Unapproved draft
Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration
Stakeholder Meeting #6
January 21, 2010
Craftsbury Town Hall
Attendees: Jim Moffatt, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborn, Leslie Rowell, Jen Schoen, Barb Strong, Edward Tagai, Bob Twiss, Allison VanAkkeren, Katie Williams Tagai, Jeannine Young, Kent Young, Barb Alexander, Marie Royer, Laurie Courage, George Hall, Anne Hanson, Ann Ingerson, and Gayle Kroeger.
Steering Committee: Tina Sweet, Stark Biddle, Steve Moffatt, Perry Thomas, and Susan Houston.
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
The meeting was called to order by Perry Thomas at approximately 6:37 on January 21, 2010. Minutes from January 7, 2010 were approved, and Heidi explained the process for tonight’s meeting. Feasibility studies came up as a reoccurring theme at the last meeting. With this in mind, the Stakeholders were instructed to break into small groups to formulate ideas on what these feasibilities studies would focus on. They will do this in the form of Request for Proposals (RFP). A RFP template was distributed to each group to give a guide line of questions for the RFP. The Stakeholders counted off by 3’s and broke into 3 groups of 5 to 6 people. Each group was asked to do a two RFP’s. It is envisioned to take this meeting and the next meeting to achieve this goal. Heidi explained that we needed to put our own prejudices aside to reflect on everyone’s point of view. Questions camp up regarding the window of time that should be looked at. Heidi suggested that each group could decide this and write it in the RFP. Another suggestion was to look at the current elementary children up through their graduation. At 7:45 Heidi stopped the groups and asked them to continue to think of ideas for their RFP over the next two weeks. Everyone was asked to remember which group they were in, so they could be in that same group next time.
Heidi asked George Hall if he would like to tell the group about the Schoolboard meeting that he attended where he gave an update to them about where the Stakeholders are in the process. George explained that he told the Schoolboard about the three areas of focus (Academics, Economics, and Grade Configuration/Alternative Models. The question was asked if the Stakeholders wanted to give another report to the Schoolboard before Town Meeting. It was decided that a subcommittee consisting of Katie Williams Tagai, Marie Royer, and Ann Morse would draft a report and present it to the Stakeholders at the next meeting for approval. If approved, this report would be given to the Schoolboard and then presented at Town Meeting by the Stakeholders.
The school renovation project and time line was discussed. Steve Moffatt said that the Schoolboard was waiting to see if a bank would buy the bond. Rita Davis has a meeting about this and the Schoolboard is hopeful that the bond will be bought.
The next Stakeholder meeting will be on February 4th at 6:30 at the Town Hall. The following meeting has been changed to February 18th, then March 11th.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:10.
Respectfully submitted,
Tina Sweet
Scribe
Friday, January 22, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Approved Minutes from January 7th Stakeholder Meeting
Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration
Stakeholder Meeting #5
January 7, 2010
Craftsbury Town Hall
Attendees: Barbara Alexander, Laurie Courage, Katharine Haddan, George Hall, Cedar Hannan, Anne Hanson, Ann Ingerson, Mary Lou Isaacson, Gayle Kroeger, Brian Machesney, Paula Masse, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborn, Leslie Rowell, Marie Royer, Jen Schoen, Barb Strong, Edward Tagai, Bob Twiss, Kate Williams Tagai, Allison VanAkeren, Abbey Volmer, Jeanine Young, and Joe Young.
Steering Committee: Tina Sweet, Stark Biddle, Steve Moffatt and Perry Thomas.
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
The meeting was called to order by Perry Thomas at approximately 6:35 on January 7, 2010. Minutes from December 3, 2009 were approved, ground rules reviewed, and the agenda introduced.
Heidi Krantz reviewed process. During past meetings Stakeholders identified a set of topics and prioritized them. The first step for this evening’s meeting is to determine which of the top three topics to focus on for scenario creation. The top three were academics, economics, and alternative models (including grade configurations). Those present discussed how to proceed and decided to consider all three topics, starting with academics, as they brainstormed future scenarios.
