Item 3-B-4 LSUU School District Withdrawal Discussion

Agenda Summary February 22, 2021 Agenda Item No. 3-B-4 School Withdrawal Discussion

Summary: Enclosed is an email from Richard Bland, stating in part, “Please consider this email a specific (and timely) request that the Agenda for the February 22nd meeting of the Selectboard include the following item: Establish a process for the Town of Stowe to vote on whether to withdraw from the LSUU at a special meeting.” In terms of process, I have asked the Town Attorney to outline the process if any under current statute for the Town of Stowe voters to withdraw from Lamoille South Unified Union School District. He should have his opinion ready for your 3/8/21 meeting and can be available if you desire. Based upon the information provided at the 3/8/2021 meeting and legal counsel’s opinion, if there is a role for the selectboard in the withdrawal process, you may want to have a joint meeting with the LSSU School Board or representative(s) thereof to hear their perspective. Also, if there is a legal process to withdraw from the existing school district it may require a vote by the other member municipalities to ratify it, so you may want to meet with Elmore and Morristown’s legislative bodies as well. You may want to address how the board can disseminate factual information and answer any questions the voters may have (e.g. issues with governance structure, the impact on property taxes, etc.). For your informational purposes, enclosed are two historical documents that Erica Loomis asked me to pass along. The first is “the section 9 alternative structure proposal drafted by the Stowe and EMMU school boards.” The second document is “from the, then, secretary of education suggesting reasons why our districts should not be merged.” Town Plan Impact: N/A Fiscal Impact: The cost of legal counsel. Also, any potential tax impacts. Recommendation: Discuss and advise on what if any process you would like to pursue going forward to determine if and when to warn a vote to withdraw from the Lamoille South Unified Union School District if permitted under statute.

LAMOILLE SOUTH SUPERVISORY UNION

PROPOSAL FOR AN ALTERNATIVE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

Submitted by Elmore-Morristown Unified Union School District and Stowe School District

November 30, 2017

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 3 Fast Facts ...... 11 Background and Context...... 12 Committee Membership ...... 18 Self-Evaluation ...... 19 Baseline/Demographics ...... 20 Program Review ...... 30 Student Performance ...... 38 Operational Efficiency ...... 49 Transparency, Accountability, Community Engagement ...... 67 Appendices ...... 70 Phase 1 Intro and Executive Summary ...... 71 Excerpts from LSSU Optional Educational Structures Report ...... 82 Regional Education Committee Recommendation ...... 86 Excerpts from EMUU Final Report and Articles of Agreement ...... 87 LSSU Act 46 Tax Projections...... 89 SSD & EMUU Program Review ...... 94 Student Assessment Data ...... 97 LSSU Comprehensive Plan for Continuous Improvement ...... 109 LSSU Mission ...... 121 VSAC Post-Secondary Survey Results ...... 122 VT High School Post-Secondary Study ...... 130 Wolcott Unification Financial Data ...... 134 Wolcott School Board Meeting Minutes ...... 135 LSSU Geography……………………………………………………………………………………136 LSSU Act 46 Meeting Dates ...... 138

LAMOILLE SOUTH SUPERVISORY UNION PROPOSAL FOR AN ALTERNATIVE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction: Nine years of strategic reflection concerning the operations and direction of the Lamoille South Supervisory Union and its member communities – Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe – has resulted in unprecedented levels of transparency, accountability, and community engagement. We are not the same Supervisory Union we once were. Working together, both districts individually and jointly are meeting and exceeding the goals of Act 46: equity and opportunity, quality, efficiency, transparency and accountability, and value. Our LSSU Action Plan commits our boards and administration – regardless of future turnover – to continued cooperation in service of these goals.

Proposed Alternative Structure: The Elmore-Morristown Unified Union (EMUU) and Stowe School Districts (SSD) propose to continue as side-by-side PreK-12 operating districts assigned to the Lamoille South Supervisory Union (LSSU).

Operating PreK-Grade 12 Operating PreK-Grade 12 3 schools 4 schools 815 students 912 students

A Brief Illustration:

In the fall of 2016, Elmore and Morristown began their first year as a unified union. At the same time, the board of the new district began meeting regularly with their neighbors – the Stowe School Board – to discuss forming an Alternative Governance Structure. Those conversations were bolstered by a robust review of programming and data across the supervisory union, and both boards saw some glaring inequities.

While there had long been a need for a foreign language teacher at the elementary and middle levels in Elmore and Morristown, it wasn’t until EMUU began more significant and open communications with its partner in Lamoille South that the EMUU board really began to consider how to close the gap between the robust foreign language exposure that Stowe students were getting and EMUU students’ exposure. EMUU’s board worked to find a way to extend its foreign language program throughout all schools.

Meanwhile, next door, Stowe’s school board was concerned about the significant achievement gap between students who received Free and Reduced Lunch and students who did not. The achievement gap is, of course, a state and national issue. However, Stowe’s gap was more significant than EMUU’s, a fact which became apparent as the two boards looked at the data for the entire supervisory union. Because Stowe’s Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) program is small – approximately 13% of Stowe’s students – the board knew it had an opportunity to tackle the achievement gap in their town, while districts with a larger FRL program might not be able to. The board asked the administrators what they needed to help all students reach benchmarks and then found a way to provide a literacy interventionist in the elementary school and a literacy coach on the secondary level.

These two instances – EMUU’s foreign language program and Stowe’s literacy gap – are just two examples of how fruitful our conversations around Act 46 have been. Act 46 has brought us together and made us a tighter team working together for all our students. As a result of that collaboration, we are able to focus on the distinctive needs of our individual districts, targeting our resources towards providing an equitable and quality education in both towns.

Summary Argument #1: Alternative Structure as “Best Means”

Introduction: Governance Alternatives in LSSU: Through nine years and six phases of thoughtful self-evaluation, LSSU has evaluated three separate governance structures in order to assess the best means for achieving the educational, fiscal, and operational goals of Act 46:

1. Maintaining the SU’s original operating structure of three autonomous school boards. 2. Merging all three districts into one unified union operating district with a single board. 3. Merging Elmore and Morristown into a single unified union district with a single board, within the context of a new Supervisory Union Structure representing the EMUU and Stowe school districts.

Through these evaluations, we found that the current structure of LSSU (option three) is the best means of achieving the goals of Act 46.

Given the emerging financial and educational realities facing the Elmore School, we successfully unified the districts of Elmore and Morristown, resulting in more stable enrollment trends and a sustainable mass of students in our schools. Unification resulted in greater programmatic opportunities and enhanced collaboration among our educators. Further, the merger resulted in a combined savings of $470,000, with minimal impact on Morrisville taxpayers and a tax reduction of 31.5 cents for Elmore.

Our self-study process provides real and conclusive evidence that:

1. The current supervisory union structure is leading students across LSSU to achieve or exceed the State’s educational quality standards as measured by a range of state and local performance assessments and post-graduation studies.

2. Both EMUU and Stowe are operationally lean districts delivering a quality educational program in an operationally efficient manner. LSSU has already wrung out of its operations, particularly in the union of Elmore and Morristown, efficiencies that benefit students and taxpayers.

3. Creating a single, unified budget assessed across the grand lists of Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe would result in no discernable increase in educational opportunity or equality (educational or financial), nor result in marked savings for taxpayers.

4. Changes in the operating structure of LSSU create unnecessary burdens on the capacity of our central office team to effectively complete the successful implementation of the already approved merger between Elmore and Morristown.

Governance Option 1 - Preferred Structure as “Best Means”: Our self-studies considered the potential benefits of restructuring the delivery of education services, specifically the costs and benefits of consolidating the middle and high schools through a full unification of our districts. The decision to advocate for a focused merger between Elmore and Morristown was made after a thorough consideration of whether a full unification of all three districts into one unified union was educationally and fiscally warranted. The central question in considering a full merger of governance structures in our region was whether or not we could establish a clear and decisive picture of the educational and financial benefits that might be derived from such a merger. After nine years of ongoing strategic reflection, we have concluded such a change is not necessary or in the best interests of our children.

Barriers to Merger: Central to LSSU’s Regional Education District studies’ examination of a merger between the school districts of Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe into a “preferred structure,” was the recommendation to restructure the middle and high schools in both Morristown and Stowe to create a unified middle school in one community and a unified high school in the other as the primary means for achieving greater operational efficiency and improving educational performance for all students.

However, after a thorough examination of this option, the R.E.D. study found:

➢ No evidence that the wholesale re-organization of two high-performing K-12 districts would lead to greater educational opportunity or improved student performance – and could, in fact, lead to the opposite result.

➢ The very real impact on a significant portion of our student body of longer bus rides, given the geographic size of our SU. The RED study was particularly concerned about ensuring access by all students to fully participate in after-school activities without compromising their ability to complete their homework due to late home arrivals.

➢ The perceived loss of community identification with and support for their schools.

 Evidence of an unequal shifting of future tax burdens among the communities of Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe – even when the merger was incentivized.

Summary Finding - Preferred Structure as “Best Means”: Our self-study concluded that a governance unification of the districts of EMUU and Stowe without re-structuring provided no additional educational or fiscal opportunities for meeting the goals of Act 46, and unifying our districts with the intent of restructuring schools that already are among the best in the state posed significant drawbacks with no evidence of potential benefits.

Governance Option 2 – Supervisory Union Structure as “Best Means”: A supervisory union structure can, when effectively implemented in the right context (particularly between two districts with a shared strategic vision and history of operational cooperation), provide students and communities with educational programs of the highest quality in a fiscally responsible manner. Our SU structure enables our districts to plan our shared future while allowing agility in our work. We develop and refine programs and policies in one district, then scale them to the whole supervisory union.

EMUU and Stowe are not siloed educational governance structures, intent on simply focusing on their own needs or exercising their local prerogatives. Our current model of governance has already led to the following educational and operational improvements:

1. Enhanced board knowledge of all our schools and the children they serve.

2. Established new patterns of PreK-12 strategic thinking and planning across our supervisory union.

3. Provided new opportunities to learn from each other’s unique practices and apply the best innovative ideas across our schools.

