Craftsbury Collaborative Process

Merger Study Committee

2011-10-17T06:45:00.000-07:00

Voluntary Merger Study Committee meetings are on the fourth Tuesday of the month from 5-6:45 at the OSSU office in Hardwick, across the river from the Buffalo Mountain Coop Food Store. Observers are welcome. Craftsbury's representatives to the Committee are Anne Morse and Jen Lescouzec. Below are notes from Anne Morse's recent report to the Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration.

Voluntary School Merger Study Committee SUMMARY
October 11, 2011

Act 153: provides for voluntary mergers of school governance. The idea is to merge school boards in order to improve economies of scale, promote sharing of resources, reduce school board turnover, and increase educational opportunities.

Regional Educational District (RED): this is what the merged school system would be called. OSSU school boards have all voted to study what merged school governance within OSSU would look like. This is an administrative merger; it means that instead of each town having its own school board, there would be one school board with representation from each town. It does not require or rely upon any school closures.

Some Frequently Asked Questions about REDs: Incentives- within the RED, equalized homestead property tax rates will be decreased by $.08 in the first year following the merger and by smaller amounts in the subsequent three years. School Closure- Within the first four years a RED cannot close a school without the voters in the town in which the school is located voting to do so. A RED can create a process for how a school could be closed after those first four years. In other words we would write the rules for how a school might be closed in the future, so we could ensure a democratic process. School Board Composition in a RED- with our four towns, we would have a maximum of 18 board members; with numbers proportional to each town’s population.

Voluntary School Merger Study Committee: this is a committee that has been constituted within OSSU to study the possible creation of a RED. The towns that are essential to the creation of this RED are Hardwick, Craftsbury, Greensboro and Woodbury. The towns that have “advisory” status are Stannard and Wolcott; these towns may choose to join this RED but the RED can proceed without them if they don’t want to be included.
Composition of Committee: The Committee is composed of two representatives from each town, with one representative being a School Board member and the second being a community member. Craftsbury representatives are Jen Lescouzec of the Craftsbury School Board and Anne Morse, community member. JoAn Canning, OSSU Superintendant, also meets with and supports the committee.
Consulting: David Ford serves as a consultant to the Committee, funding provided by Vermont School Boards Association.
Timeline: The Committee meets once a month and anticipates completing a report by February 2013. This report goes to the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education. Each town will review the findings of the Committee in March of 2013, and vote whether or not to form a RED in April 2013.

Public Engagement: It’s important that all the communities involved be apprised of what the process is and have opportunities to provide input and ask questions. When this finally comes to a vote, we don’t want anyone to be surprised about what we’re voting on. It’s important that concerns and questions, ideas and visions held by Craftsbury community members be communicated to Anne or Jen so we can bring these to our Committee.
Process: We have a Draft Report by David Ford that identifies potential benefits and challenges associated with creating a RED. We also have a template that will walk us through the process of creating a hypothetical RED. In each meeting we will be discussing one or more of the challenges or benefits identified in the Draft Report, and discussing one or more sections of the template. In doing so we will begin to co-create a vision for how a RED might best serve our communities.

How the CSCC can be involved in this process: It is really important that the community stay involved. Some people may just want periodic updates and a chance to express views and ask questions. Others may want to dig into the details and provide more in-depth feedback. Your input here will help us to construct a process for maintaining open communication between CSCC and the Study Committee. Please respond to the following questions and bring your responses to the November meeting.

1. What level of involvement would you like with the Study Committee process?
Circle one or more: Monthly meetings to work in a subcommittee

Monthly meetings to hear updates and have question and answer

Meeting every two months or so for updates & question & answer

Would like to receive written summaries by e-mail

Don’t want to be involved at this time

Comments or other ways you’d like to be involved:

2. What are your questions about this process so far?

Please bring your responses to the next meeting of the Collaborative (November 3rd, 6:30 p.m., at the Craftsbury Town Hall) or e-mail them (csccsteeringcommittee@gmail.com).

Stakeholder Meeting - November 4, 2010

2010-11-16T06:23:00.000-08:00

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

Excerots from Phase I Report

2010-11-16T06:22:00.000-08:00

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 feedbackconfidence 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.

Information Session

2010-11-02T14:56:00.000-07:00

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.

Phase I Report to Craftsbury School Board

2010-07-19T06:18:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-05T08:23:00.000-07:00

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.

Comparative Costs

2010-06-12T06:27:00.000-07:00

Ann Ingerson updated her spreadsheet to include an independent school option. The result is available here. This spreadsheet is designed to support a comparative cost analysis for the different possible models to be included in recommendations to the School Board. Ann cautions us that it is still a work in progress. She looks forward to refining inputs further, thereby improving the accuracy of predictions.

Brainstormed Comments from May 20th

2010-06-08T18:06:00.000-07:00

Stakeholders May 20 Meeting
Clip Board Notes

• Needs of students is priority not needs of community.

• Collaborative process may not represent/include all voices. How to assess this? Survey.

• Are we fully utilizing the resources of our community?

• Tuitioning isn’t clear answer.

• Large % of residents feel that supporting k-12 is too expensive.

• Investigate source of tuition students near and far.

• Get our report out to community to see if they can agree.

• The issue is complex.

• The Academy can’t continue as it is now!

• Consolidation may not be best for us.

• We need to merge or we will have to pay others to merge.

• Magnet and choice vouchers schools may not be best - segregation, achievement.

• Close Academy and open as an independent school.

• We must change direction.

• Academic options enhanced while providing savings to Craftsbury if 7-12 attend Hazen (Ann’s tool).

• Can’t continue unless something changes.

• We know Hazen can take our students.

• In order to keep the HS academically and economically we need to be creative.

• Can’t sustain high costs.

• We need 120 students.

• Teachers need to be accountable.

• We need to attract tuition students.

• Is quality what we want or do we want something better?

• “Flight” – core issue for diversity in our schools.

• Need to take what panelists say from the perspective of who they are and their agendas.

• CA has been considered a fine school in the past.

• A small school can be “fine” with quality leadership.

• Need to examine teacher hiring practice to keep teachers accountable.

• Small schools are good. But what is too small?

• Small Schools are vulnerable.

• Kids need to work together in small groups.

• Great movement toward sustainability will influence.

• Sterling is receptive to working with Academy.

• We may have opportunity to bring back students from Wolcott/Stannard.

• We have a wonderful opportunity here.

• Can we measure cost factors of an independent school?

• State re-districting (REDs) may render our recommendations moot. Pressure from State.

• Craftsbury courses similar to other area schools.

• Be proactive.

• CA NECAPs comparable to area schools.

• If we are independent school are we subject to the new RED merger rules.

• Would other towns join us in a RED if we had a unique place and curriculum?

• How do we present ourselves to teachers looking for a job?

• Everyone does RED no cost savings.

• What would it cost to make our faculty what it needs to be?

• If we designate what are the facilities like at that school?

• REDs, looks like it removes local control.

• Small schools close the socio-economic achievement gap.

• Can teachers afford to live here?

• With our low teacher student ratio we should aim for higher NECAP scores.

• Important to consider factors such as post oil, quality of life, Vermont attracting more population etc when looking into the future.

• We need to attract really diverse teachers, maybe we can w/good press for creative solutions

• Our entire economy may change as we run out of oil need to consider the value of “local”.

• Look at model of sustainability Academy

• Consider teacher job loss.

Stakeholder Minutes from May 20th

2010-05-28T13:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Stakeholder Minutes from May 6, 2010

2010-05-17T18:51:00.000-07:00

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.

Stakeholder Report on Virtual High School

2010-05-04T05:55:00.000-07:00

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.

Stakeholder Report on High School/College Partnerships

2010-05-04T05:50:00.000-07:00

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

Stakeholder Meeting April 29th

2010-05-02T05:12:00.000-07:00

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

Minutes from April 8, 2010

2010-04-26T13:26:00.000-07:00

DRAFT (to be approved April 29th)

*Present: 12 Stakeholders, 4 Steering Committee
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
As planned, individual groups gave presentations. Please note that large amounts of data, charts, etc were quoted. This scribe did not record all. Individual presenters may offer copies of data online or at subsequent meetings.
*Presentations:
Group 1…Tuition Comparisons
Jeanine Young presented tuition comparisons of grades 7-12 in over 20 area schools. This is what schools charge, not necessarily what it costs per student. She noted that if Craftsbury students are tuitioned out we have no control over the tuition numbers and the numbers seem to fluctuate regularly. Hazen is probably the only school that would provide transportation.
George Hall looked at Craftsbury student numbers and projected future numbers. He also commented on how budget is divided between the Academy and Elementary school, cost per student in Academy and Elementary and which costs are constant regardless.
Ann Ingerson volunteered sharing a spread sheet she has created next time that helps untangle and understand assumptions, results, and related costs. She reminded group that a number of grants come into the schools which alter costs and also looked at the census which indicates a stable population.
Kent Young spoke with Rita Davis. Some service costs will increase yet he feels there could be financial savings if we tuition out older students.
Group 2…Transportation
Elinor Osborn spoke with Wildcat busing. The use of three buses currently costs Craftsbury $105,000 annually. If students are transported from the Academy to Hazen for instance, the route would have to start earlier and thus elem. kids would be dropped off earlier so Academy kids could get to Hazen on time.Thus Elem. Kids would be at school longer and supervision would be needed. Wolcott Elem kids have longer day due to this situation. If Craftsbury goes to tuition out with school choice, we have no cost control. People wondered about other transport ideas-van pool, ride shares, etd.
Group 3…Consolidation on One Campus
Kent Young looked at building and space issues if K-6 moved to the Common. He went over current rooms in Minden and also potential Academy renovation ideas. As to overall costs for just K-6, Kent felt, since some costs are fixed, that we would have no financial savings.
*Following these presentations Heidi opened a discussion on where this group wants to go with the process. The stakeholder numbers are dwindling, summer is coming, people may be ready to end or have a break. Some people requested to take a summer break, then continue in fall; some would like to meet weekly now and wrap up; some felt we were just in the middle so we need to carry on. The group voted for now to continue to June17.
*Gayle would like the group to write down 3-5 top points gleaned from the two panel discussions. We have a panel planned May 20 and more may be organized.
The next meeting is April 29 (Please note we are not meeting during the school break.)
At the April 29 meeting Group 4 (Comparisons of academic offerings) and Group 5 (Alternative Models) will present. Ann Ingerson will also share her “assumptions & results” spread sheet.

Respectfully submitted by Susan Houston, scribe

Minutes of March 25th Stakeholder Meeting

2010-03-29T05:45:00.000-07:00

Facilitator: Heidi Krantz

1. Anne Volmer called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. She introduced the panelists for the evening: Eric Oberg Chair of the Albany School Board, Noel Ford, School administrator and teacher and Tom Levett, headmaster at St. Johnsbury Academy.

2. Panel Presentation: Each panelist responded to a series of questions. In general the questions dealt with the pros and cons of tuitioning in of students and the pros and cons of considering alternative educational models. (Note the following is intended as a brief overview of key points. It is not comprehensive or a verbatim transcript. Important points may have been left out or stated in a way that differs from intent.)

