large assortment of extra-curricula activities (from public speaking to knitting) a considerable effort is made to insure that students from a distance have equal access. With respect to Athletics, the Academy is a Division I school which has benefits and disadvantages. For the excellent athlete it provides the opportunity to compete at a high level but for others it may be difficult to get on a varsity team
Eric Oberg, Chair Albany School Board
The Albany School was built in 1981 and serves K-8. Enrollment is currently 85 students, down from 110. The School appears to have a relatively high ratio of special education students. Most of the Albany students go on to Lake Region. With respect to tuitioning out, Mr. Oberg felt this was beneficial for Albany since it enhances social development, gives students access to programs and resources not otherwise available and is financially beneficial for the Town. The lack of an Albany High School does not appear to hurt the social and cultural cohesion of the Town. With respect to the timing of transition, by 8th grade most students are ready to move on. With respect to a Charter School, Mr. Oberg did not feel that Albany residents would support an initiative of this sort and that they would prefer to stick with a Union School. The key for small rural schools is to get the kids out of the small community into a larger school setting where they can open up and meet new people.
Noel Ford, former Administrator
Mr. Ford began by discussing the pros and cons of a small versus large schools. A large school can provide more programs, more opportunities and experience in functioning in a complex social structure. Schools that attract tuitioned students are able to augment their programs with the funds that this provides. But some students do much better in a small school and thrive in an environment where there is less competition, strong community involvement and a higher level of parental support and involvement. Small schools encourage much more face to face interaction between the parent and the school. Parental oversight and accountability may be more difficult to ensure in a large school.
Regardless of the organizational pros and cons, the “magic is in the classroom”. It is in the classroom where the educational transformation occurs regardless of whether the institution is large or small. This means that it is the quality of the teacher more than anything else that counts. In a related vein, Mr. Ford stressed the critical importance of early pre-Kindergarten schooling and the importance of allocating resources for this purpose.
There does not appear to be a great deal of research on the pros and cons of tuitioning out of students. However there is a good deal of research that is available on the pros and cons of small schools and Mr. Ford cited the work of Mary Raywid.
Mr. Ford stressed that the Craftsbury Academy had a wonderful opportunity to be entrepenurial and reinvent itself building on its unique history, identity and strengths. He felt that the school could undertake a re-design that would capitalize on these assets. Possibilities include increased reliance on local resources and talented and experienced people who live in the Craftsbury community, the design of an academic program focused on the needs of the gifted and talented, the design of a tri-semester program, experimentation with a different scheduling models that would reflect recent research on optimal learning conditions for young students, the design of a “3:2” program that accelerates high school and links with the first 2 years in college. The challenge is build on unique local attributes to design a program with a comparative advantage that will attract students.
With respect to size, Mr. Ford stressed that the current school 9-12 enrollment is simply too small to be sustainable. It is essential to increase enrollment to a critical mass of from 120 to 200 in order to offer the range of programs and resources needed by students and in order to have a reasonable cost structure that does not impose an excessive burden on the Town.
Other points made during this presentation include: the importance of rehabilitating the gymnasium, the observation that charter school work best in large urban areas and may not succeed in rural areas, the high quality of nearby technical centers (but a caution regarding the value of imbedded credits).
3. Question Period (The following points emerged. Again, this overview is not designed to represent a comprehensive description of all of the points that were made.)
Discussion: key points
The Academy has roughly 50 k-12 students. In Mr. Ford’s view this is too small to be financially viable.
If you can design a unique, high quality program then students will come. However: it is essential to think “outside the box”, come up with a unique approach rooted in the special attributes of the community, have high quality AP courses and excellent teachers
Demographic predictions may be too pessimistic given the excellent quality of life that Vermont offers. The population base may in fact increase. The projected growth in Newport is a good example.
The current US education model is simply too expensive. It is important to seriously explore the “on line” school model. However, this does require excellent high-speed internet access. Electronics will shape the future of education in America.
The “3:2” program involves 3 years of high school followed by 2 years of college. There is also a “4:1” program that might be explored.
It would be possible to put together a model based on the Advanced Placement skills approach.
It is essential to establish a system that requires teacher accountability with the capacity to terminate for poor performance.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM. The next Stakeholder meeting will be on April 8 at 6:30 pm. At that meeting research groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 will present their results (details of groups were provided in an earlier post, see below).
1. Anne Volmer called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. She introduced the panelists for the evening: Eric Oberg Chair of the Albany School Board, Noel Ford, School administrator and teacher and Tom Levett, headmaster at St. Johnsbury Academy.