4. Led to the creation of coordinated policies, goals, and initiatives aimed at: a. The effective coordination and implementation of targeted instructional improvement plans. b. The alignment of instructional and social-emotional support programs across the supervisory union.

c. The institution of student information system and data management tools enabling our principals and teachers more effectively to use individual and aggregate student data to identify student needs, allocate and share resources, and improve instruction. d. A unified program of educator recruitment, support, and professional development.

5. Resulted in joint planning and accountability systems focused on: a. A sustained emphasis on analyzing common data points across all schools, programs, and students. b. Agreed upon strategic priorities at the board, administrative, and instructional levels. c. The promotion of clear and transparent vertical curriculum alignment. d. The communication of a clearer, more focused, more integrated picture of the work being undertaken in our schools, including yearly updates on academic progress formally presented in every community.

Summary Finding – Alternative Structure as “Best Means”: LSSU has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to providing students across all three towns and both school districts with a high-quality education at a cost that parents, voters, and taxpayers value. The successes of the initiatives we have already implemented over the past nine years are conclusive evidence that our proposed structure works – evidence that supports the conclusion that individually and collectively the districts of EMUU and Stowe under the leadership of the LSSU are exceeding the goals of Act 46.

We remain committed to continuing the implementation of changes that will serve to promote quality, equity, and cost savings across our schools. Reflected throughout this report are the concrete actions that EMUU and Stowe have taken and intend to take, jointly and separately, to achieve that goal.

Summary Argument #2: Meeting the Goals of Act 46 (Findings and Action Plans)

Introduction: LSSU is committed to serving all our students equitably and effectively, regardless of the district in which they attend school. Our governance boards learn from each other as we continuously work to improve educational outcomes for LSSU students in the most cost-effective manner possible.

Student population trends in EMUU and Stowe create specific profiles of educational need in each of the communities we serve. The particular profile of student need facing each of our districts requires systemic cooperation between our districts, coupled with operational flexibility. This combination of cooperation and agility allows each district to marshal the requisite resources and design educational programming to meet the needs and aspirations of our students.

Equity, Opportunity, and Performance: Since 2007, both districts have actively participated in creating and implementing the LSSU Action Plan, the result of our shared commitment to continuous academic improvement. Working together, EMUU and Stowe have already achieved substantive equity and increased the variety of educational opportunities for our students and have plans for continuing these gains. Examples of increased equity include the inclusion of full-day kindergarten for all students across all districts and access to technology. EMUU schools expanded language education through the addition of Spanish language teachers, while Stowe students are enjoying additional language and math specialists for non-proficient learners. LSSU invested in STAR software to better track student performance in all elementary schools. The entire supervisory union is working together to initiate personal learning plans in conjunction with a new proficiency based reporting system.

Operational Efficiency: Both districts deliver education at a spending level less than the state average, making our supervisory union a low-cost, high-quality educational leader in Vermont. Both EMUU and Stowe are operationally lean districts and we can find no evidence to suggest that unification would lead to greater operational savings. That work has already been accomplished. Therefore, creating a single, unified budget assessed across the grand lists of Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe would result in no discernable increase in LSSU’s capacity to increase educational opportunity or equality, nor would it result in marked savings for taxpayers.

Transparency, Accountability, and Value: Our communities have demonstrated an ongoing and unwavering commitment to providing students across our three towns and two school districts a high-quality education within governance structures and at a cost that they value as evidenced by:

● community support for the educational and operational initiatives our supervisory union has taken in response to the six studies we have undertaken; ● the transparency and accountability that is built into the operation culture of our supervisory union as a result of community support for ongoing self-reflection and continuous improvement; ● student survey data indicating that our educational environment is safe, welcoming, and challenging;

● the high levels of community engagement throughout this process, including the successful merger vote between the communities of Elmore and Morristown; ● the unwavering financial support our citizenry has shown their schools by consistently passing district budget appropriations across LSSU; and  support by extensive and effective school to community communication strategies grounded in district websites and social media in conjunction with continuing coverage of all district affairs by a local and vibrant press – The Stowe Reporter and The News and Citizen.

We recognize that there may come a time when the demographic or financial pictures change, demanding additional reconsideration of governance and operational structures. The realities we face are fluid and evolving. That is why our LSSU Action Plan is designed to ensure a systemic commitment to board and district cooperation in service of the goals of Act 46. The change has already begun with us, but needs to become more deeply embedded in the educational ethos of the communities we serve. To this end, we commit ourselves to the task of stewarding throughout our citizenry a new understanding that every child that we serve in LSSU is our collective responsibility.

Board Ratification of Final Report and Previous Studies:

On November 15, 2017, each of the district school boards of Elmore-Morristown and Stowe, as well as the LSSU board, ratified in public session the following resolution:

“Based upon the nine years of work through four studies of governance options for the member districts of LSSU and including exploration of options for structures with other districts in Vermont, the boards of the Elmore-Morristown and Stowe School Districts, in conjunction with the Lamoille South Supervisory Union Board:  Embrace and approve the findings of all previous governance studies, spanning from 2009 to present;  Conclude that the districts of EMUU and SSD with the support of LSSU currently exceed the goals of Act 46 individually and collectively;  Find that continuing in the current supervisory union structure as an Alternative Governance Structure is the best means for ensuring the districts continue to meet the educational and operational goals of Act 46 with regard to: o Providing equitable and high-quality learning opportunities for all students; o Ensuring strong student outcomes; o Promoting innovation and continuous improvement; o Achieving efficient and effective operations at a cost that taxpayers value; o Reflecting and respecting community values and meaningful community engagement; and o Conducting all supervisory union and district affairs in a transparent manner.”

LAMOILLE SOUTH SUPERVISORY UNION PROPOSAL FOR AN ALTERNATIVE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

Fast Facts

Elmore-Morristown Stowe LSSU

1. Elmore (grades 1-3 1. SES (grades K-5) 1. Public and with up to 20 students) 2. SMS (grades 6-8) partnership Schools Operated 2. MES (grades K-4) 3. SHS (grades 9-12) preschool 3. PAML (grades 5-8) programs 4. PA (grades 9-12)

PreK 83 PreK 56 Elmore 19 SES 346 MES 276 SMS 177 276 PAML 287 SHS 236 287 Enrollment1 PA 247

K-12 Total 829 K-12 Total 759 K-12 Total 1588 PreK-12 Total 912 PreK-12 Total 912815 PreK-12 Total 1727

Resident Student ADM2 127.7 + 771.15 = 898.85 761

Total Budget (FY17) $15,966,750 $12,363,600

ES/EP (FY17) $14,073 $14,566

Student:Teacher Ratio3 11.41 11.82 11.43 (VT Average 10.03)

Student:Staff Ratio4 5.13

7 members, including 2 7 members: Board Configuration 5 members residents from each town 3 Stowe and 4 EMUU

Community Population5 855 + 5,227 = 6,082 4,314

1 Vermont Agency of Education Student Enrollment Report 2015-2016 School Year 2 Vermont Agency of Education Average Daily Membership (ADM) Report for 2015-2016 (ADM-17) by Resident District 3 Vermont Agency of Education Teacher and Staff Survey Report - 2015 (note that staffing data does not include contracted service providers) 4 Total FTEs for LSSU divided by total k-12 enrollment. 5 US Census Bureau, 2010 Census 11

Background and Context: Starting in 2009, the districts of Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe began voluntarily and proactively studying governance options. This ongoing study process has gone through multiple phases of strategic assessment, providing us opportunities to come closer together in productive collaboration:

Phase 1: 2009 Governance Study Part 1 (Appendix A) Phase 2: 2010 Governance Study Part 2 (Appendix B) Phase 3: 2011-2013 Regional Education District Study (Appendix C) Phase 4: 2013-2016 Elmore/Morristown Unification Study (Appendix D) Phase 5: 2015 Act 46 Accelerated Incentive Financial Study (Appendix E) Phase 6: 2016-2017 EMUU/Stowe Alternative Structures Self-Study

Throughout the last nine years, we've worked hard to increase our cooperation and thereby our efficiencies. Each phase of this process has convinced us that working together as two separate, strategically coordinated school districts within the context of a supervisory union bound by a common mission (Appendix J) and committed to providing a quality education for all our children is the most effective means for our communities to improve the educational opportunities afforded our students and meet the goals of Act 46.

Working together, the EMUU and Stowe school districts have already established patterns of productive mutual governance that:

 foster a robust dialogue between our districts, schools, and educational professionals, focused on the needs and aspirations of our students grounded in evidence-based assessments of student and school performance and best practice;  lead to clearly articulated goals and action plans to address the particular and shared needs of our students and schools;  enable us to use one district to pilot and work out policies and initiatives that we then can scale to the whole supervisory union;  maintain close and productive lines of operational transparency and communication with community members whose support is crucial to our individual and collective success; and  provide additional opportunities for our students aimed at addressing shared challenges and emerging needs by accessing the programs and collective resources of both districts.

In the letter and spirit of Act 46, throughout these past nine years LSSU has demonstrated an ongoing and unwavering commitment to providing students across three towns and two school districts a high-quality education at a cost that parents, voters, and taxpayers value as evidenced by:

 the educational and operational initiatives our supervisory union has already taken in response to each of the six studies that we have undertaken;  the high levels of community engagement throughout this process, including the successful merger vote between the communities of Elmore and Morristown; and  the unwavering financial support of our citizenry for their schools by consistently passing district budget appropriations.

Systemic Growth and Operational Changes from Studies:

Our study processes have led to increased efficiencies and a higher quality education for our students. Examples of improvements, beyond those practices already in place from curriculum to supervisory union-wide action planning include:

Operations: ● Developing a single master agreement with competitive salaries for teachers throughout LSSU, centered on a shared commitment to attract and retain top quality, professional educators with values aligned to LSSU’s student-centered mission. ● Restructuring the use of school and administrative space (saving $150,000). ● Restructuring core services to a supervisory-union-wide model to enhance quality and cost effectiveness for multiple programs: ○ Food service administration ○ Health services ○ All of special education, including paraeducators ○ Transportation ○ Technology administration ○ Human Resources coordination ○ PreK administration and programming ○ English Language Learner supports ○ Wellness curriculum and program coordination ● Common Learning Management System (LMS) and Student Information System (SIS). ● Cooperative contract for high speed internet access through fiber. ● Cooperative contract for facilities audits. ● Managed education spending per equalized pupils (and homestead tax rates), staffing ratios, including making significant staffing reductions in Morristown, and ultimately the formation of the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union.