Tom Lovett, Principal St. Johnsbury Academy

Mr. Lovett described the programs at the Academy and efforts made to facilitate and support students who tuition in from a distance. He mentioned the importance of a student advisor, equal access to services and programs for all students, the value of the low class size (average of 11 students) and the high educational background of Academy teachers. He noted that 90% of students proceed to some type of after graduation training and 80% go to college. As a measure of the Academy’s ability to handle the transition process he noted that students come from 45 towns in Vermont, from 20 states and 20 countries. With respect to funding, the parent is responsible for payment and in most cases the Town reimburses the parent. The current tuition rate is $13,875. With respect to parental involvement it is true that the closer the parent the easier it is to stay involved. However, he noted that distance does not seem to deter parental involvement in the case of special events. Studies indicate that long bus rides (in excess of 30 minutes) appear to have a negative effect particularly in the case of lower income students. However, there are creative ways to put together car-pooling arrangements and many parents actually value this time spent with their children. With respect to the large assortment of extra-curricula activities (from public speaking to knitting) a considerable effort is made to insure that students from a distance have equal access. With respect to Athletics, the Academy is a Division I school which has benefits and disadvantages. For the excellent athlete it provides the opportunity to compete at a high level but for others it may be difficult to get on a varsity team

Eric Oberg, Chair Albany School Board

The Albany School was built in 1981 and serves K-8. Enrollment is currently 85 students, down from 110. The School appears to have a relatively high ratio of special education students. Most of the Albany students go on to Lake Region. With respect to tuitioning out, Mr. Oberg felt this was beneficial for Albany since it enhances social development, gives students access to programs and resources not otherwise available and is financially beneficial for the Town. The lack of an Albany High School does not appear to hurt the social and cultural cohesion of the Town. With respect to the timing of transition, by 8th grade most students are ready to move on. With respect to a Charter School, Mr. Oberg did not feel that Albany residents would support an initiative of this sort and that they would prefer to stick with a Union School. The key for small rural schools is to get the kids out of the small community into a larger school setting where they can open up and meet new people.

Noel Ford, former Administrator

Mr. Ford began by discussing the pros and cons of a small versus large schools. A large school can provide more programs, more opportunities and experience in functioning in a complex social structure. Schools that attract tuitioned students are able to augment their programs with the funds that this provides. But some students do much better in a small school and thrive in an environment where there is less competition, strong community involvement and a higher level of parental support and involvement. Small schools encourage much more face to face interaction between the parent and the school. Parental oversight and accountability may be more difficult to ensure in a large school.

Regardless of the organizational pros and cons, the “magic is in the classroom”. It is in the classroom where the educational transformation occurs regardless of whether the institution is large or small. This means that it is the quality of the teacher more than anything else that counts. In a related vein, Mr. Ford stressed the critical importance of early pre-Kindergarten schooling and the importance of allocating resources for this purpose.

There does not appear to be a great deal of research on the pros and cons of tuitioning out of students. However there is a good deal of research that is available on the pros and cons of small schools and Mr. Ford cited the work of Mary Raywid.

Mr. Ford stressed that the Craftsbury Academy had a wonderful opportunity to be entrepenurial and reinvent itself building on its unique history, identity and strengths. He felt that the school could undertake a re-design that would capitalize on these assets. Possibilities include increased reliance on local resources and talented and experienced people who live in the Craftsbury community, the design of an academic program focused on the needs of the gifted and talented, the design of a tri-semester program, experimentation with a different scheduling models that would reflect recent research on optimal learning conditions for young students, the design of a “3:2” program that accelerates high school and links with the first 2 years in college. The challenge is build on unique local attributes to design a program with a comparative advantage that will attract students.

With respect to size, Mr. Ford stressed that the current school 9-12 enrollment is simply too small to be sustainable. It is essential to increase enrollment to a critical mass of from 120 to 200 in order to offer the range of programs and resources needed by students and in order to have a reasonable cost structure that does not impose an excessive burden on the Town.

Other points made during this presentation include: the importance of rehabilitating the gymnasium, the observation that charter school work best in large urban areas and may not succeed in rural areas, the high quality of nearby technical centers (but a caution regarding the value of imbedded credits).

3. Question Period (The following points emerged. Again, this overview is not designed to represent a comprehensive description of all of the points that were made.)

Discussion: key points

The Academy has roughly 50 k-12 students. In Mr. Ford’s view this is too small to be financially viable.

If you can design a unique, high quality program then students will come. However: it is essential to think “outside the box”, come up with a unique approach rooted in the special attributes of the community, have high quality AP courses and excellent teachers

Demographic predictions may be too pessimistic given the excellent quality of life that Vermont offers. The population base may in fact increase. The projected growth in Newport is a good example.

The current US education model is simply too expensive. It is important to seriously explore the “on line” school model. However, this does require excellent high-speed internet access. Electronics will shape the future of education in America.

The “3:2” program involves 3 years of high school followed by 2 years of college. There is also a “4:1” program that might be explored.

It would be possible to put together a model based on the Advanced Placement skills approach.

It is essential to establish a system that requires teacher accountability with the capacity to terminate for poor performance.

The meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM. The next Stakeholder meeting will be on April 8 at 6:30 pm. At that meeting research groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 will present their results (details of groups were provided in an earlier post, see below).

Stakeholder Research Groups Form

2010-03-22T06:47:00.000-07:00

Stakeholder Research Groups Derived from RFP's

RFP Category #1
* To Go or Not to Go
* Explore Supervisory Union Possibilities
* Tuition Out Grades 7-12

COMPARISONS

Compare the following options:
* Tuition out 7-12 to a designated school
* Tuition out 9-12 to a designated school
* Tuition out 7-12 school choice
* Tuition out 9-12 school choice
* Educate k-12 here

1. Tuition comparison of the above options
* Tuition costs to each possible designated school
* Projected tuition costs over 20 years for designated school
* Tuition cost for school choice (assumes all students choose most expensive school? How do other towns budget?)
* Projected tuition costs over 20 years for school choice.
* Cost to educate a student here, not including transportation
* Projected cost to educate a student here, assuming status quo, over 20 years.
o Does per pupil cost include overhead such as heat?
o If yes to above, then
+ Projected cost to educate a student here, assuming renovations as per bond approval.
* (Projected cost to educate a student here under alternative models may be explored later).
* George Hall
* Cedar Hannan
* Ann Ingerson
* Jeannine Young

2. Transportation options and costs for the above options.
* Joe Young
* Mansosoi Tagai
* Elinor Osborn

3. Consolidation possibilities for Craftsbury schools, and associated savings:

* Consolidation possibilities if 7-12 tuition out
* Consolidation possibiliites if 9-12 tuition out
* Gayle Kroeger 586-7745

4. Comparison of academic offerings at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.
* Anne Hanson
* Katherine Tagai

5. Comparison of extra-curricular offerings at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.

6. Comparison of food services at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.

7. Comparison of diversity (racial, gender, socio-economic, etc.) at Craftsbury and each possible designated/choice school.

RFP Category 2:
* Increasing Students' Academic Engagement
* Place-Based Experiential K-12 Charter School
* Extended Learning Options

8. Funding possibilities for alternative school models, such as
* Place-Based Experiential model
* Project-Based model [expeditionary education?]
* Extended Learning models
o Virtual High School
o University Co-ops
o Teach for America
o Tutors
o Other
+ Brian Machesney
+ Jen Schoen
+ Marie Royer
+ Leslie Rowell
+ Anne Morse

Minutes of March 11 Stakeholder Meeting

2010-03-16T05:21:00.000-07:00

Participants:

Stakeholders: Laurie Courage, George Hall, Ann Ingerson, Mary Lou Issacson, Gayle Kroeger, Paula Masse, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborne, Leslie Rowell, Jen Schoen, Barb Strong, Bob Twiss, Abbey Volmer, Jeannine Young, Kent Young, Barbara Alexander, Marie Royer, June Cook(guest).

Steering Committee: Anne Volmer, Stark Biddle, Susan Houston, Harry Miller, Steve Moffatt, Tina Sweet

Facilitator: Heidi Krantz

1. Anne Volmer called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. She introduced the panelists for the evening: Elaine Laine, Principal of Hazen Union; Betty LeRoy, former Principal at Craftsbury Academy, and Linda Aiken, Principal of the Middle School at Lakeview School.

2. All participants briefly introduced themselves.

3. Panel Presentation: (Note the following is intended as a brief overview of key points. It is not comprehensive or a verbatim transcript. Important points may have been left out or stated in a way that differs from intent.)

Elaine Laine

• Hazen Union would welcome students tuitioned in from Craftsbury and has adequate space to accommodate all comers.
• Hazen pays for busing services. (This needs to be double-checked.)
• Early transition is important and Hazen encourages transfer at the 7th grade level.
• Currently 9% of Hazen students (36) are tuitioned in from other Towns.
• Hazen is proud of its high academic performance and the rich diversity of programs that it offers. Several programs and awards were cited.
• Hazen has a student-centered culture and students take a lead in the planning of their education experience.
• Hazen focuses on “21st Century Skills” and has a “Vision 20/20 Long Range Plan."

Betty LeRoy

• Tuitioning out of students to another school is difficult and challenging. It will work for some students and not for others. It is essential to make sure there is an effective integration program in place.
• Parental participation at the Craftsbury Academy was wonderful. The tightness and community support is an important asset. The School is an important part of the community and tightly integrated with the community.
• But the Academy is small, resources are limited, and it is a real challenge to provide opportunities and a rich academic environment. Thus, creativity and imagination in curriculum design and program offerings are essential. As a former principal, the primary challenge for Craftsbury is to look at program content and student needs.
• While the Academy provides a personal touch and a deep sense of community, it may be too small to provide many of the opportunities that young people will need in the modern world. On the other hand the strength of community and parental support is an asset to be valued.
• In summary, there is real trade off between the personal touch of a small school and the academic advantages of tuitioning out to a large school. This is a difficult decision to make but in making it the needs of the students need to be given first priority.

Linda Aiken

• Comments are from the elementary school perspective.
• Parental involvement is critically important to student success.
• The idea of pursuing an alternative model is interesting and should be explored.
• With respect to tuitioning out, students may be better able to adjust than the parents.
• The high per pupil cost of running a small school is immense and constitutes a serious impediment

4. Question Period (The following points emerged. Again, this overview is not designed to represent a comprehensive description of all of the points that were made.)

• Hazen Union is comprised of Greensboro, Hardwick, and Woodbury. The possibility of a merger with Craftsbury has been discussed by Hazen Staff and the response has been positive.
• Greensboro merged with Hazen in 1968. Because of the elapsed time, lessons from this event are not accessible.
• Hazen pays for transportation costs for students in Union towns. (Note: this question needs clarification and further research.)
• Hazen average class size is roughly as follows:

Middle School: 7 to 16
Lower School: lower than above
Upper School: maximum class of 23 with some such as AP courses at 3-4.

• Hazen does not have a PTA although they do have several programs that encourage parental involvement.
• In general, the larger the school the more difficult it is to get high levels of parental involvement.
• State regulations do not in any way constrain curriculum design. Hazen has designed and offered many new courses and does not feel that the State has in any way impeded this process.
• All teachers at Hazen need to be certified. Because of honors received, Hazen is a popular employer and gets lots of teacher applications.
• In general there was a positive reaction to the idea that Craftsbury could design an alternative model that attracts students from other towns and that is rooted in Craftsbury’s unique identity and values.
• Small schools require creativity. One of the problems a small school faces is the tendency to adjust standards to the lowest common denominator.
• The central issue that Craftsbury needs to address and wrestle with is what do our children need, not what the community needs. This is an immensely complex and difficult decision.

The meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.

Next meeting: March 25, same time, same place.

Questions for Panelists

2010-03-03T12:10:00.000-08:00

Potential Panelist Questions – Generated by CSCC Stakeholders

*Transcriber's disclaimer: A few sticky notes fell off in transport! They have been recorded under “Questions for any/all panelists.” Please contact Annie (aevolmer@yahoo.com) if any of these are YOUR questions, and you would like them moved!

