Craftsbury Community School Collaborative
Summary of Major Points of Discussion
Stakeholder Meeting
Thursday, November 4
Participants:
Stakeholders: Elinor Osborne, Jenn Schoen, Joe Young, Bob Twiss, George Hall, Brian Machesney, John Zaber.
Steering Committee: Anne Morse, Steve Moffat, Stark Biddle, Susan Houston, Suzanne Griffiths
Discussion Leader: Heidi Krantz
Discussion
Anne Morse opened the meeting and presented a tentative agenda. As background the Group reviewed a summary of the principal parts of the Report that Anne had prepared. This summary is posted below.
Anne summarized the key components of Act 153 based in part on a conversation with Jo Anne Canning.
Heidi asked participants to indicate whether and to what degree they would like to continue with the process. In general, participants were reluctant to commit extensive time and energy without a clear mandate and a statement of role and function from the School Board. There was some concern that the Phase I study had not been adequately acknowleged by the School Board.
The Group discussed a variety of questions regarding the legislation, the time frame, the role of the Collaborative and how best to proceed in this uncertain atmosphere. The following points/questions surfaced:
With respect to the assessment of different merger options, is the Town limited to working within the current OSSU structure?
Does the template apply to Phase I or Phase II?
Who will hire the consultant? Will the Town have a role or veto power in the selection? How will costs be allocated and how much does each
Town get? If the Craftsbury School District wanted to study a scenario outside of OSSU, would there be funding available, and up to how much?
In general, what leverage does the Town have on the study process, the model that will be chosen and the Towns to work with. Can Craftsbury study a unique scenario?
To what extent will the study process reflect the qualitative themes discussed in the Phase I Report such as the value of a thematic curriculum?
How will the School Board incorporate the Phase I work of the Collaborative in the design of the strategy/model that it will pursue with the Committee established at the OSSU level.
It would make most sense to figure out an optimal model before we begin to discuss options with other Towns to make sure the Towns we want to collaborate with are at the table. How can this be done?
Summary/Conclusions
If the work of the Collaborative is to continue all agreed it was essential to expand Stakeholder membership and perhaps the size of the Steering Committee.
It is essential for the Collaborative (or whatever structure is adopted) to have a clear goal and mandate.
There was broad agreement that the Collaborative in one form or another could be of considerable benefit to the study process and to the building of constituent support in the Town. There was consensus that the work done in Phase I was directly relevant to the issues that the School Board and Town will be dealing with in responding to Act 153. There are many alternative roles the Collaborative can play but until these are clarified and codified it was difficult to proceed.
The Group adopted the following approach:
1. We should not reconvene the Collaborative until we have the School Board response to the Phase I Study and until the next step(s) in the Phase I school merger study have become more clear. Until these questions are answered (at least in part), there’s not much we can do as a group.
2. However, the Steering Committee should prepare and send a letter to the School Board that would:
a. Ask for clarification with regard to role and function of the Collaborative.
b. Emphasize the importance of clear goals.
c. Outline areas where the Collaborative or something like it could be effective in assisting the School Board and the Town.
d. Establish January 6 as a tentative date for the next meeting.
e. State that we would like to see the school board pursuing conversations with other towns outside of the phase I OSSU study
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Excerots from Phase I Report
Excerpts from the CSCC Phase I Report of July, 2010
Prepared for November 4, 2010 Stakeholder Meeting by Anne Morse
Mission/Vision
Stakeholders brainstormed the following elements of a new Craftsbury mission/vision:
1) Accountability for teachers, students, parents, and community (four legs)
2) Students challenged and expected to learn in a positive environment
3) Students expected to learn how to learn
4) Atmosphere of integrity and inspiration across the school creates citizens for the future
5) School grounded in our community, uses community as classroom and place-based education
6) For every privilege there is a responsibility
7) Financially sound school with enough students to sustain a healthy environment
8) Student honest feedbackconfidence can come from real achievement/mastery
These brainstormed elements inspired the following statement.
“The CSCC envisions a school where students will be challenged to become citizens of the future in an atmosphere of integrity, inspiration, and accountability, supported by teachers, parents, and community members.”