Educational Opportunities: ● Full day kindergarten for all students. ● Public PreK partnerships for 3-4 year olds, early adopter of universal pre-Kindergarten. ● Common supervision and evaluation system and new teacher mentoring program with peer feedback across systems. ● Increased access to technology for students in underserved schools. ● Expanded Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment courses. ● Cooperative teams for girl’s hockey, baseball, softball, and member-to-member partnerships.

Professional Development: ● Common needs-based professional development, such as Curriculum Camp, Inservice Days, and annual required trainings, such as CPI. ● Teacher leadership across the supervisory union through the Curriculum Instruction and Assessment Council and Content Steering Committees.

Moving ahead, we remain committed to using the findings and recommendations at the heart of our recently completed Act 46 self-study to build on this work and implement additional educational and operational changes that will better serve the students in our care and address the goals of quality, equity, and operational efficiency.

Summary Analysis and Findings: Phases 1-5:

Phase 1: 2009 Governance Study Part 1 (See Appendix A) Our initial study came out of a desire to explore all options that might improve taxpayer value and educational outcomes. Our member districts agreed to contract with Raymond Proulx, Ed.D., for analysis of demographic and economic factors that could inform local deliberations on governance. Generally, the data indicated that LSSU and its member districts of Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe were efficient and well managed. However, economic and demographic trends indicated that maintaining quality and efficiency could become challenging. Key findings from the 2009 study include:

● Over a 10-year period, enrollment declined. Thus, the districts needed to attend to likely increased ES/EP and homestead tax rates, especially in Elmore. In addition, we were concerned with sustaining the critical mass of students needed to provide effective curriculum and programs within and across all grade levels. ● Operating structures for delivering education within member districts included the Elmore School, the only structure of its kind in Vermont, and Morristown and Stowe’s PreK-12 operating structures, both of which are average in size based on numbers of pupils as compared to similar Vermont systems, the average size at that time being 880 pupils. ● Our districts all had lower than average per-pupil expenditures when compared with schools with similar enrollment and structure. ● Budget analysis for Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe School Districts suggested that three primary variables were driving costs: student-to-teacher and student-to-total-staff ratios, staff salaries and benefits, and special education. ● Comparison of district master teacher contracts revealed major differences at that time that would present significant challenges to any attempts to transform school governance structures. ● Comparative data for LSSU and seven other supervisory unions with student populations between 1,400 and 1,700 demonstrated our proven track record of consolidating services to maximize efficiencies. Evidence of these efforts included: common school board policies, centralized fiscal services, coordinated curriculum and education programs, planned technology, data collection and analysis, human resources services, student assessment instruments and procedures, consolidated grants, and special education. ● Comparative financial data revealed that efforts to consolidate services were accomplished to a high degree of efficiency. For example: ○ LSSU had the highest ratio of students to central office personnel staff; ○ mid-range cost per general administration; and ○ next to the lowest current cost per pupil for all services.

A financial analysis of the cost per pupil for each of the following scenarios was developed:

❖ Status quo - retain existing governance structures ❖ Elmore and Morristown Elementary form a K-5 Union ❖ Elmore tuition all students to Morristown Schools ❖ Union Middle School of Stowe and Morristown ❖ Union High School of Stowe and Morristown ❖ K-12 Unified Union School District

We also reviewed the scenarios of joint contract school districts and expanded sharing of central office services, including with other partners outside of LSSU.

Both financial and data analyses indicated that changes in operational and governance structures likely would generate a mix of positive and negative results for member districts. However, looking solely through the lens of the data analyses, the future impacts of enrollment changes and expenditure trajectories was compelling enough to warrant a second phase of the study. A second phase of informal study was then undertaken.

Phase 2: 2010 Governance Study Part 2 (See Appendix B) The Optional Educational Structures Committee (OESC) was formed and charged with the task of investigating whether the three school districts within the LSSU should “alter structures, ways and means for delivering education to all pupils within the union, and if so, what alternatives does the committee recommend to the LSSU board for further consideration.”

The OESC was comprised of 13 community members representing the various stakeholder groups in the member districts. Their work was facilitated by Raymond Proulx, Ed.D. The reason for initiating this process was a shared concern about maintaining excellence in our K-12 education system at an affordable cost to the community.

Ultimately, the committee made the following recommendation: “In order to advance the communities’ values and educational quality, we recommend exploration of a Regional Education District. We recommend that two scenarios for a RED be explored: 1. Merging into one consolidated Middle School and one consolidated High School for the three towns, and 2. Maintaining a Middle and High School in Morristown and a Middle and High school in Stowe.”

Phase 3: 2011-2013 LSSU Regional Education District (RED) Study (See Appendix C) Per the OESC’s recommendation, a formal 706b process was undertaken. As an outcome of that study, the committee concluded that there were two primary options: continuing in the current structure, or forming a Regional Education District (RED) and restructuring the middle and high schools. Among the obstacles to restructuring our middle and high schools was:

➢ No evidence that the wholesale re-organization of two high-performing K-12 districts would lead to greater educational opportunity or improved student performance.

➢ The perceived loss of community identification with and support for their schools.

Note: Other models of governance consolidation, identified and studied in 2009 and 2011, were found not to leverage any advantages for the districts of LSSU.

“Given the history of success of the current systems, the history of strong community support for the current systems, and the uncertain future context of public education in Vermont, the LSSU RED committee has determined it is not advisable to form a Regional Education District at this time.”

Based upon these findings, study of merged governance structures between and among all three districts of LSSU ended in 2014. However, additional work continued to pursue efficiencies and governance changes where change made sense.

Phase 4: 2013-2016 Elmore-Morristown Unified Union Study (EMUU) The financial concerns projected in 2009 for Elmore became a reality. In 2013 and 2014, the community of Elmore clearly communicated that a change in tax rates was a priority. The Elmore board sought to engage the community through multiple meetings and a survey regarding the preferred strategy for further study.

In 2014, after continued informal conversations and a non-binding vote of the electorate of both Elmore and Morristown on Town Meeting Day, the boards undertook a formal 706b study process with a focus on the formation of a Unified Union between Elmore and Morristown School Districts.

After a laborious process that involved tremendous work to win the buy-in of both communities, the boards of the Elmore and Morristown school districts were able to develop a plan for the formation of a unified union. When the voters of both Elmore and Morristown approved the union of the two school districts, we were able to begin our work as one school district. The Vermont State Board of Education then designated the newly formed Elmore-Morristown Unified Union (EMUU) to LSSU.

Consistent with study projections, the formation of the Unified Union resulted in a reduction of Education Spending in the combined districts of $470,000. This had virtually no impact on local homestead tax rates in Morristown but generated a significant tax rate reduction of 31.5 cents (-$0.315) for Elmore. These savings were achieved purely based on efficiencies, with no Act 46 incentives.

This unification formalized existing partnerships, thus ensuring collaboration and stability of enrollment for the new district. With stable enrollment, we have safeguarded the critical mass of students necessary for robust programmatic opportunities and enhanced professional collaboration and quality learning.

Phase 5: 2015 Act 46 Accelerated Incentive Financial Analyses (See Appendix D) During the EMUU study process, Act 46 passed. The EMUU study briefly paused while all three member districts reviewed the possible financial implications of the accelerated incentives. The analysis, which projected homestead tax rates out six years beyond the formation of a new structure (to best assess the impacts after incentives phased out), indicated that both Stowe and Morristown were likely to see homestead tax rate impacts that were greater in a RED than if districts remained independent. Elmore saw tax rate advantages for any change in structure contemplated.

Taking into account both these financial implications and what we had learned from the three phases of study, all three districts concluded that the accelerated merger process was not in their best interests, and the EMUU study resumed. The Elmore and Morristown boards asked the Stowe School District board to wait to study further Act 46 considerations until after the EMUU process was complete and the first budget was approved.

Beginning in 2016, the newly formed Elmore-Morristown Unified Union District and the Stowe Educational District began the final phase of our deliberations by undertaking a joint self-study to assess the capacity of our current governance structure to meet or exceed the goals of Act 46.

LAMOILLE SOUTH SUPERVISORY UNION PROPOSAL FOR AN ALTERNATIVE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

Committee Membership

Peter Clarke, Consultant Tracy Wrend, Superintendent of Schools Emily Bradbury, Stowe Board Member Jim Brochhausen, Stowe and Lamoille South Board Member Tiffany Donza, Stowe and Lamoille South Board Member Emily Rosenbaum, Stowe Board Member Cara Zimmerman, Stowe and Lamoille South Board Member Ida Mae Anderson, Elmore-Morristown Board Member Karen Cleary, Elmore-Morristown Board Member Stephanie Craig, Elmore-Morristown and Lamoille South Board Member Penny Jones, Elmore-Morristown and Lamoille South Board Member Dave McAllister, Elmore-Morristown and Lamoille South Board Member Christy Snipp, Elmore-Morristown and Lamoille South Board Member Stuart Weppler, Elmore-Morristown Board Member

EMUU/STOWE ALTERNATIVE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE SELF-EVALUATION Quality, Equity, and Ability to Achieve or Exceed Education Quality Standards

INTRODUCTION

Our joint-district self-study made the educational goals of Act 46 the central focus of our work, findings, and recommendations.

At the heart of the law are five key goals:

● To provide substantive equity in the quality and variety of educational opportunities statewide. ● To lead students to achieve or exceed the State’s Educational Quality Standards. ● To maximize operational efficiencies through increased flexibility to manage, share, and transfer resources, with the goal of increasing the district-level ratio of students to full- time equivalent staff ● To promote transparency and accountability. ● To achieve these goals at a cost that parents, voters, and taxpayers value.

