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/masteryhonest 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.

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.