2. Panel Presentation: Each panelist responded to a series of questions. In general the questions dealt with the pros and cons of tuitioning in of students and the pros and cons of considering alternative educational models. (Note the following is intended as a brief overview of key points. It is not comprehensive or a verbatim transcript. Important points may have been left out or stated in a way that differs from intent.)
Tom Lovett, Principal St. Johnsbury Academy
Mr. Lovett described the programs at the Academy and efforts made to facilitate and support students who tuition in from a distance. He mentioned the importance of a student advisor, equal access to services and programs for all students, the value of the low class size (average of 11 students) and the high educational background of Academy teachers. He noted that 90% of students proceed to some type of after graduation training and 80% go to college. As a measure of the Academy’s ability to handle the transition process he noted that students come from 45 towns in Vermont, from 20 states and 20 countries. With respect to funding, the parent is responsible for payment and in most cases the Town reimburses the parent. The current tuition rate is $13,875. With respect to parental involvement it is true that the closer the parent the easier it is to stay involved. However, he noted that distance does not seem to deter parental involvement in the case of special events. Studies indicate that long bus rides (in excess of 30 minutes) appear to have a negative effect particularly in the case of lower income students. However, there are creative ways to put together car-pooling arrangements and many parents actually value this time spent with their children. With respect to the large assortment of extra-curricula activities (from public speaking to knitting) a considerable effort is made to insure that students from a distance have equal access. With respect to Athletics, the Academy is a Division I school which has benefits and disadvantages. For the excellent athlete it provides the opportunity to compete at a high level but for others it may be difficult to get on a varsity team
Eric Oberg, Chair Albany School Board
The Albany School was built in 1981 and serves K-8. Enrollment is currently 85 students, down from 110. The School appears to have a relatively high ratio of special education students. Most of the Albany students go on to Lake Region. With respect to tuitioning out, Mr. Oberg felt this was beneficial for Albany since it enhances social development, gives students access to programs and resources not otherwise available and is financially beneficial for the Town. The lack of an Albany High School does not appear to hurt the social and cultural cohesion of the Town. With respect to the timing of transition, by 8th grade most students are ready to move on. With respect to a Charter School, Mr. Oberg did not feel that Albany residents would support an initiative of this sort and that they would prefer to stick with a Union School. The key for small rural schools is to get the kids out of the small community into a larger school setting where they can open up and meet new people.
Noel Ford, former Administrator
Mr. Ford began by discussing the pros and cons of a small versus large schools. A large school can provide more programs, more opportunities and experience in functioning in a complex social structure. Schools that attract tuitioned students are able to augment their programs with the funds that this provides. But some students do much better in a small school and thrive in an environment where there is less competition, strong community involvement and a higher level of parental support and involvement. Small schools encourage much more face to face interaction between the parent and the school. Parental oversight and accountability may be more difficult to ensure in a large school.
Regardless of the organizational pros and cons, the “magic is in the classroom”. It is in the classroom where the educational transformation occurs regardless of whether the institution is large or small. This means that it is the quality of the teacher more than anything else that counts. In a related vein, Mr. Ford stressed the critical importance of early pre-Kindergarten schooling and the importance of allocating resources for this purpose.
There does not appear to be a great deal of research on the pros and cons of tuitioning out of students. However there is a good deal of research that is available on the pros and cons of small schools and Mr. Ford cited the work of Mary Raywid.
Mr. Ford stressed that the Craftsbury Academy had a wonderful opportunity to be entrepenurial and reinvent itself building on its unique history, identity and strengths. He felt that the school could undertake a re-design that would capitalize on these assets. Possibilities include increased reliance on local resources and talented and experienced people who live in the Craftsbury community, the design of an academic program focused on the needs of the gifted and talented, the design of a tri-semester program, experimentation with a different scheduling models that would reflect recent research on optimal learning conditions for young students, the design of a “3:2” program that accelerates high school and links with the first 2 years in college. The challenge is build on unique local attributes to design a program with a comparative advantage that will attract students.
With respect to size, Mr. Ford stressed that the current school 9-12 enrollment is simply too small to be sustainable. It is essential to increase enrollment to a critical mass of from 120 to 200 in order to offer the range of programs and resources needed by students and in order to have a reasonable cost structure that does not impose an excessive burden on the Town.
Other points made during this presentation include: the importance of rehabilitating the gymnasium, the observation that charter school work best in large urban areas and may not succeed in rural areas, the high quality of nearby technical centers (but a caution regarding the value of imbedded credits).
3. Question Period (The following points emerged. Again, this overview is not designed to represent a comprehensive description of all of the points that were made.)
Discussion: key points
The Academy has roughly 50 k-12 students. In Mr. Ford’s view this is too small to be financially viable.
