unapproved

TRSU Act 46 Planning Committee Chester, Andover, Cavendish, Baltimore Subcommittee Special Meeting Chester Andover Elementary School-Gymnasium November 29, 2016 6:30 p.m. I.

Call To Order/Roll Call Board/Committee Members: Alison DesLauriers, Kathy Muther, Wayne Wheelock, Lauren Baker, Gene Bont, Doug McBride, Marilyn Mahusky, Joe Fromberger, Niki Oleski, George Thomson, Fred Marin, Bill Dakin Present: Dave Venter, Shawn Cunningham, Beverly Rokes, Sierra Kehoe, Kelley Kehoe, Ross Jones, Amy Jones, Alex Hutchins, Berkley Hutchins, Frank Kelly, Angela Hutchins, Sue Willis, Katherine Fogg, Skylar White, Lexi White, Bruce Schmidt, Lisa Schmidt, Philissa Prescott, Matt Prescott, Gary King, Carrie King, Craig Hutt Vater, Jill Breunig, John Sawyer, Renata Sawyer, Heidi Skinner, Ken Skinner, Christine Anderson, Kelly Spaulding, Katie Hamblin, Julie Wood, Sadie Wood, Grace Johnson, Susan Lieder, Wes Williams, Sharon Jonynas, Jayne Peters Ms. DesLauriers called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

II.

Approve Agenda _____ moved to approve the agenda with the addition of the approval of agenda. _____ seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

III.

Overview on Where Things Stand Ms. DesLauriers introduced herself and asked the committee members to introduce themselves. She explained that this group came together about a year ago as a result of the Act 46 law. She noted that they have met every month or so trying to determine their commonalities between the districts. She noted that under Act 153, this SU came together and Act 46 has additional changes in it. She explained that there are possibilities for “doing nothing” but that would result in a loss of incentives and a loss of protections the districts currently have. She noted that in order to make the change cost-neutral, the entire SU would have to save about $650,000. The group directed the administration to define a plan under which that amount could be saved. The administration developed a plan “option 1” which will be discussed later in the meeting. There is agreement about certain criteria that must be met under any plan, such as educational advantages, possible financial savings, reasonable transportation, etc. However there was a bit of discourse about the plan that the administrative team created. As a result, they discussed a few other plans available to the group. Ms. Powden noted that VT has lost 25,000 students over the last 20 years. This has had an impact on the cost per student to educate the students. Ms. Powden explained how the different plans were developed. She described the administrative

plan of having a single regional high school, a single regional middle school and 4 elementary schools (2 preK-5 and 2 K-5). She explained some of the rationale for bringing all of the MS students together and all of the HS students together, including being able to offer more robust academics and a variety of educational programming, in addition to increased co-curricular offerings. Ms. DesLauriers explained that option 1 A effectively has no change in operations, which would have the result of increasing taxes for half the SU. Ms. DesLauriers noted that Ludlow and Mt. Holly have lower enrollments and therefore there was the concern about their schools. She also noted that with option 1B, there is a potential for savings, however there was concern about sending Mt. Holly and Ludlow HS students to Chester and Chester’s MS students to Ludlow. She explained that option 2 allows for the dissolution of Union 39 and then Mt. Holly students would attend Mill River and Ludlow students would attend GMUHS. All of the elementary schools would continue. Option 3 seems to be the most palatable option, but there is concern about the state board of education approving this option. She explained that in Option 3 there would be 1 board overseeing Ludlow, Mt. Holly and Black River and 1 board overseeing Chester, Andover, Cavendish and Baltimore (if Baltimore chose). She explained that Baltimore is currently K-12 full choice, and just under half of their students attend CAES and GMUHS. She explained that in Baltimore, the town just has to pay tuition bills and they have no say about the cost of that education. Ms. DesLauriers also noted that each of the sides of Option 3 would have the same tax rates. She also noted that currently the GMUHS board works together with 3 towns to educate the students in grades 7-12 in those towns, and this would change to grades K-12. Ms. DesLauriers explained that if Baltimore chose to join into this group, they would have a bit more voice in the education of its students and a bit more control over their costs. Ms. DesLauriers noted that this option doesn’t eliminate the need for a supervisory union which seems to be a goal of Act 46—to make a single supervisory district. Ms. DesLauriers explained that option 4 looks the same as option 3 for Chester, Andover, Cavendish and Baltimore, but provides school choice for their students in grades 7-12 or 9-12. This would allow students in Mt. Holly to attend MRUHS or GMUHS or any other school that their board would designate. Ms. DesLauriers explained that if they offer full choice, families tend to “move in” and ask the board to pay tuition to their private schools. Ms. DesLauriers explained that the minutes of last night’s meeting between Ludlow and Mt. Holly are available on the TRSU website. Ms. DesLauriers distributed some tax rate projection information. She explained that some assumptions had to be made in order to create these projections. The tax projections included projections on “no change” but a combination into a single district. She noted that these tax rates are pre-CLA rates. She explained what CLA means and how that is calculated roughly. She explained that the lower spending districts have some increases, but the higher spending districts see a significant increase. She also explained that with the loss of the small schools grant and the hold harmless protection, they will see an increase in their tax rates. She explained that the projection assumes a budget increase of 2% per year and a 1% enrollment drop each year. The budget increases have typically been less than 2%, and the hope is that they can slow the enrollment drop.