Verbatim results of the brainstorm are included as an appendix to these minutes.
At the end of the meeting Steve Moffatt described the School Board’s expectations. The Board is supportive of the Collaboration taking as much time as necessary to develop strong recommendations. While a progress report to town meeting would be appreciated, it is not required. If the stakeholder group decides to prepare a progress report, it should be presented to the School Board at their February 9th meeting.
It was suggested that an agenda be circulated ahead of the next Stakeholder Meeting, along with the draft of minutes. Perry Thomas agreed to do so.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stark Biddle and Perry Thomas
Scribes
Stakeholder Meeting #5
January 7, 2010
Craftsbury Town Hall
Attendees: Barbara Alexander, Laurie Courage, Katharine Haddan, George Hall, Cedar Hannan, Anne Hanson, Ann Ingerson, Mary Lou Isaacson, Gayle Kroeger, Brian Machesney, Paula Masse, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborn, Leslie Rowell, Marie Royer, Jen Schoen, Barb Strong, Edward Tagai, Bob Twiss, Kate Williams Tagai, Allison VanAkeren, Abbey Volmer, Jeanine Young, and Joe Young.
Steering Committee: Tina Sweet, Stark Biddle, Steve Moffatt and Perry Thomas.
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
The meeting was called to order by Perry Thomas at approximately 6:35 on January 7, 2010. Minutes from December 3, 2009 were approved, ground rules reviewed, and the agenda introduced.
Heidi Krantz reviewed process. During past meetings Stakeholders identified a set of topics and prioritized them. The first step for this evening’s meeting is to determine which of the top three topics to focus on for scenario creation. The top three were academics, economics, and alternative models (including grade configurations). Those present discussed how to proceed and decided to consider all three topics, starting with academics, as they brainstormed future scenarios.
Verbatim results of the brainstorm are included as an appendix to these minutes.
At the end of the meeting Steve Moffatt described the School Board’s expectations. The Board is supportive of the Collaboration taking as much time as necessary to develop strong recommendations. While a progress report to town meeting would be appreciated, it is not required. If the stakeholder group decides to prepare a progress report, it should be presented to the School Board at their February 9th meeting.
It was suggested that an agenda be circulated ahead of the next Stakeholder Meeting, along with the draft of minutes. Perry Thomas agreed to do so.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stark Biddle and Perry Thomas
Scribes
Appendix to Minutes of January 7th Stakeholder Meeting
Attributes or Characteristics of the Craftsbury School System
(Verbatim notes from Stakeholder meeting Wednesday January 7, 2010)
Academics
Be able to read, write, speak intelligently. Know how to learn to function.
Problem solving.
Love learning by hands on activities - - experience vs rote.
Strong science math for job market.
Feel they are challenged, aim high.
Have high expectations of self.
Theory vs Practice need balance.
Learn practical technical skills (21st century).
Understanding civic duties.
Involvement in community.
Have strong sense of place in Vermont/environment, community.
Promote Phys ed in varied ways.
Math in a setting that is practical.
Fine arts.
Balance of curricula, - arts, creative activities.
Engage teachers w/students and activities.
Use events in community to inspire students to participate w/all students.
All students can have access to all events.
Out of classroom learning.
Involve community volunteers. Good role models and inspiration for students.
Involve older students w/smaller ones.
Exposure to other larger cultural environments.
Good technical opportunities.
Public speaking. Comfort expressing self.
Use technology to expand academics.
Use other experts outside schools.
Focus on individual achievements/learning.
Confident students.
Block schedule.
Environmental literacy.
Globally informed.
Advocacy- team up w/others with similar issues.
Mater teachers w/passion - - know how to teach.
Quality administration.
Accountability top to bottom.
Committed.
Accreditation.
Exposure to greater diversity at higher grade levels.
Alternative Models
Cross grade interaction - - both ways, mutual respect.
Web 2.0 (expanded curriculum through technology.
Individualized approach in small community centers with resources.
Confidence building through cognitive skills w/Sterling college (e.g. Earthwalk Village School in Plainfield.)
Out of Classroom learning.
Block scheduling.