If you can design a unique, high quality program then students will come. However: it is essential to think “outside the box”, come up with a unique approach rooted in the special attributes of the community, have high quality AP courses and excellent teachers
Demographic predictions may be too pessimistic given the excellent quality of life that Vermont offers. The population base may in fact increase. The projected growth in Newport is a good example.
The current US education model is simply too expensive. It is important to seriously explore the “on line” school model. However, this does require excellent high-speed internet access. Electronics will shape the future of education in America.
The “3:2” program involves 3 years of high school followed by 2 years of college. There is also a “4:1” program that might be explored.
It would be possible to put together a model based on the Advanced Placement skills approach.
It is essential to establish a system that requires teacher accountability with the capacity to terminate for poor performance.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM. The next Stakeholder meeting will be on April 8 at 6:30 pm. At that meeting research groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 will present their results (details of groups were provided in an earlier post, see below).
Monday, March 22, 2010
Stakeholder Research Groups Form
Stakeholder Research Groups Derived from RFP's
RFP Category #1
* To Go or Not to Go
* Explore Supervisory Union Possibilities
* Tuition Out Grades 7-12
COMPARISONS
Compare the following options:
* Tuition out 7-12 to a designated school
* Tuition out 9-12 to a designated school
* Tuition out 7-12 school choice
* Tuition out 9-12 school choice
* Educate k-12 here
1. Tuition comparison of the above options
* Tuition costs to each possible designated school
* Projected tuition costs over 20 years for designated school
* Tuition cost for school choice (assumes all students choose most expensive school? How do other towns budget?)
* Projected tuition costs over 20 years for school choice.
* Cost to educate a student here, not including transportation
* Projected cost to educate a student here, assuming status quo, over 20 years.
o Does per pupil cost include overhead such as heat?
o If yes to above, then
+ Projected cost to educate a student here, assuming renovations as per bond approval.
* (Projected cost to educate a student here under alternative models may be explored later).
* George Hall
* Cedar Hannan
* Ann Ingerson
* Jeannine Young
2. Transportation options and costs for the above options.
* Joe Young
* Mansosoi Tagai
* Elinor Osborn
3. Consolidation possibilities for Craftsbury schools, and associated savings:
* Consolidation possibilities if 7-12 tuition out
* Consolidation possibiliites if 9-12 tuition out
* Gayle Kroeger 586-7745
4. Comparison of academic offerings at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.
* Anne Hanson
* Katherine Tagai
5. Comparison of extra-curricular offerings at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.
6. Comparison of food services at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.
7. Comparison of diversity (racial, gender, socio-economic, etc.) at Craftsbury and each possible designated/choice school.
RFP Category 2:
* Increasing Students' Academic Engagement
* Place-Based Experiential K-12 Charter School
* Extended Learning Options
8. Funding possibilities for alternative school models, such as
* Place-Based Experiential model
* Project-Based model [expeditionary education?]
* Extended Learning models
o Virtual High School
o University Co-ops
o Teach for America
o Tutors
o Other
+ Brian Machesney
+ Jen Schoen
+ Marie Royer
+ Leslie Rowell
+ Anne Morse
RFP Category #1
* To Go or Not to Go
* Explore Supervisory Union Possibilities
* Tuition Out Grades 7-12
COMPARISONS
Compare the following options:
* Tuition out 7-12 to a designated school
* Tuition out 9-12 to a designated school
* Tuition out 7-12 school choice
* Tuition out 9-12 school choice
* Educate k-12 here
1. Tuition comparison of the above options
* Tuition costs to each possible designated school
* Projected tuition costs over 20 years for designated school
* Tuition cost for school choice (assumes all students choose most expensive school? How do other towns budget?)
* Projected tuition costs over 20 years for school choice.
* Cost to educate a student here, not including transportation
* Projected cost to educate a student here, assuming status quo, over 20 years.
o Does per pupil cost include overhead such as heat?
o If yes to above, then
+ Projected cost to educate a student here, assuming renovations as per bond approval.
* (Projected cost to educate a student here under alternative models may be explored later).
* George Hall
* Cedar Hannan
* Ann Ingerson
* Jeannine Young
2. Transportation options and costs for the above options.
* Joe Young
* Mansosoi Tagai
* Elinor Osborn
3. Consolidation possibilities for Craftsbury schools, and associated savings:
* Consolidation possibilities if 7-12 tuition out
* Consolidation possibiliites if 9-12 tuition out
* Gayle Kroeger 586-7745
4. Comparison of academic offerings at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.
* Anne Hanson
* Katherine Tagai
5. Comparison of extra-curricular offerings at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.
6. Comparison of food services at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.
7. Comparison of diversity (racial, gender, socio-economic, etc.) at Craftsbury and each possible designated/choice school.