Ms. DesLauriers explained that in the tax projection for option 1, it assumes a reduction of staffing and therefore a savings of about $1,000,000. She explained that the last projection which has elements of option 3 and option 4 with a single RED made up of Chester, Andover, Cavendish and Baltimore. Ms. DesLauriers thanked everyone for coming tonight. She noted that there seems to be a feeling of anxiety on the other side of the district for fear of losing their school. Frank Kelly noted that the tax rate projections do not take into account any portions of the physical plant in the buildings. Ms. DesLauriers noted that all of the property has been catalogued, but this projection does not include that in the comparisons. She noted that there has been some preliminary discussions about the needs in each building, but did not include that in the comparison. She also thanked the GMUHS students for attending tonight’s meeting and for attending the meeting in Mt. Holly. Skylar White noted that it seems that Ludlow residents are very upset about the thought of their school closing and she can empathize. There has been a bit of backlash and they seem to feel that BRHS students feel that GMUHS students won’t accept them and don’t think their school is good enough. Their plan is to invite 7-9th graders to shadow GMUHS students in order to show them the benefits of GMUHS and make them feel welcome. Ms. DesLauriers noted that this process is not about schools being good or bad, but rather responding to the state’s mandate. Ms. DesLauriers noted that the committee meets again on December 6 in Baltimore and December 14 in Ludlow. Kelley Kehoe questioned how the committee will be seeking input from the communities. Ms. DesLauriers invited everyone to give their input at these meetings or contact the principal, superintendent, a school board member or a committee member. She noted that each school board meeting has an Act 46 update warned on the agendas. She noted that the goal is to vote on an option by December 14. Ms. Mahusky asked for community input noting that they have participated in several meetings but they still feel the need to get a sense of the community’s desires. She explained that at the Mt. holly meeting, there was a great vision introduced by one of the community members, however it was not entirely realistic. Ms. DesLauriers noted that if the committee can’t come to a vote on December 14, they will not have enough time to prepare the articles of agreement and get state board approval in time for a town meeting vote. She noted that the ultimate deadline is July 1, 2017 for the affirmative vote. If they don’t hold a vote by then, they have lost the opportunity for the incentives. Heidi Skinner noted that she has kids in special education and she is happy with the smaller class sizes in Chester schools and she has concerns about the accommodations written in her children’s IEP’s being met because it isn’t possible in larger classes. She questioned if these changes would result in staffing cuts on special educators and/or para-educators. Ms. Powden explained that the MS would be 210 and the HS would be 314, so that would still be small classes in the scheme of things—yes they would increase, but they wouldn’t be unreasonable. She also noted that this district has a stellar special education staff. Ms. Skinner noted that with increased class size, special education students don’t thrive as much. Ms. Powden noted that they are not projecting class sizes of 30. They haven’t yet determined what cuts would be made, but they would likely be in the area of administration and teaching staff. Ms. Skinner noted that as a result, she would support option 3. She explained that this would allow the quality of education would be more like what it is currently. Ms. Powden noted that she would