To initiate our Act 46 self-study, we began by reviewing the State’s Education Quality Standards (EQS) and assessing the effectiveness of our instructional programs against those quality standards. We undertook that work in two ways over the past year:

a. the LSSU Board, along with district board members, undertook a comprehensive review of the EQS; and b. LSSU participated in the first round of the EQS Independent Field Review.

These EQS reviews were then followed by a full SU-wide Act 46 study in order to:

 evaluate our districts’ current capacity to meet or exceed the goals of Act 46;  consult with other districts in our region to discuss ways to promote improvement; and  submit a proposal for an alternative governance structure including detailed actions the existing governance structure (LSSU) intends to take to meet/exceed the goals of Act 46 moving forward.

The Self-Study that follows is the culmination of nine years of continuous reflection by our communities on the best way to deliver a quality education to the students we serve. We believe the findings and action items represented herein provide not only additional evidence of our supervisory union’s collective capacity and commitment to work effectively together, but demonstrate a clear basis for the State Board to conclude that maintaining LSSU in its current form as an alternative structure is the best means of improving the educational opportunities for the students in our region and meeting the goals of Act 46.

SELF-STUDY – ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 1: Baseline/Demographic Data

Operating/Tuitioning Structures The Elmore-Morristown Unified Union (EMUU) School District operates four schools; The Elmore School, Morristown Elementary School, Peoples Academy Middle Level, and Peoples Academy. The Stowe School District (SSD) operates three schools; Stowe Elementary School, Stowe Middle School, and Stowe High School.

EMMU and SSD are served by Lamoille South Supervisory Union (LSSU), which provides leadership and board support, administrative services, information technology services, Special Education, transportation, Early Education and Pre-Kindergarten education, and shared educational services, including: School Psychologists, ELL Teacher, Speech Language Pathologists, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapist, and the School Nurse Supervisor.

1 classroom The Elmore School Multi-age, Grades 1-3

Morristown Elementary Grades K-4 School

Peoples Academy Grades 5-8 Middle Level

Grades 9-12 Peoples Academy Tech Center: Green Mountain Technical and Career Center

Stowe Elementary School Grades K-5

Grades 6-8 Stowe Middle School

Grades 9-12 Stowe High School Tech Center: Green Mountain Technical and Career Center

6 school-based LSSU School-based classrooms; Pre-Kindergarten 2 sections in Stowe and 4

in Morristown Community Pre-Kindergarten 9 Community Partner Partner Programs Programs

Prior to the formation of the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union, the Elmore School District offered publicly funded school choice for grades 7-12. Historically, 8 of 10 Elmore resident students attended schools in Morristown. All publicly funded tuition will be phased out of EMUU as of FY20.

Elmore Grades Morristown Morristown Stowe Stowe Other Other 7-12 Number of % Grade Number of % Grade Number of % Grade Year Students Students 7-12 Students 7-12 Students 7-12 2004-2005 87 74 85.06% 8 9.20% 5 5.75% 2005-2006 86 70 81.40% 8 9.30% 8 9.30% 2006-2007 79 65 82.28% 9 11.39% 5 6.33% 2007-2008 77 63 81.82% 8 10.39% 6 7.79% 2008-2009 66 54 81.82% 5 7.58% 7 10.61% 2009-2010 57 48 84.21% 3 5.26% 6 10.53% 2010-2011 54 46 85.19% 2 3.70% 6 11.11% 2011-2012 50 42 84.00% 2 4.00% 6 12.00% 2012-2013 48 42 87.50% 2 4.17% 4 8.33% 2013-2014 56 49 87.50% 6 10.71% 1 1.79% 2014-2015 64 52 81.25% 9 14.06% 3 4.69% 2015-2016 66 54 81.82% 8 12.12% 4 6.06% 2016-2017* 64 9* 14.07%* 5* 7.82%* 2017-2018** 61 6** 9.84%** 2** 3.28%**

Data is as of November of the each year as calculated for budget development. Actual counts may vary depending upon data source. However, the consistent snapshot of data within a fixed annual window provides a reliable picture of trends.

*Grandfathered students only- EMUU became a PreK-12 operating district **Projected for FY 18, grandfathered students only

Public High School Choice Both Peoples Academy (PA) and Stowe High School (SHS) are long standing members of the Winooski Valley Public High School Choice Collaborative, which administers the public school choice lottery process for our region and coordinates with high schools in other regions. For 2017-2018, PA will accept 7 students and allow 24 to exit. PA has had from 6 to 9 students exiting in any given year from 2011-2012 to 2015-2016, and from 0 to 7 incoming slots have been utilized in the past 5 years. Exiting students generally attend Lamoille Union High School or Stowe High School.

For 2017-2018, SHS will accept 6 students and SHS allows 21 to exit. SHS has had no students exiting in any given year from 2011-2012 to 2015-2016, and all 6 incoming slots have been full in the past 5 years. Incoming students are generally from PA and Harwood Union High School.

Average Daily Membership (ADM)

ADM in Stowe over the last six years has ranged from 656.88 to 787.8, with the peak ADM in the current year and 20% higher than the lowest ADM in the same time period. Elmore and Morristown’s ADMs are reported individually through FY18 for the purpose of reviewing former district trends; however, beginning with FY17, ADM is appropriately attributed to EMUU and is also reported for that entity. ADM in Morristown alone was at its lowest in a six year window in FY16, at 752.86 and at its highest in FY13, at 805.62. Elmore’s ADM ranged from 119.06 to 130.87. EMUU’s ADM has been 896.23 and 905.75 in its two years of existence respectively.

Average Daily Membership (ADM) Trends A trend line illustrates the trajectories of change for each of the Districts of Elmore, Morristown, Stowe, and EMUU. Stowe’s ADM is clearly on an upward trajectory. Morristown’s ADM overall was declining, while Elmore’s was marked by a slight uptick. Together as EMUU, the ADM is showing an initial increase.

Enrollment Similar to ADM, enrollment has been increasing in Stowe. From 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 (the last year published on the AOE website), K-12 enrollment has increased from 696 to 759 or 9.05%. The inclusion of pre-Kindergarten students in enrollment shows a steeper enrollment increase of 15.6% in the same time period. Elmore-Morristown’s enrollment has declined just over 3% (-3%), counted with or without pre-Kindergarten. (Elmore and Morristown offered prekindergarten in community partner settings beginning in 2011-2012.) Elmore and Morristown schools enrolled 829 students K-12 in 2015-2016, as compared to 856 in 2012-2013.

PK K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th AW PK-12 K-12 Lake Elmore School 3 7 7 17

Morristown Elementary 100 53 57 57 54 57 378

Peoples Academy Middle 52 83 51 73 259

2017* - Peoples Academy 79 70 69 51 269 923 823 2016 Stowe Elementary School 70 41 61 55 59 60 52 398 Stowe Middle/High School 67 59 63 75 61 63 60 448 846 776 Lake Elmore School 8 6 5 19

Morristown Elementary 83 66 57 53 50 50 359

2016 Peoples Academy Middle 85 53 74 75 247

Peoples Academy 73 65 60 49 287 912 829

2015 Stowe Elementary School 56 61 49 60 63 46 67 402 Stowe Middle/High School 52 59 66 63 62 61 50 413 815 759 Lake Elmore School 6 5 9 20

Morristown Elementary 86 60 56 47 43 86 378

2015 Peoples Academy Middle 48 61 76 74 242

Peoples Academy 67 59 58 56 2 259 899 813

2014 Stowe Elementary School 66 48 54 62 41 64 51 386

Stowe Middle/High School 60 63 57 61 58 49 57 1 406 792 726 Lake Elmore School 5 9 6 20

Morristown Elementary 88 65 50 43 72 48 366

2014 Peoples Academy Middle 63 69 79 70 249

Peoples Academy 61 69 62 56 1 281 916 828

2013 Stowe Elementary School 62 53 60 42 62 50 57 386 Stowe Middle/High School 59 57 58 64 54 60 55 1 408 794 732 Lake Elmore School 9 5 4 18

Morristown Elementary 89 53 45 76 42 66 371

2013 Peoples Academy Middle 73 79 69 61 274

Peoples Academy 73 76 58 64 3 282 945 856

2012 Stowe Elementary School 9 51 43 49 51 51 52 306 Stowe Middle/High School 47 61 66 58 60 62 45 399 705 696 * AOE enrollment data for 2016-2017 was not published at the time of this review. Data is based upon opening day enrollment. AW = adult without diploma

Equalized Pupils Similar to enrollments and ADM, Stowe has seen a 19.01% increase in equalized pupil counts since FY10. Prior to the formation of EMUU, Elmore School District was experiencing significant variability in equalized pupil count from year to year and an overall decline. Morristown’s equalized pupil count, like enrollment and ADM, had declined by 7.78% (-7.78%) since FY10. In FY18, EMUU’s equalized pupil count is up slightly from the prior year.

Phantom Pupils Historically, the Elmore School District counted some phantom pupils in its equalized pupil count, including from FY10 to FY13. Since FY14, phantom pupils have not been a part of the Equalized Pupil count in any district of LSSU, Elmore, Morristown, Stowe, or Elmore- Morristown.

Elmore FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Actual calc. 129.57 121.39 115.72 117.63 115.74 113.80 123.35 N/A N/A Phantoms 3.47 6.99 8.17 1.92 - - - Hold-harmless calc. 133.04 128.38 123.89 119.55 115.74 113.80 123.35

Because of relatively high rates of participation in Early College by seniors at People Academy, Morristown School District and now EMUU, does have a handful of this sort of phantom in any given year since the program’s inception. SHS also has Early College Phantom Students for the first time in its FY18 counts.

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Lake Elmore School * * * * * Morristown Elementary School 54% 53% 51% 45% 44% Peoples Academy 36% 41% 41% 39% 34% Peoples Academy Middle Level 44% 45% 46% 44% 48% Stowe Elementary School 15% 15% 17% 15% 17% Stowe Middle/High School 20% 17% 17% 15% 13%

There is a higher percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch in EMUU schools than in SSD schools. EMUU receives Title 1 funding and has a 21st Century grant funded after school program. No Stowe schools are eligible for Federal Title 1 funds.