Walden Principal Martha Dubuque
● What are the pros and cons of tuitioning vs. joining a union?
● What has the social impact been of tuitioning out?
● What have been the pros and cons of busing tuition students?
● Is the community concerned about lack of input into schools students attend?
● What's it like for high school families to transport students to other schools?
● Would quality of education improve if 8-12 or 9-12 were tuitioned out?
● Have successful outcomes been demonstrated in towns that tuition high school out?
● Would Craftsbury and surrounding communities support a charter school?
● What has worked and not worked with regard to tuitioning high school students?
● If middle and high school are tuitioned out, does the overall quality of education diminish for the elementary children?

Wolcott Principal Merri Greenia
● What are the busing procedures to the receiving school(s)?
● What has the social impact been of tuitioning out?
● What have been the pros and cons of busing tuition students?
● Is the community concerned about lack of input into schools students attend?
● What's it like for high school families to transport students to other schools?
● What would be the busing procedures from Craftsbury Academy to a receiving school? Late buses? Other issues?
● Have successful outcomes been demonstrated in towns that tuition high school out?
● Would Crafsbury and surrounding communities support a charter school?
● What has worked and not worked with regard to tuitioning high school students?
● If middle and high school are tuitioned out, does the overall quality of education diminish for the elementary children?

Lakeview Greensboro Principal Linda Aiken
● What has the social impact been of tuitioning out?
● What have been the pros and cons of busing tuition students?
● Is the community concerned about lack of input into schools students attend?
● How do you deal with transportation for students – all to Hazen?
● Have successful outcomes been demonstrated in towns that tuition high school out?
● Would Crafsbury and surrounding communities support a charter school?
● What has worked and not worked with regard to tuitioning high school students?

Education Expert and Craftsbury AP Instructor Noel Ford
● Would the quality of education improve if we tuition out our students?
● How does tuitioning out upper grades effect elementary education? Is elementary education diminished?
● What models and organizations exist for providing extended learning options to a small school?
● Is there comparative research that measures the impact of tuitioning out?
● Information on “virtual high school?”
● How do “advanced” students from a small school survive in an environment where being smart may not be cool?
● Would Crafsbury and surrounding communities support a charter school?

Former Craftsbury Principal Betty LeRoy
● What is the cost/benefit of joining a union school vs. tuitioning? Cost/benefit of not joining?
● Is there comparative research that measures the impact of tuitioning out?
● What nearby schools would be available [to absorb Craftsbury students]?
● Would place-based, experiential curriculum attract students from other towns? From Craftsbury?
● What are the implications for the physical plant if Craftsbury were to create a charter school?
● Would Crafsbury and surrounding communities support a charter school?

?? Hazen Principal Dr. Elaine Laine
● If we tuition out high school, would quality of education improve?
● Is there space for Crafsbury Academy High School students?
● What is it like for students from a smaller school adjusting to a larger school?
● How can we be sure that students from a small, outlying town are treated equitably with regard to access to special programs and opportunities?
● How many team sports are available in a tuitioning high school scenario, and would Craftsbury students be able to participate?

St. Johnsbury Academy
● If we tuition out high school, would quality of education improve?
● What is it like for students from smaller schools to adjust to St. J.?
● How are private schools effected by state and federal funding and regulations?
● Are there studies that assess parent-student engagement in relation to commuting distance? How far is too far?
● What would a boarding school model look like?
● If more extra-curricular activities are offered under a tuitioned out scenario, do participation rates increase?
● Would access to extra-curricular activities increase if students were tuitioned out?
● How can we be sure that students from a small, outlying town are treated equitably with regard to access to special programs and opportunities?

Woodland School, NH
● How are private schools effected by state and federal funding and regulations?
● What is needed to start a private school?
● Are you attracting students from outside your town? Why or why not?

White Mountain School, NH
● How are private schools effected by state and federal funding and regulations?
● Are you attracting students from outside your town? Why or why not?
● What models and organizations exist to provide techniques and curricula to a charter/private school?
● Would access to extra-curricular activities increase if students were tuitioned out?

Albany School
● What is the social impact of tuitioning out 8-12? 9-12?
● Has not having a high school effected your town?
● How do Albany students adjust to attending a larger high school?
● How did you decide to designate Lake Region Union High School?
● Would Craftsbury and surrounding communities support a charter school?
● What are the comparative costs and benefits of joining a union school vs. tuitioning?
● If we tuition out high school, how will increased diversity impact our students' social and academic lives?

Brownington
● Why did you decide to tuition out?
● What prompted Brownington to bring its junior high back to Brownington?
● What is the social impact on a smaller town of tuitioning out 8-12 or 9-12?
● If we tuition out high school, how will increased diversity impact our students' social and academic lives?
● What would be the economic impact on the town as a result of tuitioning out (employment, local business)?
● What would be the economic impact on the town as a result of conversion to a private, charter, or magnate school (employment, local business)?

Hancock
● Describe the experience of forming and “maintaining” a union.
● What is the community like without a school?
● What has been the social impact on the town of closing the school?
● What was the impact on students of closing the school?

Questions for Additional Potential Panelists -- Generated by CSCC Stakeholders

Troy School
● What is the social impact of tuitioning schools?
● Has not having a high school effected your town?
● How do Albany students adjust to attending a larger high school?

Newport Center School
● What is the social impact of tuitioning schools?
● Has not having a high school effected your town?
● How do Albany students adjust to attending a larger high school?

Lamoille Union Middle and High School
● Is there space for Crafsbury Academy High School students?
● What is it like for students from a smaller school adjusting to a larger school?

Stowe
● Explain your “virtual educational delivery.”

Peoples' Academy
● How can we be sure that students from a small, outlying town are treated equitably with regard to access to special programs and opportunities?
● How many team sports are available in a tuitioning high school scenario, and would Craftsbury students be able to participate?

Questions for Any/All Panelists

● Are there studies that assess parent-student engagement in relation to commuting distance? How far is too far?
● If we tuition out high school, would quality of education improve?
● What are the pros and cons of tuitioning vs. joining a union?
● For towns who tuition out: Is the community concerned about lack of input into schools students attend?
● For towns who tuition out: how do you handle transportation issues?
● What is the cost/benefit of tuitioning out, and the cost/benefit of staying in Craftsbury?
● For all private schools: How are private schools effected by state and federal funding and regulations?
● How would tuitioning with school choice effect the population of our town?
● How would tuitioning with a designated school effect the population of our town?
● What local schools could absorb the population of Craftsbury Academy?
● What is the cost benefit of sending students to another school vs. the cost benefit of staying in Craftsbury?
● What would be the financial impact associated with each of the above approaches (tax rates, school costs, savings from consolidation and staff reduction, reduced supplies, etc.)?
● How will the cost structure change (increase/decrease) if we tuition students in the future?
● What are the implications for state, federal, private and charitable foundation funding for each of the different models and approaches under consideration?

Questions for State Officials

● For the Commissioner of Ed. and Legislators: What would it take to make charter schools happen in VT?
● For the commissioner of Ed.: Is there comparative research that measures the impact of tuitioning out?

Questions for OSSU Officials

● How many students now and in the future would be tuitioning out if 8-12? 9-12?

February 18th Stakeholder Meeting Minutes

2010-03-01T06:55:00.000-08:00

Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration
Stakeholder Meeting
February 18, 2010
6:40 p.m. at the Craftsbury Town Hall

Attendees: Elinor Osborn, Katie Tagi, Edward Tagi, Gayle Kroger, Brian Machesney, Anne Morse, Leslie Rowell, Jen Schoen, Bob Twiss, Abbey Volmer, Jeannine Young, Joe Young, George Hall, Ann Hanson, Cedar Hannan and Ann Ingerson.
Steering Committee: Harry Miller, Annie Volmer, Susan Houston, Tina Sweet and Stark Biddle.

Facilitator: Annie Volmer

The meeting was called to order by Annie Volmer, chair of the Steering Committee at approximately 6:40 pm. Annie asked if any Stakeholder had any objection to her facilitating the meeting as our usual facilitator, Heidi Krantz, was unable to attend the meeting. There was no objection. The minutes of the January 21st and February 4th meetings were approved. Stark typed up the questions from all of the RFPs and a hand out of these questions was given to all Stakeholders. Annie asked if there were any errors in the question listing. No one had any problems with the question listing.

Harry talked about Town meeting. He asked if anyone had any changes to the final draft of the Stakeholder’s progress report that was to be circulated and read at Town Meeting. Nobody had any changes and Ann Morse agreed to read the report after the school portion of Town Meeting under the category of Other Business. It was also decided to make copies of the report and put it in every seat at Town Meeting. Stakeholders decided it would be a good idea to have an information booth and Stakeholders signed up for time slots to run the booth. The Stakeholders had no objection to standing to be recognized at Town Meeting. Some of the Stakeholders had concerns that some Stakeholders have not attended meetings in a while. They thought it was very important for them to attend especially with panelists coming to answer questions. The original list of Stakeholders was put on a table for current Stakeholders to get phone numbers to encourage more attendance.

Everyone was asked to break up into their original groups and take the list of approved questions that was typed up from the RFPs and assign the questions to certain individual panelists or multiple panelists. This exercise was done in an effort to make question lists for the panelists. Panelists wanted the lists in order to be able to send the person most qualified to discuss the questions. The Steering Committee will meet and send out the question lists to the panelists. March 11th will be the first panel discussion. The second panel will be March 25th. We are hoping to have a variety of types of schools attend as well as some educational leaders. In April we hope to be able to have a panel discussion with the Commissioner of Education and some of our representatives. Duncan Kilmartin and Senator Starr were some of the recommendations from the Stakeholders.

Research groups were established based on additional questions generated by the RFP drafts. These questions and the resulting groups are listed in the following blog entry.

Research Groups

2010-03-01T06:54:00.000-08:00

2/18/10
Stakeholder Research Groups Derived from RFP's

RFP Category 1: To Go or Not to Go
Explore Supervisory Union Possibilities
Tuition Out Grades 7-12

COMPARISONS

Compare the following options:
● Tuition out 7-12 to a designated school
● Tuition out 9-12 to a designated school
● Tuition out 7-12 school choice
● Tuition out 9-12 school choice
● Educate k-12 here

1. Tuition comparison of the above options
● Tuition costs to each possible designated school
● Projected tuition costs over 20 years for designated school
● Tuition cost for school choice (assumes all students choose most expensive school? How do other towns budget?)
● Projected tuition costs over 20 years for school choice.
● Cost to educate a student here, not including transportation
● Projected cost to educate a student here, assuming status quo, over 20 years.
 Does per pupil cost include overhead such as heat?
 If yes to above, then
■ Projected cost to educate a student here, assuming renovations as per bond approval.
● (Projected cost to educate a student here under alternative models may be explored later).
 George Hall
 Cedar Hannan
 Ann Ingerson
 Jeannine Young

2. Transportation options and costs for the above options.
● Joe Young
● Mansosoi Tagai
● Elinor Osborn

3. Consolidation possibilities for Craftsbury schools, and associated savings:
● Consolidation possibilities if 7-12 tuition out
● Consolidation possibiliites if 9-12 tuition out
 Gayle Kroeger 586-7745

4. Comparison of academic offerings at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.
● Anne Hanson
● Katherine Tagai

5. Comparison of extra-curricular offerings at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.

6. Comparison of food services at Craftsbury (current) and each possible designated/choice school.

7. Comparison of diversity (racial, gender, socio-economic, etc.) at Craftsbury and each possible designated/choice school.