Indicators
How will we know when changes are successful? Any one of the three models described below would be considered successful if it resulted in the following:
1) Students engaged and happy to go to school
2) Reduced costs, saved money
3) Attracted students from away
4) Involved community
5) Success of students in—and admission to—post secondary schools
6) Periodic comprehensive evaluation
7) Positive school climate
8) Success in jobs
9) Teaching for learning, not teaching to the test (as long as there are objective measures)
10) Using Grade Expectations for Vermont’s Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities as curriculum guidelines
11) Students valuing the community
12) Staff stability (retain good teachers)
13) High quality staff
14) Opportunities to engage in sports programs
15) Talented, inspiring, knowledgeable teachers
16) Positive learning environment (kids want to learn)
17) Motivated teachers and students
What it will take to move ahead
We believe that all of us, including school staff, the School Board and leaders in the community must be vigorously proactive in charting our future. The pressures for change are immense and the imposition of external models and solutions are inevitable unless we take the initiative to create our own future. Indeed, change is inevitable and the community of Craftsbury must take responsibility for managing that process. In planning for the future it is critically important to develop long-range financial scenarios that can test the financial viability of alternative models. Year to year budget forecasting is not reliable enough and may lead to decisions that are not financially viable.
Recommendations
Stakeholders anticipate a second phase of the CSCC process will entail rigorous research related to one or more of the alternative models identified:
1) Keep K – 6 or K- 8 in Craftsbury and tuition out students to nearby schools. The resulting K – 6 or K – 8 school would be characterized by a mission-focused, interdisciplinary curriculum; small classes taught by motivated, knowledgeable teachers; and renewed emphasis on thematics.
2) Keep K – 12 in Craftsbury. Design and establish a mission-driven public school that would attract students from other communities.
a) With gradual improvements: Mission driven, creative curriculum; attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable, licensed teachers; continue and expand use of local resources, such as collaborations with Sterling and the Outdoor Center.
b) With thematic emphasis: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers; local collaborations with Sterling, Outdoor Center, and other resources.
3) Independent, whether K – 6, K – 8, or K - 12: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers (not necessarily licensed); town academy model; local collaborations possible with Sterling College, the Outdoor Center, and other resources.
Specific Research Needs
Specific research needs to include some or all of the following:
1) Determine definitive costs of our schools compared to other small schools, solidify those numbers.
2) Obtain accurate estimates of expected enrollment.
3) Check past projections that school has predicted, say 20 years back or more, and see if predictions materialized.
4) Determine whether it is possible to have an interim situation while issues such as enrollment are addressed.
5) Since attracting students is critical, would it be possible to develop a cooperative agreement within the supervisory union so that any student from other towns who want to attend Craftsbury schools would be free to do so?
6) Consider whether the “Hardwick effect” exists: can we anticipate increased local numbers despite state and nationwide student downturns.
7) Carefully weigh pros and cons of district consolidation, including any possible alternatives
8) Talk with new superintendent to determine what her vision is and if a new Craftsbury vision would be accepted.
9) Determine the full capacity of Craftsbury schools.
10) Use the newly developed spreadsheets to compare 7-12 vs. 9-12 costs. See Appendix C for examples.
Next Steps
The next phase of the collaborative process is follow-through. It is important that recommendations be carefully considered by the School Board and that an open dialog with Stakeholders follows. It is understood that the School Board will ultimately decide to accept, reject, or modify some or all recommendations. CSCC participants can provide explanation and insight to aid in these decisions.
• July 2010: Present recommendations to the School Board at a joint meeting.
• Fall 2010 (hopefully): Response from School Board.
• Next steps should include:
o CSCC Phase II works to modify/refine some or all recommendations.
o Formation of a School Board appointed collaborative task force (Stakeholders and experts) to further research some or all recommendations.
o Formalize a committee of Stakeholders and School Board members to modify/refine/research some or all recommendations.
Prepared for November 4, 2010 Stakeholder Meeting by Anne Morse
Mission/Vision
Stakeholders brainstormed the following elements of a new Craftsbury mission/vision:
1) Accountability for teachers, students, parents, and community (four legs)
2) Students challenged and expected to learn in a positive environment
3) Students expected to learn how to learn
4) Atmosphere of integrity and inspiration across the school creates citizens for the future
5) School grounded in our community, uses community as classroom and place-based education
6) For every privilege there is a responsibility
7) Financially sound school with enough students to sustain a healthy environment
8) Student honest feedbackconfidence can come from real achievement/mastery
These brainstormed elements inspired the following statement.