Student exchanges.
Intergenerational respect.
Professional Learning, community. (teacher training).
Privatizatioin.
Attract students from away.
Perhaps offer innovative online courses for students to attend virtually.
Cooperation within Supervisory Union.
Virtual school district (would it be possible to form one?)
Share expert teachers.
Human connections maintained.
Hybrid, balance between face to face and virtual.
Pilot Program.
Move toward greater interaction with neighboring towns.
(within Supervisory Union) thereby increase numbers and creating strengths as well as benefits.
Economics
Attractive facilities.
Quality Leadership.
Accountability.
Strong Staff.
Corporate Sponsorships to develop specific programs e.g. Teton Science School.
Cost does not place under burden on residents.
Cost of Programs affordable.
State and Federal Constraints.
Private School.
Running Public School Like Business.
Feasibility Study.
Feasibility of on-line School District.
Enough students to make it work economically.
Cost and benefits involved with OSSU.
Great teachers.
Exciting Programs.
Quality Leadership and
Staff.
Positive School Environment.
Events Highlighting what Students have accomplished
Access to activities.
Community volunteers/role models- mentors.
Preparation for world outside of Vermont.
Public Speaking.
Math and Science.
Utilize on line lessons.
Individual approach with work and access.
Confidence in our graduates.
Students aware of world events and politics.
Advocacy- one person making difference.
Basics.
Problem solving.
Love of Learning.
Preparation for job market.
Being challenged.
Self motivated.
Book Learning vs hands on.
Practical computer skills.
Civic minded students local and world.
Sense of place in environment.
Non traditional Physical education.
Balanced curriculum.
Feasibility Study.
Good grant writer or two.
Regionalization.
Economical/attractive.
Sufficient student numbers for critical mass.
What would it cost to not be part of Supervisory Union?
What are benefits, cost benefit analysis?
Parking Lot
Bring other models here.
What is hindering using alternative models - - involve locals with alternatives.
Do feasibility study of some alternative models.
Virtual school districts, share teach resources. Share experts.
Cost benefit analysis of supervisory union.
Compare current system to other alternatives.
(Verbatim notes from Stakeholder meeting Wednesday January 7, 2010)
Academics
Be able to read, write, speak intelligently. Know how to learn to function.
Problem solving.
Love learning by hands on activities - - experience vs rote.
Strong science math for job market.
Feel they are challenged, aim high.
Have high expectations of self.
Theory vs Practice need balance.
Learn practical technical skills (21st century).
Understanding civic duties.
Involvement in community.
Have strong sense of place in Vermont/environment, community.
Promote Phys ed in varied ways.
Math in a setting that is practical.
Fine arts.
Balance of curricula, - arts, creative activities.
Engage teachers w/students and activities.
Use events in community to inspire students to participate w/all students.
All students can have access to all events.
Out of classroom learning.
Involve community volunteers. Good role models and inspiration for students.
Involve older students w/smaller ones.
Exposure to other larger cultural environments.
Good technical opportunities.
Public speaking. Comfort expressing self.
Use technology to expand academics.
Use other experts outside schools.
Focus on individual achievements/learning.
Confident students.
Block schedule.
Environmental literacy.
Globally informed.
Advocacy- team up w/others with similar issues.
Mater teachers w/passion - - know how to teach.
Quality administration.
Accountability top to bottom.
Committed.
Accreditation.
Exposure to greater diversity at higher grade levels.
Alternative Models
Cross grade interaction - - both ways, mutual respect.
Web 2.0 (expanded curriculum through technology.
Individualized approach in small community centers with resources.
Confidence building through cognitive skills w/Sterling college (e.g. Earthwalk Village School in Plainfield.)
Out of Classroom learning.
Block scheduling.
Student exchanges.
Intergenerational respect.
Professional Learning, community. (teacher training).
Privatizatioin.
Attract students from away.
Perhaps offer innovative online courses for students to attend virtually.
Cooperation within Supervisory Union.
Virtual school district (would it be possible to form one?)
Share expert teachers.
Human connections maintained.
Hybrid, balance between face to face and virtual.