RFP Category 2: Increasing Students' Academic Engagement
Place-Based Experiential K-12 Charter School
Extended Learning Options

8. Funding possibilities for alternative school models, such as
● Place-Based Experiential model
● Project-Based model [expeditionary education?]
● Extended Learning models
 Virtual High School
 University Co-ops
 Teach for America
 Tutors
 Other
■ Brian Machesney
■ Jen Schoen
■ Marie Royer
■ Leslie Rowell
■ Anne Morse

Draft Report from Stakeholders

2010-02-12T13:44:00.000-08:00

Progress Report on the Craftsbury Community School Collaboration
February 9, 2010

The Steering Committee, a sub-committee of the School Board, has assembled a group of Craftsbury residents, referred to as Stakeholders, to participate in a collaborative process, with the intention of ensuring that all demographics and viewpoints about Craftsbury Schools are represented. The group remains open for anyone to join, but usually between 25 and 45 people attend the Thursday evening meetings. The emphasis is on bringing diverse people with many different points of view into the same room to create a proposal for the School Board to consider regarding the future path of Craftsbury Schools.

Up to this point the School Board has drafted proposals for the Town to review and vote on. The collaborative process will recommend a proposal for the School Board to consider. The facilitator, Heidi Krantz, is a volunteer who has a wealth of experience facilitating collaborative processes.

The job of the Stakeholders is not to promote pet projects or lobby for personal agendas, but to listen carefully, share ideas, consider new information, ask questions, and ultimately co-create a path forward. Heidi has been doing a wonderful job keeping the meetings up beat and on task.

Stakeholders have spent several meetings identifying what questions we have about the schools. We will use those questions to generate information so that we can prioritize and consolidate the topics and develop our proposals. We spent one session touring the entire school physical plant with Chris Young, the Principal and Harry Miller, a School Board Member who has extensive knowledge about building codes and previous renovations done at the school. We received a site assessment and a packet of other information, including the plans for future renovations and the current demographics and course offerings at Craftsbury Schools. Now we are working on further prioritizing and condensing our questions to boil them down into core ideas that will guide us in seeking information. From here we will develop proposals for further research, and when we have additional information we will get into the nitty gritty of discussing and deciding upon specific proposals to bring to the School Board and the Town.

We meet the first and third Thursday of every month. You are welcome to join us!

Minutes from February 4 Stakeholder Meeting

2010-02-12T13:35:00.000-08:00

Unapproved Draft
Craftsbury Community School Collaborative
Minutes of Stakeholder Meeting

Thursday, February 4

1. Anne Volmer called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Anne reviewed the ground rules and noted that the Minutes for the last few meetings will be reviewed, modified if needed and approved at the next meeting. She also noted that the next meeting would be held on February 18 instead of February 25 as originally listed.

2. Our facilitator Heidi Krantz summarized the prior work of the Stakeholder Group in developing draft Requests for Proposal (RFPs) designed to identify questions that need to be addressed in considering alternative models. She stressed that the drafts should synthesize the prior work of the Stakeholder Group, that all points of view should be reflected and that personal agendas should be subordinated.

Heidi also noted that our future plan is to convene one or two panels of outside experts who can speak with knowledge about some of the alternative approaches under consideration such as magnet schools or charter schools. She urged participants to speak to Steering Committee members about issues they would like to see addressed and suggest individuals who might be invited to participate.

Subsequently, participants agreed that these panel discussions should be designed to assist the Stakeholders in their important work and should be billed as Stakeholder Meetings. As is the case with all Stakeholder Meetings, they are open to the public and new participants are welcome.

3. Participants broke into four groups to continue working on the draft RFPs.

4. The full group reconvened at 7:45. Three groups had completed two draft RFPs and one group asked for additional time since this was their first time working together. The RFPs will by typed and distributed on or before the next meeting to all participants

5. The draft Progress Report was read, discussed and amended. (The revised copy is attached.) Modifications included: clarification that the Steering Committee was a sub-committee of the School Board; clarification that the proposals will be “for the school board to consider” rather than vote on; clarification that the Steering Committee is not solely responsible for all research.

6. Steve Moffatt reported that the warning for Town meeting did not include an opportunity for a verbal CCSC report. Participants reviewed a number of alternatives, which will be further explored and discussed at the next meeting.

Steve also gave a brief overview of an article in a recent Vermont School Board Association article that indicated a 13% statewide decline in school enrollment between 1997 and 2009 with little if any growth expected over the next 15 years.

7. Harry Miller reported that the Academy has located a buyer (Merchants Bank) for the $3 million bond passed a few months ago. He noted that there were several documents on the Vermont Department of Education web site that might be of interest to Stakeholders. (Several of these will be available for distribution at the next meeting.) Harry expressed his personal enthusiasm and support for the excellent work of the group and the invaluable assistance received from Heidi Krantz.

8 The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm.

Next meeting: February 18, same time, same place.

Stakeholder Meeting January 21st

2010-01-22T12:45:00.000-08:00

Unapproved draft

Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration
Stakeholder Meeting #6
January 21, 2010
Craftsbury Town Hall

Attendees: Jim Moffatt, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborn, Leslie Rowell, Jen Schoen, Barb Strong, Edward Tagai, Bob Twiss, Allison VanAkkeren, Katie Williams Tagai, Jeannine Young, Kent Young, Barb Alexander, Marie Royer, Laurie Courage, George Hall, Anne Hanson, Ann Ingerson, and Gayle Kroeger.

Steering Committee: Tina Sweet, Stark Biddle, Steve Moffatt, Perry Thomas, and Susan Houston.

Facilitator: Heidi Krantz

The meeting was called to order by Perry Thomas at approximately 6:37 on January 21, 2010. Minutes from January 7, 2010 were approved, and Heidi explained the process for tonight’s meeting. Feasibility studies came up as a reoccurring theme at the last meeting. With this in mind, the Stakeholders were instructed to break into small groups to formulate ideas on what these feasibilities studies would focus on. They will do this in the form of Request for Proposals (RFP). A RFP template was distributed to each group to give a guide line of questions for the RFP. The Stakeholders counted off by 3’s and broke into 3 groups of 5 to 6 people. Each group was asked to do a two RFP’s. It is envisioned to take this meeting and the next meeting to achieve this goal. Heidi explained that we needed to put our own prejudices aside to reflect on everyone’s point of view. Questions camp up regarding the window of time that should be looked at. Heidi suggested that each group could decide this and write it in the RFP. Another suggestion was to look at the current elementary children up through their graduation. At 7:45 Heidi stopped the groups and asked them to continue to think of ideas for their RFP over the next two weeks. Everyone was asked to remember which group they were in, so they could be in that same group next time.

Heidi asked George Hall if he would like to tell the group about the Schoolboard meeting that he attended where he gave an update to them about where the Stakeholders are in the process. George explained that he told the Schoolboard about the three areas of focus (Academics, Economics, and Grade Configuration/Alternative Models. The question was asked if the Stakeholders wanted to give another report to the Schoolboard before Town Meeting. It was decided that a subcommittee consisting of Katie Williams Tagai, Marie Royer, and Ann Morse would draft a report and present it to the Stakeholders at the next meeting for approval. If approved, this report would be given to the Schoolboard and then presented at Town Meeting by the Stakeholders.

The school renovation project and time line was discussed. Steve Moffatt said that the Schoolboard was waiting to see if a bank would buy the bond. Rita Davis has a meeting about this and the Schoolboard is hopeful that the bond will be bought.

The next Stakeholder meeting will be on February 4th at 6:30 at the Town Hall. The following meeting has been changed to February 18th, then March 11th.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:10.

Respectfully submitted,

Tina Sweet
Scribe

Approved Minutes from January 7th Stakeholder Meeting

2010-01-14T08:04:00.000-08:00

Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration
Stakeholder Meeting #5
January 7, 2010
Craftsbury Town Hall

Attendees: Barbara Alexander, Laurie Courage, Katharine Haddan, George Hall, Cedar Hannan, Anne Hanson, Ann Ingerson, Mary Lou Isaacson, Gayle Kroeger, Brian Machesney, Paula Masse, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborn, Leslie Rowell, Marie Royer, Jen Schoen, Barb Strong, Edward Tagai, Bob Twiss, Kate Williams Tagai, Allison VanAkeren, Abbey Volmer, Jeanine Young, and Joe Young.

Steering Committee: Tina Sweet, Stark Biddle, Steve Moffatt and Perry Thomas.

Facilitator: Heidi Krantz

The meeting was called to order by Perry Thomas at approximately 6:35 on January 7, 2010. Minutes from December 3, 2009 were approved, ground rules reviewed, and the agenda introduced.

Heidi Krantz reviewed process. During past meetings Stakeholders identified a set of topics and prioritized them. The first step for this evening’s meeting is to determine which of the top three topics to focus on for scenario creation. The top three were academics, economics, and alternative models (including grade configurations). Those present discussed how to proceed and decided to consider all three topics, starting with academics, as they brainstormed future scenarios.
Verbatim results of the brainstorm are included as an appendix to these minutes.
At the end of the meeting Steve Moffatt described the School Board’s expectations. The Board is supportive of the Collaboration taking as much time as necessary to develop strong recommendations. While a progress report to town meeting would be appreciated, it is not required. If the stakeholder group decides to prepare a progress report, it should be presented to the School Board at their February 9th meeting.

It was suggested that an agenda be circulated ahead of the next Stakeholder Meeting, along with the draft of minutes. Perry Thomas agreed to do so.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Stark Biddle and Perry Thomas
Scribes

Appendix to Minutes of January 7th Stakeholder Meeting

2010-01-14T08:01:00.000-08:00

Attributes or Characteristics of the Craftsbury School System
(Verbatim notes from Stakeholder meeting Wednesday January 7, 2010)

Academics

Be able to read, write, speak intelligently. Know how to learn to function.
Problem solving.
Love learning by hands on activities - - experience vs rote.
Strong science math for job market.
Feel they are challenged, aim high.
Have high expectations of self.
Theory vs Practice need balance.
Learn practical technical skills (21st century).
Understanding civic duties.
Involvement in community.
Have strong sense of place in Vermont/environment, community.
Promote Phys ed in varied ways.
Math in a setting that is practical.
Fine arts.
Balance of curricula, - arts, creative activities.
Engage teachers w/students and activities.
Use events in community to inspire students to participate w/all students.
All students can have access to all events.
Out of classroom learning.
Involve community volunteers. Good role models and inspiration for students.
Involve older students w/smaller ones.
Exposure to other larger cultural environments.
Good technical opportunities.
Public speaking. Comfort expressing self.
Use technology to expand academics.
Use other experts outside schools.
Focus on individual achievements/learning.
Confident students.
Block schedule.
Environmental literacy.
Globally informed.
Advocacy- team up w/others with similar issues.
Mater teachers w/passion - - know how to teach.
Quality administration.
Accountability top to bottom.
Committed.
Accreditation.
Exposure to greater diversity at higher grade levels.

Alternative Models

Cross grade interaction - - both ways, mutual respect.
Web 2.0 (expanded curriculum through technology.
Individualized approach in small community centers with resources.
Confidence building through cognitive skills w/Sterling college (e.g. Earthwalk Village School in Plainfield.)
Out of Classroom learning.
Block scheduling.
Student exchanges.
Intergenerational respect.
Professional Learning, community. (teacher training).
Privatizatioin.
Attract students from away.
Perhaps offer innovative online courses for students to attend virtually.
Cooperation within Supervisory Union.
Virtual school district (would it be possible to form one?)
Share expert teachers.
Human connections maintained.
Hybrid, balance between face to face and virtual.
Pilot Program.
Move toward greater interaction with neighboring towns.
(within Supervisory Union) thereby increase numbers and creating strengths as well as benefits.

