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.
Friday, May 28, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)