Students Eligible for Support Services Percentage of Students with No Support Services/Plan 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Lake Elmore School * * * * * Morristown Elementary School 84% 84% 80% 81% 81% Peoples Academy 86% 74% 69% 66% 68% Peoples Academy Middle Level 83% 72% 74% 77% 77% Stowe Elementary School 89% 78% 81% 77% 76% Stowe Middle/High School 77% 76% 76% 76% 80% Vermont 74% 75% 76% 76% 73%

Percentage of Students with IEPs 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Lake Elmore School * * * * * Morristown Elementary School * * 16% 16% * Peoples Academy 7% 10% 12% 13% 16% Peoples Academy Middle School 12% 15% 15% 15% 18% Stowe Elementary School 6% 9% * 6% 9% Stowe Middle/High School 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% Vermont 13% 13% 13% 13% 15%

There is generally a very low number of students eligible for English Language Learner Services, generally less than 20, within LSSU. LSSU employs one ELL teacher who works with students in all schools in all districts as needed.

Key Findings – Demographic Data

1. Enrollment has been increasing in Stowe. From 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 (the last year published on the AOE website), K-12 enrollment has increased from 696 to 759 or 9.05%. The inclusion of pre-Kindergarten students in enrollment shows a steeper enrollment increase of 15.6% in the same time period. 2. Elmore-Morristown’s enrollment has declined just over 3% (-3%), counted with or without pre-Kindergarten. (Elmore and Morristown offered pre-kindergarten in community partner settings beginning in 2011-2012.) Elmore and Morristown schools enrolled 829 students K-12 in 2015-2016, as compared to 856 in 2012-2013. 3. ADM in Stowe over the last six years has ranged from 656.88 to 787.8, with the peak ADM in the current year, 20% higher than the lowest ADM in the same time period. 4. EMUU’s ADM has been 896.23 and 905.75 in its two years of existence respectively. 5. Stowe has seen a 19.01% increase in equalized pupil counts since FY10. 6. Prior to the formation of EMUU, Elmore School District was experiencing significant variability in equalized pupil count from year to year and overall a decline. Morristown’s equalized pupil count, like enrollment and ADM, had declined by 7.78% (-7.78%) since FY10. In FY18, EMUU’s equalized pupil count is up slightly from the prior year. 7. Historically, the Elmore School District counted some phantom pupils in its equalized pupil count, including from FY10 to FY13. Since FY14, phantom pupils have not been a part of the Equalized Pupil count in any district of LSSU: Elmore, Morristown, Stowe, or Elmore-Morristown. 8. There are a higher percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch in EMUU schools than in SSD schools. EMUU receives Title 1 funding and has a 21st Century grant funded after school program. No Stowe schools are eligible for Federal Title 1 funds.

Note: Economic Context

Undergirding the positive demographic trends in our region, particularly in Stowe, has been the economic growth clearly evidenced along the route 100 corridor in Lamoille county which we anticipate continuing to expand northward. The most recent study of housing needs in Lamoille county in 2014 undertaken by Bowen National Research projects that from 2015-2020:

 Total population in Lamoille County is expected to grow 3.6%, compared to 1.1% across Vt.  The number of households in Lamoille County will grow 4.3%, compared to 1.8% across Vt.  The average size of households in the county is expected to remain constant.  Median household income is expected to grow by 4% in Lamoille compared to 2% in Vt.

All of this data, supports the study’s fundamental perception that the schools in LSSU can expect the continuation of solid/sustainable patterns of economic and demographic growth for the foreseeable future.

Summary Conclusions and Recommendations for Action – Demographic Data

Evidence of our capacity to assess and respond to the changing economic and demographic trends in our region can be found in the successful merger of the Elmore and Morristown school districts. This unification not only stabilized our schools, but resulted in increased opportunity for our students. Both EMUU and Stowe represent sustainable school systems comparable in size to the top third of schools in Vermont.

Looking ahead, both the size and the composition of the population of students served by the EMMU and Stowe is evolving in Lamoille South along trend lines unique to each district. These demographic trends continue to create specific profiles of educational need in each of the communities we serve that must be addressed mindfully by school boards, administrators, and teachers if we are to meet our charge to deliver an educational program of the highest quality to every student in our supervisory union. The particular profile of student need facing each of our districts requires not only the highest levels of systemic cooperation between our districts, particularly in the areas of strategic assessment, planning, and teacher development, but also the highest degree of operational flexibility so that each district can marshal the requisite resources and design its own unique blend of educational programming to meet the specific needs and aspirations of the students it serves.

To address these two strategic challenges, LSSU will:

1. Continue the newly established practice of having board members meet jointly to assess demographic trends and student performance data in order to maintain a shared understanding of the emerging needs of students and schools in our supervisory union, as well as building shared solutions; and 2. Continue work to develop multi-year capital plans and address pressing short-term needs, including lack of space in all schools across both districts.

Section 2: Program Review - Equity, Quality, and Variety of Educational Opportunity

Board EQS Review:

As a first step in our Act 46 review process, board members worked together to identify the kinds of evidence we would need to measure our schools’ effectiveness against each of the State’s standards of educational quality. The board members then split up into teams with representation from both school districts. Each team was asked to consider one EQS and to categorize it as 1) something that is uniquely addressed within their district or individual schools, or 2) something that is part of a supervisory union wide practice, or 3) something that the board does not have enough information to categorize. Board members reported that they had direct or indirect knowledge of roughly half of their district’s addressment of the education quality standards, believed that nearly half were supervisory-union-wide practices, and determined that they did not have enough information to draw conclusions on about 10% of the standards.

The Superintendent reviewed supervisory-union-wide and district-specific practices, with an emphasis on the areas of uncertainty regarding the EQS noted by board members. Generally, implementation of EQS is facilitated at the supervisory union level through the Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Council or the administrative leadership team, which includes all principals from all schools in all districts, and central office administration. Expectations are consistent for all schools; however, implementation including the delivery, roles, and responsibilities for implementation vary by district and/or school.

Education Quality Standards Independent Field Review - Fall, 2015 LSSU volunteered for the first round of the Agency of Education’s Education Quality Standards Independent Field Review (EQS IFR) process in October of 2015.

Commendations from the EQS IFR Report note supervisory union-wide strengths in: ● Student access to technology for learning; ● High expectations for high school students; ● Developing experience with PLPs led by two schools with the ability to expand into others; ● Positive staff-student relationships; ● Supervisory-union-wide professional development; ● Supervisory-union-wide shared decision-making with teachers; ● Deployment of increased resources where student need is greater.

Areas of recommendation included: ● Increased opportunities for enrichment during the school day; ● Expand the use of PBIS (Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports) and/or practices that support clear, consistent behavioral expectations across learning environments; ● Expand MTSS (Multi-tiered System of Supports) practices to ensure a coherent, system- wide approach to supporting students with emotional and behavioral challenges; ● Ensure that sharing of staff is based on student need rather than other factors (i.e. travel) ● Provide a written framework for administrator evaluation.

EQS Review - Summary Findings The LSSU board, concurrent with the EMUU and SSD boards, reviewed the EQS IFR Report and compared the information in the report with the EQS. Board members concluded that LSSU is actively addressing the EQS and noted the central strategic role of the continuous improvement process already underway at the SU level. Since its inception in 2007, this work has ensured continued systemic growth in all districts and schools for all students. Importantly, these strategic goals allow for innovative differentiation regarding how EQS are addressed across our districts, often based upon student need.

As a result of LSSU’s EQS review, the boards identified several priority items that we have already begun to address, including:

● EMUU’s Capital Projects Committee to address issues identified in our facilities audit; ● Spanish K-12 in Elmore-Morristown; ● Literacy coach, literacy interventionist and math interventionist in Stowe; ● Our investment in new accounting software provides additional tools to ensure cost efficiencies and transparency.

Additional areas for continuous improvement across the supervisory union also included recommendations to:

● Revisit graduation proficiencies and approve a common set at the SU level; ● Adopt graduation policies by district requiring approved proficiencies. This may include differences specific to each district beyond common proficiencies; ● Continue work to scale up a tiered system of supports for both academic and social emotional learning in all schools (ex: expand teacher leader model in Stowe schools, revisit social emotional learning supports in both elementary schools). Study and address the use of paraeducators and behavior interventionists to support the needs of individual students; ● Articulate the principal evaluation process and professional improvement supports in writing; ● Continue work on Personal Learning Plans and proficiencies, articulating common expectations across school and areas for differentiation by school and by student; ● Increase monitoring of student use of flexible pathways to inform decision-making; ● Continue work to develop multi-year capital plans and address pressing short-term needs, including lack of space in all schools across both districts; ● Study options to ensure enriching learning opportunities in all schools during the school day.

These findings and recommendations for continuous action were articulated in the LSSU Action Plan: 2015-2020 (See Appendix I). That action plan identified five focus areas and the steps to be taken to achieve these EQS goals:

1. Personalize learning by facilitating student engagement and empowering student voice. 2. Cultivate a safe and healthy school culture to facilitate learning for all individuals. 3. Build positive family, school, community partnerships. 4. Build a multi-tiered system of support that is responsive to the individual learner needs and holds both students and adults accountable for continuous student improvement. 5. Collaboratively develop curriculum, assessment, and instructional practices to promote a proficiency based system of learning.

As noted earlier, the LSSU Action Plan and the district-wide strategic planning process it reflects pre-dates Act 46 and continues to evolve, shape, and guide work of our supervisory union. In terms of the goals of Act 46, we believe this ongoing work provides direct evidence of:

1. The priority that LSSU places on a coordinated approach to strategic planning among its member districts; 2. The capacity of the EMUU and Stowe school districts to work effectively under an Alternative Structure to improve both the quality of our supervisory union’s educational programs and achieve the goals of Act 46.