Economics

Attractive facilities.
Quality Leadership.
Accountability.
Strong Staff.
Corporate Sponsorships to develop specific programs e.g. Teton Science School.
Cost does not place under burden on residents.
Cost of Programs affordable.
State and Federal Constraints.
Private School.
Running Public School Like Business.
Feasibility Study.
Feasibility of on-line School District.
Enough students to make it work economically.
Cost and benefits involved with OSSU.
Great teachers.
Exciting Programs.
Quality Leadership and
Staff.
Positive School Environment.
Events Highlighting what Students have accomplished
Access to activities.
Community volunteers/role models- mentors.
Preparation for world outside of Vermont.
Public Speaking.
Math and Science.
Utilize on line lessons.
Individual approach with work and access.
Confidence in our graduates.
Students aware of world events and politics.
Advocacy- one person making difference.
Basics.
Problem solving.
Love of Learning.
Preparation for job market.
Being challenged.
Self motivated.
Book Learning vs hands on.
Practical computer skills.
Civic minded students local and world.
Sense of place in environment.
Non traditional Physical education.
Balanced curriculum.
Feasibility Study.
Good grant writer or two.
Regionalization.
Economical/attractive.
Sufficient student numbers for critical mass.
What would it cost to not be part of Supervisory Union?
What are benefits, cost benefit analysis?

Parking Lot

Bring other models here.
What is hindering using alternative models - - involve locals with alternatives.
Do feasibility study of some alternative models.
Virtual school districts, share teach resources. Share experts.
Cost benefit analysis of supervisory union.
Compare current system to other alternatives.

Approved Minutes from December 3rd Stakeholder Meeting

2010-01-14T07:55:00.000-08:00

Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration
Stakeholder Meeting #4
December 3, 2009
6:32 p.m. at the Elementary School fourth grade classroom
Attendees: Barbara Alexander, Richard Alexander, Louise Calderwood, Laurie Courage, John Dunbar, Bob Griffith, George Hall, Cedar Hannan, Anne Hanson, Gayle Kroeger, Heather Masse, Paula Masse, Doug McCarty, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborn, Leslie Rowell, Marie Royer, Jen Schoen, Eward Tagai, Ben Thurber, Bob Twiss, Kate Williams Tagai, Kent Young and Joe Young.
Steering Committee: Harry Miller, Annie Volmer, Susan Houston, Tina Sweet, Stark Biddle and Perry Thomas.
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
Guests: Chris Young, June Cook (Hardwick Gazette).
The meeting was called to order by Heidi Krantz, facilitator at approximately 6:32 on December 3, 2009. Heidi gave an overview of past process to new attendees. Tonight we will tour the elementary school, middle school, high school and the industrial arts building to try to answer facts about the physical plant and facilities as they currently stand. It is important to know how things stand currently in order to try to figure out where we want to go. Some stakeholders have not had the opportunity to tour various parts of our school. It was stressed by Heidi that tonight is not the time to discuss information; it is to ask factual questions about the facilities.

Annie Volmer, chair of the Steering Committee, asked for approval for the minutes of the November 19, 2009 meeting. Joe Young made a motion to approve the minutes as presented for the November 19, 2009 meeting, Marie Royer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Annie explained that there will be hand outs for everyone after all the tours are done. This hand outs include pie charts that have been compiled base on the “sticky notes” that have been done at previous meetings. Another hand out has questions raised at the last meeting. Mr. Young has answered some of these questions.
Before the tour began, Annie explained that the Steering Committee had chosen Chris Young and Harry Miller to lead the tours as they are most knowledgeable about the facilities. Everyone had an opportunity to go in all rooms of the Elementary School (including the basement) and ask questions to Harry and Chris. Various questions were asked about the age of the building and current state of code compliancy. The tour was continued at the High School. We started at the Industrial Arts Building. This building has industrial arts classes, digital arts classes and art classes. The tour continued on to Minden Hall. This building primarily serves grades 5-8 although some high school classes are held here, for example senior high science labs. This building construction was finished in 1988. The tour then went to the Annex Building. Stakeholders toured the classrooms and bathrooms. The tour continued on to the Academy Building. Stakeholders had the opportunity to explore classrooms, the music room, kitchen, and stage/ gym areas. The tour ended in the common room. At this time any other questions about the facility were addressed. Harry then gave an overview of the future improvements to the Academy Building funded by the bond vote. Questions were answered about handicapped accessibility and energy efficiency. Perry explained that the pie graphs that were done, were compiled from past stakeholder meetings. Everyone was given hand outs of the pie graphs, School Energy Management Program Site Assessment Report for the Craftsbury Schools done by the Vermont Superintendents Association, and the questions generated at the last Stakeholder’s meeting. Stakeholders are asked to review all the information in preparation for the next Stakeholder’s meeting in January.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30.

Tina Sweet
Scribe

Minutes Approved December 3, 2009

2009-12-08T07:11:00.000-08:00

Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration

Stakeholder Meeting #3

November 19, 2009

6:34 p.m.

Attendees: Abbie Alden, Barbara Alexander, Louise Calderwood, Laurie Courage, Bob Griffith, George Hall, Cedar Hannan, Mary Lou Isaacson, Gayle Kroeger, Michelle Machesney, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborn, Leslie Rowell, Marie Royer, Jen Schoen, Barb Strong, Edward Tagai, Bob Twiss, Allison VanAkkeren, Abbey Volmer, Katie Williams-Tagai, Jeannine Young, Joe Young, Kent Young

Steering Committee: Harry Miller, Perry Thomas, Annie Volmer

Facilitator: Heidi Krantz

Guests: June Cook (Hardwick Gazette), Bruce Urie

1. Meeting called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Heidi Krantz, facilitator

2. Ground Rules were reviewed.

3. Approval of minutes from Oct. 15 meeting. The only change was the spelling of Gina Campoli's name.

4. Bond issue was reviewed by Harry Miller, noting that the passage of the bond will not effect the work of the Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration. More information on the bond and construction plans can be found on the Craftsbury Schools website.

5. World Cafe. Heidi Krantz introduced the World Cafe activity: Four easels set up around the room, each with two topics (generated by Stakeholders at the last meeting – Economics, Alternative Models, Grade Configuration, Physical Plant, In-school Culture; School-Community Culture, Academics, Constraints). The group counted off by 4, dividing into 4 groups. Each group went to an easel and addressed the following question for that topic:

What information is needed to address this topic, and where should we get it?

Each station had a scribe provided by the Steering Committee. After 10 minutes, everyone went to a new station; scribes stayed behind. Groups did not go together, but formed new groups (informally – no counting off). When new group arrived at the easel, the scribe read the information generated by the last group(s), and new group added to it. After the first 4 topics, each easel took on a second topic and the process was repeated so all 8 topics were addressed by all Stakeholders. See results of World Cafe discussions -- attached.

6. Large group reconvened at 8:10 p.m.

7. Next Steps. Heidi Krantz gave an overview of the upcoming meetings. The next 3 meetings are considered the educational phase of the process. The Steering Committee (with help) will begin to gather and organize the information requested tonight. The topics will be prioritized by Stakeholders on the way out the door. A graphic representation of priorities from the sticky note exercise (Oct. 15 meeting) will also be presented at the next meeting.

8. Longer meetings. Heidi Krantz polled the group about whether longer meetings should start ½ hour earlier or end ½ hour later. The group was evenly divided, so we will alternate.

9. Priority Vote. Stakeholders were asked to put a green sticky dot next to their top priority topic, and a black sticky dot next to their 2^nd priority topic as they left the meeting.

Results – (green dots equal 2 points, black dots equal 1 point)

1. Grade Configuration 21

2. Economics 15

3. Academics 14

4. Alternative Models 11

5. Physical Plant 8

6. In-School Culture 3

7. School-Community Culture 2

8. Constraints 1

10. Meeting Adjourned 8:20 p.m.

11. Next meeting Dec. 3, 6:30 p.m., Craftsbury Elementary School (NOTE LOCATION CHANGE)

Respectfully Submitted,

Anne E. Volmer

Appendix to CSCC Minutes 11/19

World Cafe Discussions

*numbers to right refer to number of times the question was affirmed by different groups

*Bold print represents information sources and transcription notes.

Grade Configuration

● Should our schools educate K-6? K-8? K-12? 3

● What is our current enrollment? 1

● What is projected future enrollment? 1

● Teacher certification 1

● Is the infrastructure (staff and phys. plant) sufficient for K-12? 2

● Can get information from State Dept. of Education

● Can get information from VT School Board Association

● What are state curriculum requirements, e.g. librarians, guidance counselors, etc. Are they required? 1

● How do Craftsbury's high school opportunities compare to those of other schools in terms of academics and extra-curricular activities? 1

● How many Craftsbury Academy students are educated at the Tech. Center? 1

● Are Craftsbury school choice lottery winners considered enrolled at Craftsbury Academy,or the choice school?

● How many Craftsbury Academy students are taking on-line or correspondence

courses? 1

● What are the costs for a quality education, a safe environment, etc.? 2

● What is the enrollment at the other schools in our Supervisory Union that we might consider consolidation at any grade level? 1

● How do Craftsbury class sizes compare with state averages? (this information should be available online) 1

● What are the pros and cons of grade consolidation (e.g., combined grades in one classroom)? Is it considered “best practice?” 1

● Cost information should be available from the OSSU business manager.

● What is the social impact on children who are in the school system when a change is made (e.g., current students suddenly find out they will be tuitioned out the following year, and this is NOT the scenario they have grown up with). 1

● School counselors, especially from schools where this has happened, may help answer this question.

● Brownington Schools made the change to tuition – and then back to local schools. They could lend perspective on the above social question (and probably many other questions).

● What are the advantages of school choice versus a single designated school?

● The Town of Wolcott has school choice, used to provide busing to one of the choices, and now does not provide transportation. They could lend multiple perspectives.

● What are the cost projections for transportation to other schools if students are tuitioned out? [Refers to Peak Oil issues – everyone's cost – not just the cost to the town if transportation is provided] .

● How do above transportation costs compare to energy costs for keeping buildings open for students here?

● What are the regulations for magnet schools, vouchers, charter schools, pilot schools, private schools? This may belong with Alternative Models.

● How many Craftsbury students are home schooled?

● How many Craftsbury students are educated elsewhere (choose to tuition out – either by school choice lottery or private pay)?

● What are the rules for teacher certification if the school were to utilize community expertise and/or Sterling? May belong with Alternative Models.

● Pros and cons of grades versus aptitude models. May belong with Alternative Models.

● Seek input from recent alumni (past 5 years) on the issue of grade configuration.

● How to measure/ quantify the value of small classes and a small school...?

● How to define large and small...?

Economics

● What does the current educational model (K-12) cost? 2

● What would it cost to send 9-12 elsewhere? 3

● What would it cost to keep K-8 here? K-6? 3

● Consider private/public/alternative model differences and their costs

● Cost comparisons should include alternative models, such as combined mixed age classrooms.

● Some sources for costs and comparisons:

� OSSU Business Manager

� Town of Wolcott (tuitions 9-12)

� Town of Albany (tuitions 9-12)

� Town of Brownington (building a school)

� Town of Concord

� Town of Cabot (maintains small high school)

� State Dept. of Education

● Where does current funding come from (fed., local, state, grants, etc.)

● What are the impacts of not having any high school students tuitioned in if we don't have a high school?

● Consider the alternatives in terms of energy/peak oil costs – including busing costs if students sent out; heating costs if students stay here, etc. 1

● What are the costs of different kinds of buildings – construction and operation (e.g. green building, etc.) 2

● What would it cost to renovate the gymnasium (to make it safe)?

● Cost to rebuild the gymnasium?

● What are alternatives to the gymnasium for physical education, and what are the costs?

● Consider survey townspeople to determine what people are able/willing to give up to support the schools? (Some residents already choose between paying for health insurance and paying property taxes.)

● Consider Craftsbury's Grand List--what are implications for school funding?

● Consider current and future projections of building/construction across town--what are implications for school funding and student population?

● How would school choice influence property values / attractiveness of Craftsbury?

● What are the projections about how the state will be funding education?

● What are the projections about how the state will be funding pensions?

● Will there be changes in these funding sources?