Pilot Program.
Move toward greater interaction with neighboring towns.
(within Supervisory Union) thereby increase numbers and creating strengths as well as benefits.
Economics
Attractive facilities.
Quality Leadership.
Accountability.
Strong Staff.
Corporate Sponsorships to develop specific programs e.g. Teton Science School.
Cost does not place under burden on residents.
Cost of Programs affordable.
State and Federal Constraints.
Private School.
Running Public School Like Business.
Feasibility Study.
Feasibility of on-line School District.
Enough students to make it work economically.
Cost and benefits involved with OSSU.
Great teachers.
Exciting Programs.
Quality Leadership and
Staff.
Positive School Environment.
Events Highlighting what Students have accomplished
Access to activities.
Community volunteers/role models- mentors.
Preparation for world outside of Vermont.
Public Speaking.
Math and Science.
Utilize on line lessons.
Individual approach with work and access.
Confidence in our graduates.
Students aware of world events and politics.
Advocacy- one person making difference.
Basics.
Problem solving.
Love of Learning.
Preparation for job market.
Being challenged.
Self motivated.
Book Learning vs hands on.
Practical computer skills.
Civic minded students local and world.
Sense of place in environment.
Non traditional Physical education.
Balanced curriculum.
Feasibility Study.
Good grant writer or two.
Regionalization.
Economical/attractive.
Sufficient student numbers for critical mass.
What would it cost to not be part of Supervisory Union?
What are benefits, cost benefit analysis?
Parking Lot
Bring other models here.
What is hindering using alternative models - - involve locals with alternatives.
Do feasibility study of some alternative models.
Virtual school districts, share teach resources. Share experts.
Cost benefit analysis of supervisory union.
Compare current system to other alternatives.
Approved Minutes from December 3rd Stakeholder Meeting
Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration
Stakeholder Meeting #4
December 3, 2009
6:32 p.m. at the Elementary School fourth grade classroom
Attendees: Barbara Alexander, Richard Alexander, Louise Calderwood, Laurie Courage, John Dunbar, Bob Griffith, George Hall, Cedar Hannan, Anne Hanson, Gayle Kroeger, Heather Masse, Paula Masse, Doug McCarty, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborn, Leslie Rowell, Marie Royer, Jen Schoen, Eward Tagai, Ben Thurber, Bob Twiss, Kate Williams Tagai, Kent Young and Joe Young.
Steering Committee: Harry Miller, Annie Volmer, Susan Houston, Tina Sweet, Stark Biddle and Perry Thomas.
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
Guests: Chris Young, June Cook (Hardwick Gazette).
The meeting was called to order by Heidi Krantz, facilitator at approximately 6:32 on December 3, 2009. Heidi gave an overview of past process to new attendees. Tonight we will tour the elementary school, middle school, high school and the industrial arts building to try to answer facts about the physical plant and facilities as they currently stand. It is important to know how things stand currently in order to try to figure out where we want to go. Some stakeholders have not had the opportunity to tour various parts of our school. It was stressed by Heidi that tonight is not the time to discuss information; it is to ask factual questions about the facilities.
Annie Volmer, chair of the Steering Committee, asked for approval for the minutes of the November 19, 2009 meeting. Joe Young made a motion to approve the minutes as presented for the November 19, 2009 meeting, Marie Royer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Annie explained that there will be hand outs for everyone after all the tours are done. This hand outs include pie charts that have been compiled base on the “sticky notes” that have been done at previous meetings. Another hand out has questions raised at the last meeting. Mr. Young has answered some of these questions.