Act 46 - Elementary, Middle, and High School Program Review In the context of multiple studies, boards and/or committees of the boards, LSSU has undertaken a number of reviews comparing the programmatic opportunities and related student- to-staff ratios within the Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe Districts. Most recently, the boards of the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union, Stowe School District, and Lamoille South Supervisory Union compared programs for the 2015-2016 school year (just prior to the formation of EMUU) by school and in relation to similar data in 2011-2012. A complete copy of the data reviewed, as well as notes regarding the most recent programming and staffing changes, are included in Appendix H.

Key Findings – Program Review ● Overall similar student-to-staff ratios in elementary, middle, and high school level core programming exist in all our schools; ● Similar elementary programming with the exception of foreign language - available at Stowe Elementary School but not at the Elmore and Morristown Elementary Schools. Note: This disparity was resolved in FY18 with the expansion of foreign language in Elmore and Morristown. ● Availability of and use of grant funds to provide supplemental instructional supports across EMUU schools; ● Similar middle level programming with the exception of foreign language, which is available at Stowe Middle School and not at Peoples Academy Middle Level; * ● Slight variation in grade level clusters served at each district’s elementary and middle schools, i.e., K-4 at MES, K-5 at SES, 5-8 at PAML, and 6-8 at SML; ● More FTEs in support of music in Stowe; ● More FTEs of guidance, physical education, and in support of extended day programming at PA; ● Both districts are leaders in AP and SAT participation rates for Vermont.

Student Voice Regarding Educational Program and School Climate Beginning in the 2012-2013 school year, all of the schools of LSSU participate annually in a common, locally developed climate survey, which is used to monitor student perceptions of some key social emotional indicators and learning supports. The survey is administered to students in grades 3-12 in October. At the elementary level, our questions have a yes, no, and most of the time response format. At the middle and high school level, our questions seek levels of agreement: agree, disagree, strongly agree, and strongly disagree, on a 4 point response scale. The questions and student responses over time are summarized on the following tables.

Q1: I belong or feel like I am part of my school 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% MES 50% SES 40% 30% PAML 20% 10% SMS PA SHS

Q4: I have pride in my school 100% 90% 80% 70% MES 60% 50% SES 40% PAML 30% 20% SMS 10% PA SHS

Q5: I feel physically safe in school 100% 90% 80% 70% MES 60% 50% SES 40% 30% PAML 20% 10% SMS PA SHS

Q6: I feel emotionally safe while at school 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% MES 50% 40% SES 30% 20% PAML 10% SMS PA SHS

Q8: In school there is an adult I can talk to 100% 90% 80% 70% MES 60% 50% SES 40% PAML 30% 20% SMS 10% PA SHS

Q9: I have a friend at school 100% 90% 80% 70% MES 60% 50% SES 40% PAML 30% 20% SMS 10% PA SHS

Q13: My school work challenges me 100% 90% 80% MES 70% 60% SES 50% PAML 40% SMS 30% 20% PA 10% SHS Agreement % 2014-15 Agreement % 2015-16 Agreement % 2016-17

Q14: I am able to use technology to support learning 100% 90% 80% 70% MES 60% 50% SES 40% PAML 30% SMS 20% 10% PA Agreement % 2014-15 Agreement % 2015-16 Agreement % 2016-17 SHS

Key Findings – Student Voice While there are differences in student reports regarding climate survey focus areas among our schools and from year to year, student feedback regarding the climates at all schools and overall student well-being is very positive. Still, we believe there is always room for improvement and will continue to assess and listen to our students in order to build programs and cultures that are responsive to their needs.

Summary Conclusions and Recommendations for Action – Program Review

LSSU is committed to serving all our students equitably and effectively, regardless of the district where they attend school. We have instituted ongoing assessment and planning processes to ensure continuous improvement in our educational programs that have enhanced, and continue to enhance, student learning. For example, as a result of LSSU’s EQS and Act 46 Program reviews, EMUU moved to fund in its FY’18 budget new foreign language programs at its elementary and middle schools. In addition, LSSU invested in STAR software to better track student performance in all elementary schools. Finally, the entire supervisory union is working together to initiate in this academic year the use of personal learning plans in conjunction with a new proficiency based reporting system.

Looking ahead, we see opportunities through cross-district agreements to share teaching staff to accommodate SSD enrollment growth. In addition, LSSU will:

1. Continue the practice of undertaking joint, annual program reviews in order to facilitate the equitable management of staffing and programming in light of changing student enrollment and evolving student needs as part of our local and S.U. budget development processes.

2. Revisit graduation proficiencies and approve a common set at the supervisory union level.

3. Adopt graduation policies for the supervisory union requiring approved proficiencies; may include differences specific to each district beyond common proficiencies.

4. Continue work to create a flexible system of supports for both academic and social emotional learning in all schools using a research-aligned progress monitoring system, (ex: support systemic practices for MTSS with the support of Teacher Leaders/ Instructional Coaches, including PBIS in all elementary and middle schools).

5. Study and address the use of paraeducators and behavior interventionists to support the needs of individual students in conjunction with an expansion of the teacher leader model that was approved in the FY18 budget in Stowe to enable both districts to collaboratively invest in and are use new progress monitoring tools (MTSS).

6. Articulate the evaluation process for principals (common for all schools) and professional improvement supports in writing.

7. Continue working on PLPs and proficiencies, articulating common expectations across school and areas for differentiation by school and by student.

8. Increase monitoring of student use of flexible pathways to inform decision making.

9. Continue working to develop multi-year capital plans and address pressing short-term needs.

10. Study options to ensure enriching learning opportunities in all schools during the school day. ELA and math coaches are now being staffed in both districts at the middle and high school levels.

11. Continue to evaluate and improve student climate.

12. Invest in resources, including teaching staff, to address achievement gaps.

Section 3: Student Performance

Part A: NECAP and SBAC Data

Introduction: In assessing the performance of LSSU students, the district examined NECAP scores in reading, math, and writing going back to 2005 as well as the last two years of SBAC data (2015 and 2016). In addition to analyzing the results of LSSU students in comparison to student performance across Vermont, the data was disaggregated to assess the nature and extent of the performance gap between students who are economically disadvantaged (Free and Reduced Lunch) and those who are not. Finally, changes in student performance in both EMUU and Stowe was compared using the past two years of SBAC data both in terms of percent proficient and changes in scaled scores.

This data is reported in the following charts. Note: For a full examination of all student performance data, see Appendix F.

Overview: NECAP Assessment Results Historical NECAP assessment results reflect overall higher percentages of students proficient in reading and mathematics in Stowe schools as compared to Morristown schools.* It is important to note, however, that Morristown serves roughly twice as many students who are economically disadvantaged (eligible for free/reduced lunch, FRL). The difference between Stowe and Morristown student performance is smaller when comparing students not economically disadvantaged (FRL). The achievement gap between students who are economically disadvantaged (FRL) and those who are not is smaller in Morristown schools as compared to Stowe schools.

* Note: NECAP data for EMUU was for Morristown schools only as Elmore was a separate district throughout the duration of the NECAP administration and Elmore school’s population is too small for public reporting of student assessment results.

Overview: SBAC Assessment Results With the transition to SBAC, the percentage of Stowe students who are proficient continues to be higher in than in Morristown. The differences in overall student performance are less pronounced when looking at data through the lens of scaled scores. The difference between Stowe and Elmore-Morristown student performance is smaller when comparing students not economically disadvantaged (FRL). The achievement gap between students who are economically disadvantaged (FRL) and not is smaller in Elmore-Morristown schools as compared to Stowe schools.

Key Findings – NECAP and SBAC Performance Data

1. Both systems experience differences in student outcomes between students who are economically disadvantaged (FRL) and those who are not. 2. EMUU schools serve about twice as many students who are economically disadvantaged (FRL) and appear to have smaller achievement gaps, in some cases due to lower proficiency levels among students who are not economically disadvantaged (FRL), and at some grade levels, strong performance by all students, those who are economically disadvantaged and those who are not. 3. SSD spends slightly more per student overall as compared to EMUU, and EMUU spends more on supports for students who are economically disadvantaged (FRL). 4. Our data generally shows that on average students in all schools of Elmore-Morristown and Stowe perform as well or better than Vermont students.

Summary Conclusions and Recommendations for Action – Student Assessment Data

In examining student performance for the districts in LSSU, we believe there is greater transparency and accountability for student outcomes when structured by school and school district, as has been the practice given our current governing structures, as compared to a single reporting system for a merged organization. We want to resist any temptation to paper over existing differences in student performance within and between our schools by consolidating results and comparing averages.

When it comes to comparing student performance in LSSU with students across Vermont, we assert that EMUU and Stowe have a demonstrated capacity, both individually and jointly, to achieve educational excellence. The schools in our supervisory union compare favorably to schools across Vermont. Some might even argue that our schools are “good enough” using those metrics. We believe that such sentiments, even when grounded in performance data, are contrary to the very goal of continuous improvement and antithetical to the central mission of LSSU.

We want to continue to capitalize on our existing accountability systems to drill down into the performance of our schools and bring to the surface data that will assist us in mobilizing our communities in support of specific initiatives designed to make to make those schools better. We want to challenge and learn from each other by continuing to set common goals, support

targeted instructional reforms based on the specific matrix of need in each of our schools, and continue to assess our individual and collective progress together. Moving forward, LSSU has identified the following action items: (In conjunction with the action items articulated earlier in this report under “Program Review” - see page 24)

1. Continue the newly established practice of having all board members meet to examine student performance data and review and revise LSSU’s Action Plan, as well as the current practice of attending each other’s district’s budget meetings to build a shared understanding of opportunities for enhanced cooperation, equity of opportunity, fidelity of implementation of universal best practice, and areas where differences make sense. 2. Identify additional specific strategies for school boards to ensure a shared, collaborative focus on closing the achievement gap in all schools: a. Board meeting attendance. b. Common communications about student outcomes data and other subjects. c. Identify additional areas of key board work where collaboration may be enriching. 3. Explore, where there are common priorities that are difficult to support in individual districts, ways to work together such as with shared staff. 4. Reframe data reporting to compare outcomes with top performing systems in Vermont, rather than Vermont averages. Set specific goals for student outcomes that reflect very high levels of student performance for all student groups. 5. Continue to plan and implement joint-district, professional development programs that address the instructional challenges facing both districts.