● Will Small School Grants be eliminated?

● What would be the cost savings of consolidating Supervisory Union at the junior high level

● What would be the cost savings of consolidating Supervisory Union at the elementary level

● What is the economic impact on the town of sending 9-12 elsewhere? 1

● Is there stimulus money available to ease this economic impact?

● Find grants; find a grant writer to support schools

● How many tuition students do we have?

● What are our choices of destinations for 9-12, and their costs?

● What are the costs of different bus routes? 1

● How do we increase our earning potential (e.g. bringing in students from other communities, with tuition $$)?

● What alternative funding models are allowed for school funding and for supplementary activities?

● Will passage of the bond vote (11/09) impact community's willingness to spend in the future?

● How would different grade configuration changes affect construction/maintenance costs?

● What are the benefits/costs of maintaining separate buildings for elementary & middle/high school vs. consolidating?

● Business plan/strategic planning for attracting students to support a creative curriculum (and vice versa).

Academics

● Test scores [Craftsbury? -aev] 2

● Test scores available from State Dept. of Education.

● Course offerings – Craftsbury, Tech Center, etc. 3

● Above info available from Supervisory Union, Tech Center and State Dept. of Ed.

● How are teachers held accountable? 3

● How do we measure course quality? 3

● Above info available from School Principle, School Board, Supervisory Union; find out how other schools do these things (e.g., Peoples Academy), get feedback from current and former students.

● Is there a teacher mentoring program?

● What are college expectations? 3

● Above info available from college counselors.

● What is the number of students in classes at Craftsbury, and what is the optimum class size? 3

● Look for the above in academic journal articles; compare with other local schools.

● Does Craftsbury (or should Craftsbury) offer a course in basic living skills – balancing checkbook, mini auto course, cooking for singles, etc.

● How do schools accommodate a wide range of aptitudes in the same classroom? 3

● Find out how other communities accommodate wide ranges; get input from parents and teachers..

● The next several bullets may belong with Alternative Models [– are they ideas? -aev]

● Cross discipline studies 3

● Life experience / experiential learning. 3

● Look for info on the above in Chronicle of Higher Education

● Have a 1-2 year review for alumni – were they adequately prepared?

● Provide opportunities for students to connect with higher ed. (Sterling) 3

● Tailor the curriculum to the needs of the community 3

● Extra-curricular activities [what is the question? -aev] 3

● Flexibility in academics based on aptitude 2

● Think creatively about developing a curriculum to attract other students 2

● Become a private school? 2

● Look to State Dept. of Ed., OSSU, other public and private schools for info on the previous two bullets.

● How to utilize Sterling College? 2

● Have a conversation with Sterling.

● Community _____ for times we live in [can't read it – aev] 2

● What are the state requirements for curriculum?

● How to address needs for broader academic opportunities

● Utilize online course offerings?

● Communication with parents [can it be improved? -aev]

● Use technology to share academic experience?

● Explore ability grouping.

Alternative Models

● Seek academic and extracurricular opportunities [with?] other schools and Sterling. 3

● Explore becoming a magnet, charter, pilot or private school 3

● Explore the use of area resources – people and community mentors 3

● How to attract outside students? 3

● Can Crafts students take advantage of online courses? 3

● What are the basic needs for entering “life” [work?] or higher ed.? 3

● Collaborate with other schools 3

● Tech school for those entering work, versus those entering higher ed. 3

● Research length of academic periods / schedules... longer periods, more flexibility 2

● How would various models fit class structure (6-9, 7-9, etc.) [scribe, please clarify -aev] 2

● Supervisory Union may have info on the above

● Can educational requirements be waived in order to use area resources in the schools? 2

● Are alternative models necessary for the future? 2

● Is a vision / model needed for the future?

● Why did some alternative models end or change? (Cape, Thematics)

● What worked about the above models?

● Craftsbury received the National Education Award in 1992 [is this accurate? -aev]. Why did the school excel in 1992?

Physical Plant

● 1. What are current energy efficiencies?

● What are desired energy efficiencies??

● This info can be found at BERC, REV, VERC, Energy Efficiency VT,USDA.RD

● [What do all of the above bullets mean? Are they transcribed correctly? -aev]

● 2. What are the capital and operating costs associated with the plant?

● 3. What incentives are available? [for what? Building? Operating? -aev]

● Explore stimulus package and Efficiency VT for incentives.

● 4. Does size matter in terms of number of students?

● If size does matter, consider consolidation...?

● 5. Purpose and flexibility of grade configuration (k-12, k-8) [does this refer to flexibility of physical plant for different grade configurations? -aev]

● 6. What buildings are up to code?

● What happens if buildings are not up to code? Ramifications? Timeline? Penalties? Fines?

● School Board may have answers to the above.

● 7. How is our space used now?

● What is the minimum space needed?

● 8. What are the parking issues?

● 9. Is the “people flow” from building to building practical? [efficient? -aev]

● 10. What are options for the gym? *

● 11. Can public library be used as school library as a means to free up space?

● Explore how the above is done in Wolcott and Woodbury [ask Susan O'Connell – Craftsbury Public Library's assistant librarian – she has worked in both -aev]

● 12. What space is federally or state mandated vs. what the community wants/needs?

● 13. What type of materials used in the plant? [does this refer to building materials? Green? Toxic? Local? -aev]

● *How do we move forward as a community now that the bond has passed?

● What [if anything] is off the table?

● How do we prioritize what comes next?

● 14. Are ALL “handicap” issues addressed? [does this refer to physical accessibility? -aev]

● 15. Are security and safety addressed?

In-School Culture

● 1. Norms: What are the current emotional perceptions? [scribe clarify?] 1

● Student survey to get an idea of in-school cultural climate/norms at elem, middle and high school levels.

● Is it uncool to be smart?

● 2. What would it take to encourage students and faculty to come to our school?

● What does it take to create a positive climate where students learn to challenge themselves?

● Inspire [who? What?]

● Appearance is critical to a positive environment

● statistics on the above available from school principals.

● Consider a school dress code. 3

● 3. How do teachers model good behavior? 1

● Who holds teachers accountable?

● 4. How many students are enough for good social peer groups? 1

● 5. Does Craftsbury offer enough extracurricular activities besides athletics? 1

� Ideas for more extracurriculars:

� Tai Chi

� Art

� Debate

� Music

● 6. Consider offering “REACH” After School Programming for middle and high 1

school in addition to K-6 .

● 7. What was different 10-20-30 years ago at Craftsbury Schools? [culturally?] 1

● Are there any school records available? Review old yearbooks.

● 8. What are the implications of being part of OSSU? 1

● Does Craftsbury benefit from being part of OSSU?

● Is the sharing of resources a benefit?

● Is the small size of Craftsbury compared to the large size of Hazen a cultural issue [is this an accurate transcription of the idea?]

● Is there enough diversity among staff and students?

● 9. Is bullying a problem? 1

● Do students feel emotionally safe?

● Consider a student survey addressing these questions.

● 10. Ask recent graduates about in-school culture issues. 1

● 11. How do parent model good behavior?

School – Community Culture

● Ways the school brings the community together:

� Sports

� Plays

� Elementary School concerts

� Memorial Day celebration

� Graduation

● Ways the community comes together that don't involve the school:

� Church

� Public library

� Farmers' Market

� Pick-up soccer

� Old Home Day

� Community Suppers

� Antiques and Uniques

� Recreation Committee events (bike nights, etc.)

● Is the school a center of “community?”

● Do school events mostly just bring parents together?

● Do some grades (elem) bring the community together more than others?

● What is the impact of Sterling on “sense of community?”

● How to define our “sense of community?”

● How to better involve the community in the schools, e.g., volunteer opportunities.

● Are volunteers wanted [by faculty and staff] at the high school level?

● What cultural framework is needed – or is already present – to support volunteers in the schools?

● Is there room in the curriculum for community members to enrich (e.g., bring their expertise into the schools) the curriculm? [may belong with alternative models]

● Would state standards (curriculum, teacher certification) limit community member involvement in the curriculum?

● Is any “sense of community” lost if we have K-8?

● Ask our community through a survey.

● Ask other towns who have gone from K-12 to K-8. [who in other towns?]

● Some ways in which the school and community interact:

� Stardust (student booksellers)

� Sterling facilitates challenge programs at Crafstsbury Schools

� What are some more ways?

● What is the impact of the schools on the Craftsbury economy? Stores? Outdoor Center, etc.

● Consider a survey for gathering info on school-community culture. [Town Meeting?]

● What is the impact on kids and parents of tuitioning kids out [this may belong with grade configuration]

● What is the impact on our “sense of community” of tuitioning kids out?

● ERIC data base, found online, addresses the above impacts.

● Are there solid figures on demographic changes in Craftsbury over the years, e.g., number of children from generational Craftsbury families versus children whose parents moved to town?

● Consider environmental benefits (climate change, peak oil) of keeping students local versus tuitioning them out.

● Consider expanding local infrastructure and Transition Town ideas [more info needed].

● Consider/explore the relationship of the school to the stability of the town with respect to a deindustrialized society.

● How can senior projects better involve community members and expertise?

● How to improve school – community communication.

Constraints

● What are NECAP and other standardized test expectations?

● Is Craftsbury meeting above expectations?

● Teachers Union:

� What are teachers' entitlements?

� What are school's constraints?

■ hiring and firing?

■ salaries and benefits?

� Do the above expectations and constraints affect quality of education?

● Info on the above can be found through:

� School Board

� Local Teachers' Union representatives

� Special Education Teachers

� State Dept. of Education.

● Are there rules about minimum number of teachers/staff per number of students?

● Are there rules about teacher/staff workload?

● Teachers' Union may have the above info.

● How can the community interact with the School Board's Policy Governance Model?

● Why doesn't Craftsbury teach Human Ecology (Home Economics), [this may belong with Academics]

● How much money is the community willing to spend on education?

● How do constraints change if educational model changes?

● What are the constraints on pursuing alternative models?

● Is it possible to use facilities in different ways?

● Is there liability risk from above?

● What are ramifications for refusing to comply with state regulations. Loss of funding?

● Are there regulations that constrain the school's ability to optimize classroom management?

● Is school culture a constraint in terms of keeping good teachers?

● Answer the above by interviewing teachers who left.

● Town population and Grand List for projections and implications [for future student populations?] -- get this info from Town Clerk Yvette Brown

● What are constraint comparisons between public and private schools?

● Do private schools have fewer state reg. constraints?

● Do public schools have to spend money on facilities/programs not required by private schools?

● Consider examples of schools who have gone from public to private.

● Is the number of student per grade a constraint?

● Is gender ratio a constraint?

● What is the process for teacher reviews?

● How many students are on IEP's

● Is there a required Special Education ratio of teachers to students?

October 15th Stakeholder Meeting Minutes

2009-11-30T18:11:00.000-08:00

Attendees: Alison Blaney, Guy Brown, Gina Campot, Cheryl Ecklund, Bob Griffith, Elena Gustavson, George Hall, Cedar Hannan, Barb Hungington-Massucci, Ann Ingerson, Mary-Lou Rylands Isaacson, Gayle Kroeger, Brian Machesney, Paula Masse, Anne Morse, Elinor Osborn, Jen Schoen, Barb Strong, Bob Twiss, Allison Van Akkeren, Abbey Volmer, Katie Williams-Tagai, Edward Tagai, Jeannine Young, Kent Young, Joe Young.
Steering Committee: Stark Biddle, Susan Houston, Harry Miller, Steve Moffatt, Tina Sweet, Perry Thomas, Anne Volmer
Facilitator: Heidi Krantz
Guests: June Cook (Hardwick Gazette)

1. Meeting called to order at 6:30 PM by Heidi Krantz, Facilitator.

2. Opening Remarks – Anne Volmer read the Steering com’s statement of purpose.

3. Approval of minutes of Oct. 1, 2009, meeting:
George Hall moved to accept the minutes as presented, Laura Brown seconded; motion passed.