RFP Category 2:
* Increasing Students' Academic Engagement
* Place-Based Experiential K-12 Charter School
* Extended Learning Options
8. Funding possibilities for alternative school models, such as
* Place-Based Experiential model
* Project-Based model [expeditionary education?]
* Extended Learning models
o Virtual High School
o University Co-ops
o Teach for America
o Tutors
o Other
+ Brian Machesney
+ Jen Schoen
+ Marie Royer
+ Leslie Rowell
+ Anne Morse
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Minutes of March 11 Stakeholder Meeting
Participants:
Stakeholders: Laurie Courage, George Hall, Ann Ingerson, Mary Lou Issacson, Gayle Kroeger, Paula Masse, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborne, Leslie Rowell, Jen Schoen, Barb Strong, Bob Twiss, Abbey Volmer, Jeannine Young, Kent Young, Barbara Alexander, Marie Royer, June Cook(guest).
Steering Committee: Anne Volmer, Stark Biddle, Susan Houston, Harry Miller, Steve Moffatt, Tina Sweet
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
1. Anne Volmer called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. She introduced the panelists for the evening: Elaine Laine, Principal of Hazen Union; Betty LeRoy, former Principal at Craftsbury Academy, and Linda Aiken, Principal of the Middle School at Lakeview School.
2. All participants briefly introduced themselves.
3. Panel Presentation: (Note the following is intended as a brief overview of key points. It is not comprehensive or a verbatim transcript. Important points may have been left out or stated in a way that differs from intent.)
Elaine Laine
• Hazen Union would welcome students tuitioned in from Craftsbury and has adequate space to accommodate all comers.
• Hazen pays for busing services. (This needs to be double-checked.)
• Early transition is important and Hazen encourages transfer at the 7th grade level.
• Currently 9% of Hazen students (36) are tuitioned in from other Towns.
• Hazen is proud of its high academic performance and the rich diversity of programs that it offers. Several programs and awards were cited.
• Hazen has a student-centered culture and students take a lead in the planning of their education experience.
• Hazen focuses on “21st Century Skills” and has a “Vision 20/20 Long Range Plan."
Betty LeRoy
• Tuitioning out of students to another school is difficult and challenging. It will work for some students and not for others. It is essential to make sure there is an effective integration program in place.
• Parental participation at the Craftsbury Academy was wonderful. The tightness and community support is an important asset. The School is an important part of the community and tightly integrated with the community.
• But the Academy is small, resources are limited, and it is a real challenge to provide opportunities and a rich academic environment. Thus, creativity and imagination in curriculum design and program offerings are essential. As a former principal, the primary challenge for Craftsbury is to look at program content and student needs.
• While the Academy provides a personal touch and a deep sense of community, it may be too small to provide many of the opportunities that young people will need in the modern world. On the other hand the strength of community and parental support is an asset to be valued.
• In summary, there is real trade off between the personal touch of a small school and the academic advantages of tuitioning out to a large school. This is a difficult decision to make but in making it the needs of the students need to be given first priority.
Linda Aiken
• Comments are from the elementary school perspective.
• Parental involvement is critically important to student success.
• The idea of pursuing an alternative model is interesting and should be explored.
• With respect to tuitioning out, students may be better able to adjust than the parents.
• The high per pupil cost of running a small school is immense and constitutes a serious impediment
4. Question Period (The following points emerged. Again, this overview is not designed to represent a comprehensive description of all of the points that were made.)
• Hazen Union is comprised of Greensboro, Hardwick, and Woodbury. The possibility of a merger with Craftsbury has been discussed by Hazen Staff and the response has been positive.
• Greensboro merged with Hazen in 1968. Because of the elapsed time, lessons from this event are not accessible.
• Hazen pays for transportation costs for students in Union towns. (Note: this question needs clarification and further research.)
• Hazen average class size is roughly as follows:
Middle School: 7 to 16
Lower School: lower than above
Upper School: maximum class of 23 with some such as AP courses at 3-4.
• Hazen does not have a PTA although they do have several programs that encourage parental involvement.
• In general, the larger the school the more difficult it is to get high levels of parental involvement.
• State regulations do not in any way constrain curriculum design. Hazen has designed and offered many new courses and does not feel that the State has in any way impeded this process.
• All teachers at Hazen need to be certified. Because of honors received, Hazen is a popular employer and gets lots of teacher applications.