Part B: Postsecondary Outcomes

Introduction: One central issue that the committee wished to explore focused on assessing the postsecondary activities of LSSU graduates and the specific rates of enrollment, persistence, and completion of graduates who matriculated to college. To get a picture of our students’ lives after high school, the district examined the post-secondary reports published by the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation (VSAC) and the National Clearing House.

VSAC The Vermont Student Assistance Corporation has been studying the post-secondary decisions of Vermont seniors for a number of years. Students are surveyed in the spring of their senior year and again the following year.

While the focus of the questions on their post-secondary surveys has evolved over the years, there remains a core range of data that provided the district with an insightful window into the decision-making of their graduates. Specifically, the district focused on:

 The post-secondary plans of seniors at Peoples Academy and Stowe High School;  The percentage of students who continued their education within six months of graduating from high school;  The educational attainment of their parents;  The reasons students decided not to continue their education;  The percentage of students who reported that the ability to pay for college was a major concern.

In compiling this data, the district examined VSAC survey results from 2010-2016.

Note: For a complete review of this data see Appendix K.

In many respects, the post-secondary survey results from the Class of 2016 represent similar responses from earlier classes:

Peoples Academy: 77.9% of seniors in the Class of 2016 participated in the Senior Survey (Of the 53 seniors who completed the survey 56.6% were female and 43.4% were male.)

N/A the % of seniors who participated in the Follow-up Senior Survey.

20% of graduates indicated that a high school diploma was the highest level of education they planned to complete. 10% of graduates plan to earn an associates degree. 60% plan to complete a bachelors degree or higher.

80.4% agree or strongly agree high school provided them a good education. 55.7% agree or strongly agree high school gave them the skills to succeed in life. 55.8% agree or strongly agree high school gave them the skills to succeed in work or college. 56% agree or strongly agree that high school classes were rigorous and challenging.

N/A the percentage of graduates who continued their education on a full- or part-time basis within six months of high school graduation. N/A% males and N/A% females enrolled within 6 months.

55.7% of Parent 1 had not completed a bachelor's degree or higher. 68.6% of Parent 2 had not completed a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Most important Reason Seniors decided not to continue their education:

29.4% I need a break 23.5% I want to work to support myself 5.9 % I need to work to support myself 5.9% I am joining the military 11.8% I am unsure of my plans 11.9% Travel 5.9% Other

23.5% reported ability to pay for college a major concern.

Stowe: 80% of seniors in the Class of 2016 participated in the Senior Survey (Of the 40 seniors who completed the survey, 47.5% were female and 52.5% were male.)

N/A the % of seniors participated in the Follow-up Senior Survey.

0% of graduates indicated that a high school diploma was the highest level of education they planned to complete. 0% of graduates plan to earn an associates degree. 87.1% plan to complete a bachelors degree or higher

87.5% agree or strongly agree school provided them a good education. 50% agree or strongly agree school gave them the skills to succeed in life. 66.7% agree or strongly agree school gave them the skills to work or college. 78.9% agree or strongly agree that classes were rigorous and challenging.

N/A the % of graduates who continued their education on a full or part-time basis within six months of high school graduation. N/A % males and N/A% females enrolled within 6 months.

28.9% of Parent 1 had not completed a bachelor's degree or higher. 39.4% of Parent 2 had not completed a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Most important reason seniors decided not to continue their education:

0% I need a break 0% I want to work to support myself 0% I need to work to support myself 0% I am joining the military 33.3% I am unsure of my plans 33.3% I want to travel 33.3% Other (travel)

24.3% reported ability to pay for college a major concern.

Key Findings – VSAC Post-Secondary Survey Results: 1. Students indicate a number of factors affect their continuation and completion of postsecondary education, with a quarter of our students indicating that ability to pay for college was a factor from both high schools. One quarter to one third of students report needing a break as a significant factor in decisions about continuing postsecondary education. 2. There is no evidence to suggest that differences in postsecondary outcomes between EMUU and SSD would be mitigated in any way by a merger.

National Clearinghouse Data While there is no way to measure or assess the actual academic performance of LSSU students during or after their college careers, The National Clearing House data specifically examines three important indices of college success: post-secondary enrollment, persistence, and completion.

Postsecondary Enrollment Rate: This report represents Vermont students who graduated with a regular high school diploma and enrolled in an institution of higher education within 16 months of their high school graduation date. This rate is not based on the 9th grade cohort.

Postsecondary Persistence Rate: This report represents Vermont students who graduated with a regular high school diploma and enrolled in an institution of higher education within 16 months of high school graduation and persisted in postsecondary education for at least three semesters within two academic school years.

Postsecondary Completion Rate: This report represents Vermont students who graduated with a regular high school diploma and enrolled in an institution of higher education within 16 months of their high school graduation date, and graduated within six academic school years after high school graduation.

Important Note on Data:

The National Student Clearinghouse collects enrollment data from ~98% of the postsecondary institutions that participate in Title IV Student Loans. While this captures the majority of postsecondary enrollments, it may not include many trade, vocational, military, and international institutions, or apprenticeship programs. This report does not include publicly tuitioned students that attend out-of-state high schools. Also, students and schools can opt for a Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) blocker on their enrollment records and therefore not be included in NSC reports.

In compiling and assessing this data, the district compared the performance of LSSU students on each index with students who graduated from the State of Vermont as a whole and those that graduated from specific high schools across the state. (To review this data in its entirety, see Appendix L.)

One key measure of success found in these reports is the completion rate of high school students from Peoples Academy and Stowe High school who enrolled in college vis a vis their peers across Vermont. The following graph examined those rates for the Classes of 2008 and 2009 (Figure 1):

Figure 1.

In addition, the district examined the enrollment, persistence, and completion rates for college students who graduated from Peoples Academy and Stowe High School for the Class of 2008 (Figure 2) and the Class of 2009 (Figure 3) against their peers across the state.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Key Findings – National Clearing House Data 1. Data on student outcomes after graduation can be difficult to access and limited depending on source and format. 2. Post-secondary enrollment is higher at Stowe High School as compared to Peoples Academy. 3. At both Peoples Academy and Stowe High School, some students who begin college do not continue. 4. Post-secondary completion rates are higher for Stowe gradates than those from Peoples Academy. However, both schools compare favorably with other highly regarded high schools across Vermont. In addition, Peoples Academy’s outcomes outpace what might be predicted based on demographic factors.

Summary Conclusions and Recommendations for Action – Postsecondary Outcomes

Strategies for improving post-secondary outcomes – specifically the rate of college matriculation where appropriate on a case by case basis – should be differentiated between EMUU and SSD based upon the specific factors affecting outcomes in each community and system, but can be enriched by learning from and with one another. Support for first generation college students is an example of an area where the type and scope of supports needed may differ between schools; however, collaboration between schools can assist with identifying, improving, and scaling successful strategies into the other school.

Section 4: Operational Efficiency/Finances

Part A: EMUU/Stowe Financial/Tax Rate Projections:

Introductory Note to Citizens and Taxpayers:

The Homestead Tax Rate for a given school district (used to calculate local tax rates) is not based on the budgeted spending of an individual school district but on a spending figure identified in annual reports as the “education spending per equalized pupil” – this is the amount a district spends to educate a given student, equalized across the entire state. While other factors come in to play, particularly the size of the property yield set each year by the State, changes in the rate of education spending per equalized student in each district is what drives changes in local tax rates.

Introduction - Current Spending Data:

1. FY18 Education Spending per Equalized Pupil In reviewing these projections, it is useful to remember that in any merger the starting point for understanding the tax consequences is to remember one key figure – the educational cost per equalized pupil for each district. That is the figure that determines the homestead tax rate (before the common level of appraisal is factored in to arrive at each community’s local tax rate). Generally speaking, in any merger the community with the higher educational cost per equalized pupil will see a reduction in their taxes and the community with the lower educational cost will see an increase in their taxes since the averaged cost per equalized pupil due to the merger will be somewhere in the middle – unless the unified district takes steps to cut spending moving forward. That is why the incentives are important, because they lower the tax rate over four years (8, 6, 4, and 2 cents), reducing the tax impact on the district with the lowest education cost per equalized pupil and smoothing out the transition.

In the case of a merger between Elmore-Morristown and Stowe, the key financial figures for FY18, prior to any merger are:

EMUU: $14,390.63 Stowe: $15,011.17

In such a merger, Stowe should see a slight reduction in its property taxes with or without the incentives. However, because the Elmore-Morristown district has been experiencing an ongoing, slight decline in the number of pupils it serves and Stowe’s enrollments have been increasing, when one projects out those trend lines over the next five years, it is Stowe’s tax rates that increase slightly in any unification.

Financial Model Projections

Important Caveats on Model Use:

1. This model was created for purposes of comparative illustrations, and under no circumstances should be relied upon to forecast future actual tax rates resulting, if and when, a merger occurs or does not occur.

2. This model does not account for, nor is intended to account for policy decisions, management decisions and/or changes in any factor reflected in the model, now or over time.

The MD Model: This financial model utilized in this study is designed to predict trend lines in future homestead tax rates through FY23 for the communities of Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe using two distinct scenarios: (1) as a merged district; or (2) remaining two separate PreK-12 districts within their existing supervisory unions (the existing governance structures). The model projects:

I. The trend lines in Educational Spending and Local Tax rates for a merged district beginning in FY19 (Merged Scenario); II. The trend lines in Educational Spending and Local Tax rates for these same districts should they remain as they are (No Change Scenario); III. The differences in tax rates between a Merged Scenario and a No Change Scenario by computing and comparing the total increases/decreases in tax liabilities through FY23.

In addition, the model was used to project the tax impact for all three communities of a merger without incentives if required under some future state-wide plan.

Assumptions: A. The Model assumes that the new unified district would come into existence in FY19.