“The CSCC envisions a school where students will be challenged to become citizens of the future in an atmosphere of integrity, inspiration, and accountability, supported by teachers, parents, and community members.”
Indicators
How will we know when changes are successful? Any one of the three models described below would be considered successful if it resulted in the following:
1) Students engaged and happy to go to school
2) Reduced costs, saved money
3) Attracted students from away
4) Involved community
5) Success of students in—and admission to—post secondary schools
6) Periodic comprehensive evaluation
7) Positive school climate
8) Success in jobs
9) Teaching for learning, not teaching to the test (as long as there are objective measures)
10) Using Grade Expectations for Vermont’s Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities as curriculum guidelines
11) Students valuing the community
12) Staff stability (retain good teachers)
13) High quality staff
14) Opportunities to engage in sports programs
15) Talented, inspiring, knowledgeable teachers
16) Positive learning environment (kids want to learn)
17) Motivated teachers and students
What it will take to move ahead
We believe that all of us, including school staff, the School Board and leaders in the community must be vigorously proactive in charting our future. The pressures for change are immense and the imposition of external models and solutions are inevitable unless we take the initiative to create our own future. Indeed, change is inevitable and the community of Craftsbury must take responsibility for managing that process. In planning for the future it is critically important to develop long-range financial scenarios that can test the financial viability of alternative models. Year to year budget forecasting is not reliable enough and may lead to decisions that are not financially viable.
Recommendations
Stakeholders anticipate a second phase of the CSCC process will entail rigorous research related to one or more of the alternative models identified:
1) Keep K – 6 or K- 8 in Craftsbury and tuition out students to nearby schools. The resulting K – 6 or K – 8 school would be characterized by a mission-focused, interdisciplinary curriculum; small classes taught by motivated, knowledgeable teachers; and renewed emphasis on thematics.
2) Keep K – 12 in Craftsbury. Design and establish a mission-driven public school that would attract students from other communities.
a) With gradual improvements: Mission driven, creative curriculum; attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable, licensed teachers; continue and expand use of local resources, such as collaborations with Sterling and the Outdoor Center.
b) With thematic emphasis: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers; local collaborations with Sterling, Outdoor Center, and other resources.
3) Independent, whether K – 6, K – 8, or K - 12: Mission driven; creative curriculum (focused on something like sustainability); attract motivated, talented, knowledgeable teachers (not necessarily licensed); town academy model; local collaborations possible with Sterling College, the Outdoor Center, and other resources.
Specific Research Needs
Specific research needs to include some or all of the following:
1) Determine definitive costs of our schools compared to other small schools, solidify those numbers.
2) Obtain accurate estimates of expected enrollment.
3) Check past projections that school has predicted, say 20 years back or more, and see if predictions materialized.
4) Determine whether it is possible to have an interim situation while issues such as enrollment are addressed.
5) Since attracting students is critical, would it be possible to develop a cooperative agreement within the supervisory union so that any student from other towns who want to attend Craftsbury schools would be free to do so?
6) Consider whether the “Hardwick effect” exists: can we anticipate increased local numbers despite state and nationwide student downturns.
7) Carefully weigh pros and cons of district consolidation, including any possible alternatives
8) Talk with new superintendent to determine what her vision is and if a new Craftsbury vision would be accepted.
9) Determine the full capacity of Craftsbury schools.
10) Use the newly developed spreadsheets to compare 7-12 vs. 9-12 costs. See Appendix C for examples.
Next Steps
The next phase of the collaborative process is follow-through. It is important that recommendations be carefully considered by the School Board and that an open dialog with Stakeholders follows. It is understood that the School Board will ultimately decide to accept, reject, or modify some or all recommendations. CSCC participants can provide explanation and insight to aid in these decisions.
• July 2010: Present recommendations to the School Board at a joint meeting.
• Fall 2010 (hopefully): Response from School Board.