4. Introduction - Heidi Krantz introduced the process, the Steering Committee’s role.

5. What are the questions?
Attendees gathered around three tables to (individually) write down questions/information needed to make decisions about the school system. (10 minutes) Each table reviewed their questions, eliminating duplicates, combining similar questions.

6. Categories of Topics
As a group, attendees listed the primary categories of topics, limiting themselves to the following eight categories:
a. Economics
b. Alternative Models
c. Grade Configuration
d. Physical Plant
e. In-School Culture
f. School Community Culture
g. Academics
h. Constraints

7. Identifying Topics
The group split up into seven sub-groups, each listing topics under individual categories. The following list resulted.
a. Economics
a. What are the costs of the various building & academic scenarios?
b. How can revenues be raised?
c. What is town willing to pay?
b. Alternative Models
a. What models are possible?
b. How can we make use of existing community resources?
c. Look at creative programs and scheduling within current structure.
c. Grade Configuration
a. What grade configuration do we need/want?
b. How many students will/do make it viable? Predict the future? Enrollment in 20 years?
c. If we change configuration, do we lose control?
d. Physical Plant
a. What does “safety” mean? Safe classrooms, up to code, site?
b. How do we build?
i. Historically accurate
ii. Green
iii. Good learning environment
iv. Playground
v. One campus
e. In-School Culture
a. What elements create an ideal school culture?
b. How do we achieve them?
f. School Community Culture
a. How important is the school to the community?
b. How important is community involvement in the school?
g. Academics
a. Are the Craftsbury schools providing the education our children need?
b. Lifelong learning, mentally, emotionally, physically.
h. Constraints
a. How do we address state and federal mandates?
b. Are we restricted by teachers’ union?

8. Wrap up: The Steering Committee will organize the questions, topics and information, and
graphically represent the frequency of topics among the larger group. Information will be on
the blog to enable stakeholders to review before the next meeting in 2 weeks.

9. Meeting adjourned 8:10 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joannie Stinson, Scribe

Stakeholder Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2009

2009-10-17T07:36:00.000-07:00

Minutes of Craftsbury Stakeholder’s Committee
October 1, 2009

The meeting of the Craftsbury Stakeholder’s Committee was called to order by Annie Volmer, Chairperson of the Craftsbury Steering Committee at 6:40 on Thursday, October 1, 2009 at the Craftsbury Town Hall.

Annie read the Steering Committee’s statement of purpose and discussed how the Committee came to be. The Steering Committee is a sub-committee of the Schoolboard that was created for the purpose of bringing Town’s people together to make a recommendation to the Schoolboard regarding the future of the Craftsbury Schools. This process is open to anyone that would like to attend. Annie then introduced Heidi Krantz. Heidi has volunteered her time to be the facilitator of the Stakeholder’s group.

Heidi asked if the Steering committee along with the Stakholders to break into groups of five to six people. Each group had 30 seconds to introduce their group members and tell everyone something about each person and a fun fact about the members. This enabled the groups to get to know each other.

Stark talked about the “housekeeping” type things that were contained in the folders that everyone received. All Stakeholder meeting will be warned and the approved minutes will be posted on the CSCC blog, C Village Store, The Stardust Book Store, and Public Library. All meetings will start at 6:30 and are expected to last 1 ½ - 2 hours. The School newsletter will also have informational articles about the Stakeholders Committee. In the folder, is a listing of the perspectives that are committed to being on the Stakeholder’s group. If anyone can think of a perspective that is missing, please let a Steering Committee member know. Stark further asked that any and all information that Stakeholder members find be given to the Steering Committee for organization and distribution.

Heidi explained the group process. Differences between public meetings and the collaborative process were discussed. In a collaborative process, we need to have the following group needs:
o Goals
o Clear Rolls
o Practical Process
o Effective Relationships

The Steering Committee’s job is to come up with the “map” and the Stakeholder’s job is to choose the route. There are four stages of groups:
o Forming – everyone gets together
o Storming – everyone starts to get used to each other’s differences and starts putting together ideas.
o Norming – everyone starts functioning together and making progress.
o Performing – everyone makes progress to come to a main goal.

The group will go through these stages and will probably go forward and backward in these stages depending on what is happening with the members. For example, a new member starts participating, may move the group from the Norming stage back to the Storming stage.

The group discussed agreements for engagements or ground rules for the Stakeholder’s meetings.
o Accepting perspectives of all – being open minded
o Listen to understand not for the purpose of making a rebuttal
o Respect all ideas
o Invite contributions from all members
o Establish reasonable time limits
o Commit to length of the process in order to be successful
o Be kind to all members
o Be willing to compromise

Steve Moffatt explained the role of the Schoolboard and how the Stakeholders and the Schoolboard would function together to keep each other informed. This process was asked for by the Schoolboard for the following reasons:
o Will help to get good information out the community that is meaningful
o Schoolboard wants to hear ideas from the community
o The Steering Committee is an official sub-committee of the Schoolboard this will allow the Stakeholders to have easier access to information
o The Steering Committee is at Schoolboard meetings in order to be a liaison for information between the Schoolboard and the Stakeholders Committee

Steve talked about the upcoming bond vote for renovations to the Academy Building. Steve urged anyone to come to the Schoolboard meetings or speak to a Schoolboard member to hear more detailed information. There will be an informational meeting on November 3rd.

Perry talked about the role of the Steering Committee. The collaborative process is a process that we didn’t invent. Research shows this process can be very successful. The Steering Committee will have the following responsibilities:
o Support Stakeholders with their work
o Arrange meetings, arrange for facilitation of these meetings
o Agendas, minutes and posting minutes after approved
o Information conduit to and from the Schoolboard
o Coordinate the flow of information
o Gather information for the Stakeholders
o Seek funding for this process

The role of the Stakeholders are as follows:
o Clearly define questions
o Gather creditable information
o Generate a list of solutions and agree upon them
o Inform, update and listen to the community
o Come up with a recommendation for the Schoolboard
o Follow through with the recommendation and answer questions

Heidi explained that it is crucial to let go of perceptions of the past. We have to be willing to acknowledge and accept that everyone has different ways to process information. We will all need to be tolerant of this in each other.

Tina discussed the calendar. The following is a listing of the meetings scheduled:
o October 15
o November 5
o November 19
o December 3
o January 7
o January 21
o February 11
o February 25
o March 11

We may be able to accomplish our goal earlier than March 11th. We will have an update of where the Stakeholder’s group is at Town Meeting. The meeting place was discussed and it was decided that the meetings would continue to be held at 6:30 at the Town Hall. We will start the process at the next meeting.

Susan did some Brain Gyms with the group to help the group to focus on suspending opinions, setting the process, and doing the process.

Heidi asked everyone to write on a slip of paper a thought that each person needed to “leave behind” in order to start the process with a clean state. This was done as a symbolic gesture for a new beginning. The papers were collected in a basket and thrown away.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:00.

Tina Sweet
Scribe

Stakeholder Participation Q & A

2009-10-15T18:50:00.000-07:00

Question: What about those community members who pay school taxes but are not permanent residents? Are they invited to participate in the collaborative process?

Answer: Yes, all non-residents who pay school taxes are invited to participate as Stakeholders (in addition to all residents who pay school taxes).

Question: How about those who pay school taxes elsewhere and whose children are tuitioned to Craftsbury Schools by their towns?

Answer: They too are welcome to participate as Stakeholders. See Stakeholder meeting schedule below.

Stakeholder Meeting Schedule

2009-10-09T03:32:00.000-07:00

Craftsbury School Community Collaboration

Schedule of Stakeholder Meetings

At the first Stakeholder Meeting, held October 1, those gathered agreed to meet on the following future dates (see additional details below):

October 15
November 5
November 19
December 3
January 7
January 21
February 11
February 25
March 11

· All meetings will be held at the Craftsbury Town Hall.

· Meetings will begin promptly at 6:30 pm and every effort will be made to conclude by 8:00 pm.

· Meetings are open to the public.

· Refreshments will be served

· It is hoped that all stakeholders will be able to make all meetings. However, it is fully understood that this would be difficult if not impossible. When a Stakeholder does miss a meeting please consult the Minutes that will be posted on our blog and try to talk to another stakeholder about the discussion that took place.

Invitation to Stakeholders

2009-09-15T10:34:00.000-07:00

To: The Citizens of Craftsbury

Subject: Craftsbury School Community Collaboration

The Craftsbury School Community Collaboration (CSCC) is seeking volunteers to serve on a Stakeholder Committee that will address the educational challenges facing the Town of Craftsbury. The task of the Committee will be to forge a long-term vision for our schools and develop recommendations dealing with such matters as grade structure, school consolidation and the physical plant. The Group will be comprised of individuals that reflect the full diversity of views regarding the future of the Craftsbury Schools. The CSCC is an independent sub-committee of the School Board and is free to make any recommendations that it believes are appropriate.

It is anticipated that the Stakeholder Group will meet approximately twice a month for a minimum of six months. A Steering Committee has been established to support the work of the Group and to collect information.

For further information please go to http://www.craftsburyschools.org/ and click on Craftsbury School Community Collaboration.

To volunteer please call any of the following Steering Committee members as soon as possible:

Annie Volmer: 586-6930 Harry Miller: 586-9972
Suzan Houston: 586-2873 Tina Sweet: 586-2224
Stark Biddle: 586-7760 Perry Thomas: 586-9670
Ron Sanville: 586-9642 Steve Moffatt: 586-6900

Please help us with this important task!

Collaboration in Craftsbury

2009-09-15T07:29:00.000-07:00

The Collaborative Process:
Is it Right for Craftsbury?

Collaboration is simply a process for bringing people with different opinions together to work on a problem. However:

The process is very carefully designed and structured and managed to ensure forward progress.

Collaboration works best when:

· There is agreement on the nature of the problem

· All points of view are reflected so no group feels left out.

· Everybody has the same reliable information on which to make a decision.

· Everbody is equal and all opinions and beliefs carry equal weight.

· There is careful advance preparation to avoid stalemate.

· There is a good facilitator to keep the process moving forward.

· There is ample time to collect information, analyze alternatives, look at pros and come to consensus

The Process works because:

· Agreement on small issues tends to lead to agreement on large issues.

· The group is working from the same facts and information.

· All groups and all perspectives are part of the solution

· Participants (or stakeholders) become advocates of the solutions they have arrived at.

· The process is carefully managed to avoid stalemate and acrimony.

Collaboration is not:

· A process based on majority rule;

· A debating society where members dominate by making convincing arguments.

· A search for the single correct solution

Collaboration is right for Craftsbury because:

· There is disagreement on the reliability of the information.

· Not everyone has access to the same information.

· There is a need for new information and access to new research

· Some believe decisions have been made by a small majority.

· There is disagreement on the nature of the problem.

· Some groups do not feel adequately represented.

· To date the issue of the School has taken the form of an up or down vote.

· The issues are complex and interrelated.

· The Town has become polarized

Q & A from September 3, 2009

2009-09-14T12:01:00.000-07:00

Craftsbury School Community Collaborative
Informational Meeting
September 3, 2009
Questions and Answers
(Note: Some of the questions that arose at this meeting also surfaced at the August 29 meeting. These are not duplicated in this summary. )

1. What is the relationship between the work of the Collaborative and the ongoing day-to-day work of the School Board such as responding to the availability of interest free bond funds? Isn’t there a conflict?