like to see the quality of education improve. Ms. Mahusky noted that the overriding goal of this committee is that whatever decision is made, it has to meet the criteria of improving education for all of the students. She noted that they can’t ignore the financial piece of it, but the main focus is on improving educational opportunities. Ms. DesLauriers noted that on the back of the agenda are guiding principles that the committee decided that any proposal must meet. John Sawyer noted that he also has a special needs child and a large classroom would be a distraction for his child. Therefore he would support option 3 or 4. He noted that when he moved to Chester he did so purposefully because he researched the schools in the area. He was concerned about the property values if they join in a larger school. Renata Sawyer echoed that though and noted that people move to small towns because they like small schools. She also wouldn’t want her child on the bus for a half hour to school. She appreciated the idea of change, but felt it didn’t work for their family. Carrie King noted her appreciation about the committee putting in this work, but questioned why they were trying to push the vote for town meeting when they can wait until July 1. She noted that this is a tough choice to make with little preparation so quickly. She noted that they moved to this town because they liked the school system. She also voiced her concerns about the building quality, the technology quality and other factors in other buildings. She felt that she would need more time to digest and research. Jill Breunig asked for clarification that option 2 assumes that all the students, MS and HS, in Ludlow would come to Chester. There are some different possibilities for the use of the BRHS building given that there are bonds on the building and it would still have to be used for educational purposes. She explained some of the idea, such as dual enrollment, supervisory union offices and other ideas. Ms. DesLauriers noted that when she first came to Chester, GMUHS had 450 students. If they absorbed the Ludlow students now, they would still be less than that 450. She noted that if there are increased opportunities for students, that may increase home values. There was discussion about GMUHS being built for a capacity of 700 students, but there have been some changes in the IdeaB law. Sierra Kehoe noted that the bottom floor of GMUHS has lockers that aren’t being used, plus there are some class rooms that aren’t being used. The honors classes are under 10 students, while the regular classes are between 10-20 students. She asked for a general idea of how many students per class they are anticipating. There was discussion about the BRHS honors classes being typically 3-4 students so they would still be similarly sized. There was discussion about needing additional staffing in GMUHS in order to educate the additional students, but that would still save some staffing from what is currently at BRHS. Ms. Baker noted that the ideal number seems to be about 20 students in the classes. Mr. McBride suggested that if there are two high schools and they are merged completely and nothing changes, it is comforting, and there would be some savings. However he noted that if they want to add more language teachers or more co-curricular activities or more arts and enrichment, something would have to give in order to pay for it. He noted that it could mean saving some staffing. Sierra noted that at the Mt. Holly meeting, it seemed that a lot of the Mt. Holly parents want their students to attend MRUHS. She questioned if there is an option that BRHS stays open if the Mt. Holly students go to MRUHS. Ms. DesLauriers noted that it becomes much less viable in that scenario. Philissa Prescott