• Next steps should include:
o CSCC Phase II works to modify/refine some or all recommendations.
o Formation of a School Board appointed collaborative task force (Stakeholders and experts) to further research some or all recommendations.
o Formalize a committee of Stakeholders and School Board members to modify/refine/research some or all recommendations.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Information Session
DRAFT Summary of Major Points of Discussion
Stakeholder Meeting
Thursday, October 28
Speaker: Rep. Peter Peltz, primary author of Act 153, An act relating to voluntary school district merger.
Note: The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the content and implications of Act 153 which is designed to encourage school consolidation. These minutes highlight major points that were made during the discussion. They do not constitute a comprehensive summary of the legislation and may not accurately record the process outlined in the Act. All are encouraged to read the bill itself and to review the format for preparing the study of merger options.
These documents can be found at:
The Act itself: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/Acts/ACT153.pdf
The Study template: http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/mainlaws.html
Background and Business. Heid Krantz introduced Anne Morse who has assumed responsibilities for chairing the Steering Committee. Anne briefly summarized the history of the collaborative, and current thinking regarding next steps. Harry Miller noted that the School Board has not re-established the Collaborative and that this matter is under consideration but that at this point we can assume re-appointment.
Anne noted that the Collaborative will meet again on November 4 at 6:30 at the Town Hall to further discuss the merger legislation and implications for Craftsbury.
Peter Peltz was introduced. He made several opening comments and then took questions. The following key points emerged.
Opening Comments and Discussion:
1. In the years ahead, school closures are inevitable. Fixed costs are not sustainable, student population appears to be on the decline and small schools lack resources needed to prepare students for the 21st century. (These themes were discussed in the Report to the Craftsbury School Board.)
2. Act 153 is designed to lead to savings, efficiencies and a qualitative improvement in education. Support for the bill was bi-partisan.
3. The legislation contains financial incentives to encourage merger. However it is difficult at this stage to determine their exact value to participating towns.
4. The legislation envisions a bottom up approach designed to respect local decision making. It is hoped that this approach will be more effective than top-down mandatory pressure to consolidate. (Vermont has 280 School Districts. In the last 100 years there have been numerous attempts to consolidate and they have failed because they are viewed as “top down”.)
5. Under the legislation, the new Regional Education Districts (REDs) will be unified School District under a single governing Board. They will comprise a boundary based on the boundaries of participating towns. Participating towns will have the same school tax rate.
6. Under 153, all grades (K-12) can be considered for possible merger
7. The pros and cons of merger will be addressed in a Study that will be reviewed by the Department of Education. Ultimate merger will require Town approval and Departmental approval.
8. The Supervisory Union will be responsible for preparing the Study. Those towns that are members of their Supervisory Union will work together to develop the Study.
9. The Orleans Supervisory Union has already decided to proceed with the optional study phase outlined in Act 153. This decision was supported by the Craftsbury Academy School Board. The Study itself will follow the format outlined in a template prepared the Department of Education. (See reference above) Up to $20,00 will be available to hire consulting services to assist with the research.
10. There are a variety of questions regarding the location of authority for conducting the Merger Study. These include:
i. Who chooses the consultant?
ii. Who does the consultant work for?
iii. Who determines the options to be studied?
iv. Who has ultimate authority when Towns within the Supervisory Union may disagree regarding the configuration of the merger proposal?
11. The Study must show cost savings and demonstrate a qualitative improvement in education in order to be approved.
12. The study phase will involve a group process of negotiation. The Towns with the strongest, most creative and most convincing models and approach will be the most successful.
13. The Study process is likely to be competitive. Towns with a clear and strong vision and strategy are more likely to be successful in reaching an outcome that suits their desires and needs. The School Board will need to determine the “Rules of Engagement” when negotiating with other Towns.
14. With respect to transportation issues, this matter will be up to participating Towns to address during the study process
15. The future of School Choice is not clear at this time.
16. Concluding observations:
i. It is critically important that the Town develop a viable and attractive proposal that reflects the needs and desires of citizens.
ii. It is likely that the Study process will be competitive. Creative and cost effective models that demonstrate savings and enhanced educational quality are likely to be successful.
iii. The Collaborative has a potentially important role in:
1. Evaluating pros and cons of different models;
2. Educating citizens.
3. Building consensus in support of a particular approach.;
4. Demonstrating community support and building an active constituency for a particular strategy.
Stakeholder Meeting
Thursday, October 28
Speaker: Rep. Peter Peltz, primary author of Act 153, An act relating to voluntary school district merger.