• In general there was a positive reaction to the idea that Craftsbury could design an alternative model that attracts students from other towns and that is rooted in Craftsbury’s unique identity and values.
• Small schools require creativity. One of the problems a small school faces is the tendency to adjust standards to the lowest common denominator.
• The central issue that Craftsbury needs to address and wrestle with is what do our children need, not what the community needs. This is an immensely complex and difficult decision.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.
Next meeting: March 25, same time, same place.
Stakeholders: Laurie Courage, George Hall, Ann Ingerson, Mary Lou Issacson, Gayle Kroeger, Paula Masse, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborne, Leslie Rowell, Jen Schoen, Barb Strong, Bob Twiss, Abbey Volmer, Jeannine Young, Kent Young, Barbara Alexander, Marie Royer, June Cook(guest).
Steering Committee: Anne Volmer, Stark Biddle, Susan Houston, Harry Miller, Steve Moffatt, Tina Sweet
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
1. Anne Volmer called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. She introduced the panelists for the evening: Elaine Laine, Principal of Hazen Union; Betty LeRoy, former Principal at Craftsbury Academy, and Linda Aiken, Principal of the Middle School at Lakeview School.
2. All participants briefly introduced themselves.
3. Panel Presentation: (Note the following is intended as a brief overview of key points. It is not comprehensive or a verbatim transcript. Important points may have been left out or stated in a way that differs from intent.)
Elaine Laine
• Hazen Union would welcome students tuitioned in from Craftsbury and has adequate space to accommodate all comers.
• Hazen pays for busing services. (This needs to be double-checked.)
• Early transition is important and Hazen encourages transfer at the 7th grade level.
• Currently 9% of Hazen students (36) are tuitioned in from other Towns.
• Hazen is proud of its high academic performance and the rich diversity of programs that it offers. Several programs and awards were cited.
• Hazen has a student-centered culture and students take a lead in the planning of their education experience.
• Hazen focuses on “21st Century Skills” and has a “Vision 20/20 Long Range Plan."
Betty LeRoy
• Tuitioning out of students to another school is difficult and challenging. It will work for some students and not for others. It is essential to make sure there is an effective integration program in place.
• Parental participation at the Craftsbury Academy was wonderful. The tightness and community support is an important asset. The School is an important part of the community and tightly integrated with the community.
• But the Academy is small, resources are limited, and it is a real challenge to provide opportunities and a rich academic environment. Thus, creativity and imagination in curriculum design and program offerings are essential. As a former principal, the primary challenge for Craftsbury is to look at program content and student needs.
• While the Academy provides a personal touch and a deep sense of community, it may be too small to provide many of the opportunities that young people will need in the modern world. On the other hand the strength of community and parental support is an asset to be valued.
• In summary, there is real trade off between the personal touch of a small school and the academic advantages of tuitioning out to a large school. This is a difficult decision to make but in making it the needs of the students need to be given first priority.
Linda Aiken
• Comments are from the elementary school perspective.
• Parental involvement is critically important to student success.
• The idea of pursuing an alternative model is interesting and should be explored.
• With respect to tuitioning out, students may be better able to adjust than the parents.
• The high per pupil cost of running a small school is immense and constitutes a serious impediment
4. Question Period (The following points emerged. Again, this overview is not designed to represent a comprehensive description of all of the points that were made.)
• Hazen Union is comprised of Greensboro, Hardwick, and Woodbury. The possibility of a merger with Craftsbury has been discussed by Hazen Staff and the response has been positive.
• Greensboro merged with Hazen in 1968. Because of the elapsed time, lessons from this event are not accessible.
• Hazen pays for transportation costs for students in Union towns. (Note: this question needs clarification and further research.)
• Hazen average class size is roughly as follows:
Middle School: 7 to 16
Lower School: lower than above
Upper School: maximum class of 23 with some such as AP courses at 3-4.
• Hazen does not have a PTA although they do have several programs that encourage parental involvement.
• In general, the larger the school the more difficult it is to get high levels of parental involvement.
• State regulations do not in any way constrain curriculum design. Hazen has designed and offered many new courses and does not feel that the State has in any way impeded this process.
• All teachers at Hazen need to be certified. Because of honors received, Hazen is a popular employer and gets lots of teacher applications.
• In general there was a positive reaction to the idea that Craftsbury could design an alternative model that attracts students from other towns and that is rooted in Craftsbury’s unique identity and values.
• Small schools require creativity. One of the problems a small school faces is the tendency to adjust standards to the lowest common denominator.
• The central issue that Craftsbury needs to address and wrestle with is what do our children need, not what the community needs. This is an immensely complex and difficult decision.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.
Next meeting: March 25, same time, same place.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)