questioned if the elementary level would remain effectively the same. Ms. DesLauriers noted that it would except that 6th grade would be joined with the middle school. She noted that sharing staff under a single budget would be easier under a single contract. She noted that she felt that bringing the high school and middle school together provides for better opportunities. Sue Willis noted that she is a para-educator and a home owner in Chester. She noted that there is some anxiety among the staff about the possible changes. She asked why the teachers weren’t more involved in some of this planning. Ms. DesLauriers noted that Ms. Powden began in July and this discussion began in November and the committee anticipated that these discussions had been being held at staff meetings prior to then. She noted that staff input has been given over the last few months. Ms. Powden reported that they held a staff meeting recently and an overview of Act 46 was given. She noted that the administrative council developed this plan together and as she was updating the Act 46 committee with the proposal, there was the desire to seek teacher and student input. At yesterday’s meeting, she heard that the staff would have liked to help create other options. Ms. Willis also noted that the plans seem to be contingent upon what Ludlow and Mt. Holly decide and she questioned when we will know which direction they are going so we know which options are available to us. Ms. Powden noted that the Act 46 committee will be reviewing the options as a whole, including the path for each of the districts. Jayne Peters noted her concern that the committee doesn’t know whether the state will approve a plan and she hopes that the committee would develop a plan that the state is likely to approve. Ms. DesLauriers noted that they are working with a consultant. The consultant has been working with Donna Russo-Savage who helped develop Act 46. Mr. McBride noted that even after the committee decides on a plan, has it pass the state board, it still needs to go to the voters and must pass in all of the “necessary” towns. Sharon Jonynas voiced her concern about moving the 6-8 students to BRHS. She noted that there is a track and an auditorium for example. She explained that if they moved the students to BRHS, the MS students would lose opportunities. She also questioned why LES and CTES didn’t consider a merge given their proximity. Christine Anderson noted that she has friends who are moving from this area in order to get school choice. She also suggested that they should work to make GMUHS as good as the perception of BBA. Wes Williams from Andover noted that his children travel 40 minutes to school. He also noted that when he was in school the kids from Londonderry came to GMUHS. He suggested making the school better and provide more opportunities for classes that have been lost over time. He also suggested having buses cross paths every day seems to be a waste. He also noted that he felt that BRHS was in danger of closing a few years ago because of the state of its building. He noted his concern about having to renovate the building to make it viable. Ms. DesLauriers noted that GMUHS still has a great woods program. Susan Leider voiced her opposition to having 6th graders joining with 7th and 8th graders. Grace Johnson noted that there are certain social and physical changes that MS students go through. Sadie Wood understood the concerns about unifying the schools into a single building, but option 1B and option 2 would likely help those issues. Option 3 would help to keep operations closer to what they are now, and

would give the incentives to the school. She also noted that the resources available at GMUHS would help benefit all of the students. Katie Hamblin from Cavendish questioned if there would be a breakdown of the teacher cuts and class sizes before the vote. She questioned the ability for her babysitter to not take physics because there isn’t a teacher. She noted her concern with having less teachers. Ms. DesLauriers noted that the expectation is that some of the savings will come from being able to combine like classes—such as biology or physical science, but it may also provide the opportunity to offer more variety in classes. She noted that the committee has been working with these options and there is a possibility of merging some of these options into different options. She reported that there is value in hearing what the community doesn’t want. She explained that there are not charts of these changes yet, but the hope is to have those before the vote. Ms. Baker noted that in the articles of agreement, they have to develop the plan about how they will operate the first year. She felt that this is when they would likely outline these changes. Ms. DesLauriers noted that with a single board, there is a fear about losing the small town voice. She explained that as the GMUHS board, she has never seen a vote fall along town lines. She explained how the governance structure would be developed based on census population. Skylar White noted that if they dive into the specialty high school option at Black River in option 1B, they can make this district exciting and innovative and draw people in. Kelly Spaulding noted that she lives in Chester, but graduated from BRHS. She noted that the core of a town is its school. She suggested that K-8 stay in the elementary schools and pool resources at the MS/HS level and allow the school schools to stay open. Julie Wood noted that she is happy that the classes would be capped at 20 because it is good to focus on the good of all the students but not ignore the needs of the special needs students. She also felt that asking the teachers for their input after a plan is developed is too late. Ms. DesLauriers noted that the teacher conversations are on-going. Ms. DesLauriers thanked the community for their input and especially the students on their input. She invited them to continue to offer their input and also invited them to submit different options if they had them. Mr. Sawyer asked what the next step is for the community to remain involved. Ms. DesLauriers invited the community to continue to attend these meetings and reported that the next meeting will be on December 6 in Baltimore and then December 14 at Black River. She also invited the community to follow the progress of the meetings on the SU website: trsu.org. She invited the community to attend the Act 46 meetings and the school board meetings. Ms. Anderson suggested that if they set up a Facebook page in order to stay informed. Additionally SAPA and LPCTV are recording the meetings. Ken Skinner reported that he is a bus driver and his students are on the bus from 45 minutes to an hour and a half each day. When they are on the bus for more than a half hour, they tend to get rambunctious and there is more risk to the students in this case. There was discussion about the whether they could look at bringing in home schooled children to the schools to help increase enrollment. IV.

Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Amber Wilson Board Recording Secretary