Before the tour began, Annie explained that the Steering Committee had chosen Chris Young and Harry Miller to lead the tours as they are most knowledgeable about the facilities. Everyone had an opportunity to go in all rooms of the Elementary School (including the basement) and ask questions to Harry and Chris. Various questions were asked about the age of the building and current state of code compliancy. The tour was continued at the High School. We started at the Industrial Arts Building. This building has industrial arts classes, digital arts classes and art classes. The tour continued on to Minden Hall. This building primarily serves grades 5-8 although some high school classes are held here, for example senior high science labs. This building construction was finished in 1988. The tour then went to the Annex Building. Stakeholders toured the classrooms and bathrooms. The tour continued on to the Academy Building. Stakeholders had the opportunity to explore classrooms, the music room, kitchen, and stage/ gym areas. The tour ended in the common room. At this time any other questions about the facility were addressed. Harry then gave an overview of the future improvements to the Academy Building funded by the bond vote. Questions were answered about handicapped accessibility and energy efficiency. Perry explained that the pie graphs that were done, were compiled from past stakeholder meetings. Everyone was given hand outs of the pie graphs, School Energy Management Program Site Assessment Report for the Craftsbury Schools done by the Vermont Superintendents Association, and the questions generated at the last Stakeholder’s meeting. Stakeholders are asked to review all the information in preparation for the next Stakeholder’s meeting in January.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30.
Tina Sweet
Scribe
Stakeholder Meeting #4
December 3, 2009
6:32 p.m. at the Elementary School fourth grade classroom
Attendees: Barbara Alexander, Richard Alexander, Louise Calderwood, Laurie Courage, John Dunbar, Bob Griffith, George Hall, Cedar Hannan, Anne Hanson, Gayle Kroeger, Heather Masse, Paula Masse, Doug McCarty, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborn, Leslie Rowell, Marie Royer, Jen Schoen, Eward Tagai, Ben Thurber, Bob Twiss, Kate Williams Tagai, Kent Young and Joe Young.
Steering Committee: Harry Miller, Annie Volmer, Susan Houston, Tina Sweet, Stark Biddle and Perry Thomas.
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
Guests: Chris Young, June Cook (Hardwick Gazette).
The meeting was called to order by Heidi Krantz, facilitator at approximately 6:32 on December 3, 2009. Heidi gave an overview of past process to new attendees. Tonight we will tour the elementary school, middle school, high school and the industrial arts building to try to answer facts about the physical plant and facilities as they currently stand. It is important to know how things stand currently in order to try to figure out where we want to go. Some stakeholders have not had the opportunity to tour various parts of our school. It was stressed by Heidi that tonight is not the time to discuss information; it is to ask factual questions about the facilities.
Annie Volmer, chair of the Steering Committee, asked for approval for the minutes of the November 19, 2009 meeting. Joe Young made a motion to approve the minutes as presented for the November 19, 2009 meeting, Marie Royer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Annie explained that there will be hand outs for everyone after all the tours are done. This hand outs include pie charts that have been compiled base on the “sticky notes” that have been done at previous meetings. Another hand out has questions raised at the last meeting. Mr. Young has answered some of these questions.
Before the tour began, Annie explained that the Steering Committee had chosen Chris Young and Harry Miller to lead the tours as they are most knowledgeable about the facilities. Everyone had an opportunity to go in all rooms of the Elementary School (including the basement) and ask questions to Harry and Chris. Various questions were asked about the age of the building and current state of code compliancy. The tour was continued at the High School. We started at the Industrial Arts Building. This building has industrial arts classes, digital arts classes and art classes. The tour continued on to Minden Hall. This building primarily serves grades 5-8 although some high school classes are held here, for example senior high science labs. This building construction was finished in 1988. The tour then went to the Annex Building. Stakeholders toured the classrooms and bathrooms. The tour continued on to the Academy Building. Stakeholders had the opportunity to explore classrooms, the music room, kitchen, and stage/ gym areas. The tour ended in the common room. At this time any other questions about the facility were addressed. Harry then gave an overview of the future improvements to the Academy Building funded by the bond vote. Questions were answered about handicapped accessibility and energy efficiency. Perry explained that the pie graphs that were done, were compiled from past stakeholder meetings. Everyone was given hand outs of the pie graphs, School Energy Management Program Site Assessment Report for the Craftsbury Schools done by the Vermont Superintendents Association, and the questions generated at the last Stakeholder’s meeting. Stakeholders are asked to review all the information in preparation for the next Stakeholder’s meeting in January.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30.
Tina Sweet
Scribe
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)