Note: The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the content and implications of Act 153 which is designed to encourage school consolidation. These minutes highlight major points that were made during the discussion. They do not constitute a comprehensive summary of the legislation and may not accurately record the process outlined in the Act. All are encouraged to read the bill itself and to review the format for preparing the study of merger options.
These documents can be found at:
The Act itself: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/Acts/ACT153.pdf
The Study template: http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/mainlaws.html
Background and Business. Heid Krantz introduced Anne Morse who has assumed responsibilities for chairing the Steering Committee. Anne briefly summarized the history of the collaborative, and current thinking regarding next steps. Harry Miller noted that the School Board has not re-established the Collaborative and that this matter is under consideration but that at this point we can assume re-appointment.
Anne noted that the Collaborative will meet again on November 4 at 6:30 at the Town Hall to further discuss the merger legislation and implications for Craftsbury.
Peter Peltz was introduced. He made several opening comments and then took questions. The following key points emerged.
Opening Comments and Discussion:
1. In the years ahead, school closures are inevitable. Fixed costs are not sustainable, student population appears to be on the decline and small schools lack resources needed to prepare students for the 21st century. (These themes were discussed in the Report to the Craftsbury School Board.)
2. Act 153 is designed to lead to savings, efficiencies and a qualitative improvement in education. Support for the bill was bi-partisan.
3. The legislation contains financial incentives to encourage merger. However it is difficult at this stage to determine their exact value to participating towns.
4. The legislation envisions a bottom up approach designed to respect local decision making. It is hoped that this approach will be more effective than top-down mandatory pressure to consolidate. (Vermont has 280 School Districts. In the last 100 years there have been numerous attempts to consolidate and they have failed because they are viewed as “top down”.)
5. Under the legislation, the new Regional Education Districts (REDs) will be unified School District under a single governing Board. They will comprise a boundary based on the boundaries of participating towns. Participating towns will have the same school tax rate.
6. Under 153, all grades (K-12) can be considered for possible merger
7. The pros and cons of merger will be addressed in a Study that will be reviewed by the Department of Education. Ultimate merger will require Town approval and Departmental approval.
8. The Supervisory Union will be responsible for preparing the Study. Those towns that are members of their Supervisory Union will work together to develop the Study.
9. The Orleans Supervisory Union has already decided to proceed with the optional study phase outlined in Act 153. This decision was supported by the Craftsbury Academy School Board. The Study itself will follow the format outlined in a template prepared the Department of Education. (See reference above) Up to $20,00 will be available to hire consulting services to assist with the research.
10. There are a variety of questions regarding the location of authority for conducting the Merger Study. These include:
i. Who chooses the consultant?
ii. Who does the consultant work for?
iii. Who determines the options to be studied?
iv. Who has ultimate authority when Towns within the Supervisory Union may disagree regarding the configuration of the merger proposal?
11. The Study must show cost savings and demonstrate a qualitative improvement in education in order to be approved.
12. The study phase will involve a group process of negotiation. The Towns with the strongest, most creative and most convincing models and approach will be the most successful.
13. The Study process is likely to be competitive. Towns with a clear and strong vision and strategy are more likely to be successful in reaching an outcome that suits their desires and needs. The School Board will need to determine the “Rules of Engagement” when negotiating with other Towns.
14. With respect to transportation issues, this matter will be up to participating Towns to address during the study process
15. The future of School Choice is not clear at this time.
16. Concluding observations:
i. It is critically important that the Town develop a viable and attractive proposal that reflects the needs and desires of citizens.
ii. It is likely that the Study process will be competitive. Creative and cost effective models that demonstrate savings and enhanced educational quality are likely to be successful.
iii. The Collaborative has a potentially important role in:
1. Evaluating pros and cons of different models;
2. Educating citizens.
3. Building consensus in support of a particular approach.;
4. Demonstrating community support and building an active constituency for a particular strategy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)