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