The Collaborative is designed to take a long-term approach to the future of the Craftsbury School System. We recognize that inevitably there will be short-term issues and opportunities with long-term implications. The Collaborative will do its very best to coordinate with the School Board and identify the long run implications of short-term decisions. Of course, the important work of the School Board cannot be put on hold while the Collaborative moves forward but every effort will be made to insure maximum long-term flexibility so that future options are not foreclosed.

2. What will the March status report at Town Meeting cover?

It is too early to know whether the Collaborative will have firm recommendations by Town Meeting. If so, we anticipate that the Report would outline alternative approaches, the pros and cons of each and make a recommendation as to the best choice. We anticipate that the recommendations would cover: grade consolidation, the future of the k-12 structure and the needs of the physical plant. In addition, the Collaborative may identify significant curriculum modifications and/or make recommendations regarding the fundamental structure of education in Craftsbury. An early function of the Collaborative will be to define the questions and issues that need to be addressed.

3. How will the citizens of the Town have a voice in what is recommended?

The single most important aspect of community collaboration is that citizens believe their voice is being listened to. For this reason, the Stakeholder group will be deliberately designed to reflect the full diversity of all groups and all points of view.

4. How will the Steering Committee ensure that the Stakeholder Group represents all points of view?

The Steering Committee will put together a comprehensive list of all the various groups whose views need to be reflected in the discussion and compare that to the group of volunteers that have come forward. If there are gaps the Committee will attempt to identify and reach out to individuals who can fill that perspective. For example, if there were no Craftsbury Academy alumni, the Steering Committee might search for an individual and ask that person to serve.

5. Why do you use the word “reflect” instead of “represent” when you speak of the work of Stakeholders?

The Stakeholders cannot be expected to “represent” a particular constituency the way our legislators do because this would make it much more difficult to compromise and come to agreement.

6. Will the Stakeholder Group include summer residents, individuals from adjacent towns whose children go to the school or anyone other than registered Craftsbury voters?

The guiding principal is that the Stakeholder Group should represent the perspectives of the community of individuals that will be impacted by the decisions that are made. For example, Craftsbury students should have a voice. However, it may not be appropriate to include individuals who are not responsible for educational costs. In any case, this is a decision that will be made in close consultation with the Stakeholder Group when it is initially formed

7. How can you insure that all the Stakeholders are neutral?

Stakeholders are not expected to be neutral, but they are expected to listen to and think about the opinions of other members and information provided by experts. The Collaborative process is based on the belief that when reasonable people with different points of view come together with the same information they can gradually work toward agreement.

8. What is the relationship between the Stakeholders and the Steering Committee?

Members of the Steering Committee will not be Stakeholders. The job of the Steering Committee is to support and facilitate the work of the Stakeholders. The Steering Committee will remain neutral throughout the process and will not take a pro or con position on the deliberations or on the recommendations put forward by the Stakeholder Group.

9. What is the difference between this process and the process we have followed in the past? That process did not work; why will this process work.

There are several very important differences. The first and most obvious is that the prior process only addressed the issue of school construction while this process focuses on related elements such as consolidation, grade structure and the long-term future of education in Craftsbury. The second difference is that the prior process was focused on developing support for an existing proposal while this process is focused on developing a proposal that will have broad community support. A third important distinction is that this process is deliberately and carefully designed so that all perspectives will be included.

10. How will you communicate with the citizens and keep the Town informed and engaged in the process?

We currently plan the following outreach and communication program:

1. This blog.

2. A report in each of the the School Newsletters.

3. A monthly status report that will be sent to parents together witht he student progress report and posted on the blog.

3. Continued coverage in the Hardwick Gazette.

4. Open and public meetings of both the Stakeholder and Steering Committee.

5. Progress reports at every school board meeting.

6. Importantly, all members of the Steering Committee will be available to answer questions.

Q & A from First Informational Meeting

2009-09-02T09:34:00.000-07:00

Craftsbury School Community Collaborative
Informational Meeting
August 29, 2009
Questions and Answers
(Note: Several Q&A’s have been added to respond to
related or implicit questions.)

1. Can the Stakeholder Group report directly to the School Board?

Yes. The role of the Steering Committee is to support and coordinate the process. Recommendations and advice from the Stakeholder Group will go directly to the School Board.

2. Why is the Steering Committee a sub-committee of the School Board?

For two reasons. First, in order to apply for foundation grants, the Steering Committee needed an official legal status that a connection with the School Board provided. Second, the Steering Committee felt it needed to have a close working relationship with the School Board and Supervisory Union in order to have access to regulations, technical information, old studies and reports, etc.

3. Is the Stakeholder Group obligated in any way to take a position advocated by the School Board?

No. The CSCC is a fully independent process. The Stakeholder Group can make whatever recommendations it chooses. There is no obligation to pursue a particular course of action or reflect a particular point of view. The School Board is fully aware of this and is completely supportive.

4. Why are School Board members on the Steering Committee?

School Board members serve on the Committee in order to provide access to information and the history of prior work and to maintain full and open communication with the School Board.

5. Will members of the Steering Committee be members of the Stakeholder Group?

No. The job of the Steering Committee is to support the collaborative process and provide the help the Stakeholder Group will need to move toward agreement on what needs to be done. The Steering Committee does not have a position on these issues and will remain non-commital throughout the process.

6. Is the School Board supportive of the process and with the proposed time frame?

The School Board is completely supportive of the process and has pledged full cooperation. The Steering Committee has discussed the tentative time frame with the Board.

7. How are the Stakeholders selected?

First and most importantly, participation as a Stakeholder is voluntary and therefore self selecting.

However, the key to effective collaboration is to make sure that all groups and all points of view are represented. This is an important role for the Steering Committee to perform. For this reason the Steering Committee may reach out to individuals and ask if they would be willing to participate order to ensure full representation.

8. Can students and younger people participate?

Absolutely! This is a key group and there voice needs to be heard.

9. How would the process work?

There are several books and web sites that describe the collaborative process. We are currently searching for an advisor that can help us take these approaches and apply them to our special situation here in Craftsbury. In very broad terms once established the Stakeholder Group will first define the problem (or the “scope of work”), establish guiding principles, identify alternatives, gather information, evaluate pros and cons and develop a proposal to move forward.

In practice, of course, the process is more complex and less linear.

Minutes from August 5th Meeting

2009-09-02T08:42:00.000-07:00

Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration
Steering Committee
Minutes – 5 Aug 09

Present: Annie Volmer, Ron Sanville, Perry Thomas, Tina Sweet, Harry Miller, Steve Moffatt

Minutes from 22 July 09 were approved.

Media Blitz Update
Informational message to go out to e-mail list
Plan to post minutes on blog after approval by steering committee. Also include contact information for Annie and Steve. Blog is intended for informational purposes only.

Old Home Day
Tina will set up booth outside Chris young’s office.
No float. Instead, Annie will distribute copies of the one-page letter.

Calendar Updates
Town hall reserved for informational meetings.
Current plan is for stakeholder group to meet twice monthly starting September 23rd and proceeding for six months to one year.
School Board meetings moved to second Tuesday of the month.

Facilitation
UVM Extension (Perry)
Ben Williams as source of contacts (Annie)
Anne Morse as source of contacts (Steve)
Snelling Center (Steve)
Cindy Cook or her colleague—possibilities if funding materializes

Other
Carol Butler Young is a Craftsbury native and was principal for Glover when they built their new school. She is interested in sitting in on one of our steering committee meetings. Annie will give her a call.
Next steering committee meetings are scheduled for August 19th and September 9th, 7:00 p.m., at Stardust.

Minutes - July 22, 2009

2009-08-03T07:58:00.000-07:00

Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration
Steering Committee Minutes
July 22, 2009

Present: Annie Volmer, Ron Sanville, Tina Sweet, Harry Miller, Steve Moffatt, Susan Houston, Perry Thomas

Media Blitz Updates
CSCC documents are posted on the town website, but are buried deep in the site. Annie will ask Michelle to create a specific link for CSCC.
Annie also sent CSCC documents to Tony to post on the Craftsbury Schools website.
Annie will add link to blog to CSCC documents. This allows us to constantly update our materials.
School newsletter not happening in August, but letter home is and will include our one-page summary. School newsletter is distributed in late September or early October.
Informational letter to go out to e-mail list, with link to blog (Perry).
Susie will update letter from select board and submit to Hardwick Gazette in August.
Old Home Day
Booth at Farmers’ Market (Steve will reserve space, materials to be organized by Annie & Perry, booth staffed by Tina, sign up sheet for those interested in being part of stakeholder group—collect name, e-mail address, and phone number)
Float for parade (Harry & Steve designing float, Tina & Annie plan to join them for parade)
Radio
WLVB before and after stakeholder group organization
Later: WDEV and VPR

Calendar
Informational meetings before and after Labor Day.
Next CSCC Steering Committee meeting August 5th.
Letter from Select Board to Gazette third week of August (to editor by August 17th)
August 10thàbrief press release with pictures of floatàrecruit Steve WrightàAnnie will write
Informational meetings Thursday, September 3rd, 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall and Saturday, August 29th, 10:00 a.m. at Town Hall.
First stakeholder meeting on Wednesday, September 23rd, place TBA.
Radio blip to stations by September 17th (Ron will help).
Harry will arrange to be on air September 21st.

Facilitation
How will we facilitate meetings if funding does not materialize? Explore UVM extension and folks associated with Woodbury College.

The next CSCC steering committee meeting will be held Wednesday, August 5th, 7:00 p.m at Stardust Bookstore.

Minutes - July 15, 2009

2009-07-16T07:19:00.000-07:00

Craftsbury Schools Community Collaboration
Steering Committee Minutes
July 15, 2009

Present: Annie Volmer, Ron Sanville, Tina Sweet, Harry Miller, Steve Moffatt, Perry Thomas

Announcements
Welcome to Ron Sanville, new steering committee member.
Letter from School Board and article by June Cook published in today’s Hardwick Gazette (HG) are first steps in media blitz.

Next steps in media blitz
Letter from Select Board to be submitted to HG, but first needs revision by Susie.
We are invited to include information about the collaborative process in the August mailing of Craftsbury Schools. Annie will submit a one-page explanation of the process.
Old Home Day
Booth at Farmers’ Market (organized by Perry & Annie, staffed by Tina)
Float for parade (Harry & Steve)
Documents explaining process to be posted on town website (Annie will get documents to Michelle)
Blog to document ongoing process (Perry)
Radio
WLVB before and after stakeholder group organization
Later: WDEV and VPR

Stakeholders
Important parts of the collaborative process are: 1) analyzing the community to determine different perspectives and 2) making sure broadest diversity of perspectives is included in stakeholder group. We brainstormed perspectives:
Teachers
School staff/admin
Craftsbury Academy (CA) students
Students who live in Craftsbury but attend school elsewhere
Students who tuition from elsewhere to CA
Homeschooled students
Parents of CA students (from pre-school through high school)
Parents of students who attend school elsewhere
Parents of students who tuition to CA
Parents of homeschooled students
CA alumni/ae
CA neighbors
CA trustees
Summer residents
Different businesses (Outdoor Center, Sterling, CCCC, Farms)
Long-time local residents with/without children
Recent transplants with/without children
Church congregations
Retirees (with and without grandchildren in schools)

Plans for an informational meeting
Important to hold open informational meeting(s) both as part of the media blitz and as a way to begin forming stakeholder group. Currently, we are considering holding two meetings: one before Labor Day and one during week following Labor Day.

Stakeholder commitment
The group considered expectations of stakeholders. The process needs to remain open, yet cannot stop and begin again if new stakeholders join part way through. Any stakeholders joining after initial meetings will be expected to read materials developed to-date and bring themselves up to speed.

Upcoming steering committee meetings
The next meeting will be held Wednesday, July 22nd, 7:00 p.m. at Stardust. The July 29th meeting may need to be rescheduled due to an event at Stardust.