B. The Model uses existing financial data from FY13 and FY18 from each individual district involved in this study for determining the baseline for educational spending, equalized pupils, education spending per equalized pupil, etc., for the new merged district.

C. It considers the previous five-year average for determining the change rates for education spending and equalized pupils.

D. The Model builds in the tax incentives associated with a Phase II merger over the first four years of the new district’s existence. It also takes into account the 5% rate limit on increases or decreases on the homestead property tax rate during that same time frame.

E. The Merged Model leaves in place the hold-harmless provision on equalized pupil calculations (e.g. equalized pupil counts do not drop more than 3.5% per year) for every eligible district in the new merged district as well as the continuation of small schools grants to eligible districts.

F. The Model’s default setting projects the taxes on a $250,000 house.

G. The projected results in the current model assumes no operational savings in year one due to unification in the first year of operation; in addition, the projected growth in education spending used in the model for the new district is 4.04% – the aggregate total of the spending growth rates used for projecting the tax rates in the stand-alone scenario. Therefore, the tax savings projected in the model come from the new unified rate and the tax incentives over the first four years of the new unified union’s existence (8, 6, 4, 2 cents off the homestead tax rate) built into the law.

Commercial Tax Rates and Income Sensitive Tax Payers: Note 1: The non-homestead rates (commercial and second-home owners) do not benefit from Act 46 incentives

Note 2: Tax Rate Projections/Trend Lines and Income Sensitivity Tax Payers:

These financial projections do not specifically model for individuals who qualify for income sensitivity on their property taxes, the specific tax savings due to the tax incentives on the homestead tax rate over 4 years (8, 6, 4, 2 cents) granted to communities/districts that elect to merge. However, both Act 153 and Act 46 state that: “The household income percentage shall be calculated accordingly” in connection with both the tax rate decreases and the 5% protection available for each type of incentivized merger.

In short, those taxpayers whose education taxes are income sensitized will receive tax benefits from merger incentives. According to the AOE, homestead income sensitized taxpayers will see the same proportional reduction in their education taxes that taxpayers, whose tax rates are based on property value, will see as a result of a merger that qualifies for tax incentives.

Rates of Change: The model allows the user to manipulate the rates of change in:

a) Educational spending for each district and the Middle/High School Union budget and for the new district as a whole. b) Equalized pupils for each district and for the new district as a whole. c) Educational Grand List for each town. [In the current iteration of this model, the model left the GL unchanged (0%).]

To determine a starting place for assessing projected rates of change in educational spending and equalized pupils, this Model uses the previous five-year average change rate in educational spending and equalized pupil counts based on the specific data from FY13 and FY18.

The historical rates of change applied to the model were:

Changes: Ed Spending Inc. EqPupil Inc GL Inc Stowe 4.82% 2.49% 0% Elmore/Morristown 4.03% -0.9% 0% EMUU/Stowe 4.04%

MD Model Results: Incentivized Merger

Equalized Homestead Tax Rates – Incentivized Merger FY17 Fy18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Unified Stowe Unified 1.5015 1.4775 1.4181 1.4890 1.5635 1.6417 1.7299 EMUU Unified 1.4507 1.4164 1.4181 1.4890 1.5635 1.6417 1.7299 No Change Stowe 1.5015 1.4775 1.5111 1.5454 1.5806 1.6165 1.6532 EMUU 1.4507 1.4164 1.4869 1.5608 1.6385 1.7200 1.8056

Unified Union; Model 1 (Incentivized) FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Stowe Homestead Tax Rate (No CLA) $1.5015 $1.4775 $1.4181 $1.4890 $1.5635 $1.6417 $1.7299 Tax $ (homestead) $7,805,557 $7,680,793 $7,372,001 $7,740,575 $8,127,864 $8,534,387 $8,992,896 Tax savings due to unification $0 $0 $483,461 $293,196 $88,894 ($131,002) ($398,725) $335,823 Tax $ on $250K home $3,754 $3,694 $3,545 $3,723 $3,909 $4,104 $4,325 Tax savings on $250K home $0 $0 $233 $141 $43 ($63) ($192) $162

Elmore Homestead Tax Rate (No CLA) $1.4507 $1.4164 $1.4181 $1.4890 $1.5635 $1.6417 $1.7299 Tax $ (homestead) $1,265,488 $1,235,567 $1,237,050 $1,298,898 $1,363,886 $1,432,103 $1,509,042 Tax savings due to unification $0 $0 $60,016 $62,633 $65,425 $68,303 $66,035 $322,413 Tax $ on $250K home $3,627 $3,541 $3,545 $3,723 $3,909 $4,104 $4,325 Tax savings on $250K home $0 $0 $172 $180 $188 $196 $189 $924

Morristown Homestead Tax Rate (No CLA) $1.4507 $1.4164 $1.4181 $1.4890 $1.5635 $1.6417 $1.7299 Tax $ (homestead) $4,628,901 $4,519,456 $4,524,881 $4,751,109 $4,988,824 $5,238,345 $5,519,774 Tax savings due to unification $0 $0 $219,527 $229,100 $239,310 $249,840 $241,544 $1,179,322 Tax $ on $250K home $3,627 $3,541 $3,545 $3,723 $3,909 $4,104 $4,325 Tax savings on $250K home $0 $0 $172 $180 $188 $196 $189 $924

EMUUSTOWE TOTALS Tax $ raised in town $13,699,945 $13,435,81 $13,133,93 $13,790,58 $14,480,57 $15,204,83 $16,021,71 $0 6 2 2 4 4 1 Tax savings due to unification $0 $0 $763,005 $584,929 $393,630 $187,141 ($91,146) $1,837,558

No Change FY17 Fy18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Stowe Homestead Tax Rate (No CLA) $1.5015 $1.4775 $1.5111 $1.5454 $1.5806 $1.6165 $1.6532 Tax $ (homestead) $7,805,557 $7,680,793 $7,855,462 $8,033,771 $8,216,759 $8,403,385 $8,594,170 Tax savings due to unification Tax $ on $250K home $3,754 $3,694 $3,778 $3,864 $3,952 $4,041 $4,133 Tax savings on $250K home

Elmore Homestead Tax Rate (No CLA) $1.4507 $1.4164 $1.4869 $1.5608 $1.6385 $1.7200 $1.8056 Tax $ (homestead) $1,265,488 $1,235,567 $1,297,066 $1,361,531 $1,429,311 $1,500,406 $1,575,077 Tax savings due to unification Tax $ on $250K home $3,627 $3,541 $3,717 $3,902 $4,096 $4,300 $4,514 Tax savings on $250K home

Morristown Homestead Tax Rate (No CLA) $1.4507 $1.4164 $1.4869 $1.5608 $1.6385 $1.7200 $1.8056 Tax $ (homestead) $4,628,901 $4,519,456 $4,744,408 $4,980,208 $5,228,134 $5,488,185 $5,761,318 Tax savings due to unification Tax $ on $250K home $3,627 $3,541 $3,717 $3,902 $4,096 $4,300 $4,514 Tax savings on $250K home

EMUU/STOWE TOTALS Tax $ raised in town $13,699,945 $13,435,816 $13,896,936 $14,375,511 $14,874,204 $15,391,975 $15,930,565 Tax savings due to unification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Key Findings: Merger With Incentives:

In reviewing the data from the financial model, the committee noted that:

1. The numbers (equalized pupil counts, educational spending, yield figures, etc.) used in the model are not set in stone and a lot can happen with them. The model was designed to predict trend lines, not future tax rates.

2. Becoming a unified district would result in tax incentives (8,6,4,2 cents over four years off the homestead tax rate).

3. All education spending and all equalized pupils throughout the Supervisory Union are combined to arrive at a unified homestead tax rate. The difference between the two trend lines (no change vs. merger) represent the tax savings in the homestead tax rate due to the incentives and the collective impact of a unified tax rate.

4. The property yield is the amount a district would be spending per pupil if its homestead tax rate was $1.00. This year, the yield is $10,160. The model is not designed to account for future variations in the yield so it is constant at $10,160 throughout the modeling years. Using a constant value creates a conservative estimate in future tax savings.

5. Local tax rates will be different depending on the Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) in each community. The model is set for no change in the CLA over the next five years.

6. The current grand list information was used for each town. If the list changes the numbers will change. The model uses the same grand list totals throughout.

7. The growth in education spending rate used in the model for the new district is the aggregate of the individual districts’ growth rates: 4.04%. FY2019 is the assumed date that the new district comes into existence. The estimated educational spending per equalized pupil in year one is $15,220.76.

8. Under Act 46, during the life of the incentives in a preferred merger, the homestead tax rate can only go up or down 5% from the previous homestead rate. In the model, the new unified district is protected from tax increases over 5% as the incentives do not fully cover the projected increases in years two through four.

9. By FY2023, all the incentives are gone, and the homestead tax rate in the new unified district is based solely on the ongoing changes in educational spending and equalized pupil counts

10. These projections translate into a cumulative tax impact on a $250,000 home over the next five years of:

Elmore $ 924.00 tax savings: ~$185.00 per year savings Morristown $ 924.00 tax savings: ~$185.00 per year savings Stowe $ 162.00 tax increase: ~$ 32.00 per year increase

MD Model Results: Non-Incentivized Merger

Equalized Homestead Tax Rates - No Incentives FY17 Fy18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Unified Stowe Unified 1.5015 1.4775 1.4981 1.5536 1.6107 1.6695 1.7299 Elmore Unified 1.4507 1.4164 1.4981 1.5536 1.6107 1.6695 1.7299 Morristown 1.4507 1.4164 1.4981 1.5536 1.6107 1.6695 1.7299 Unified

No Change Stowe 1.5015 1.4775 1.5111 1.5454 1.5806 1.6165 1.6532 Elmore 1.4507 1.4164 1.4869 1.5608 1.6385 1.7200 1.8056 Morristown 1.4507 1.4164 1.4869 1.5608 1.6385 1.7200 1.8056

Unified Union; Model 2 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total (Non Incentivized) Stowe Homestead Tax $1.5015 $1.4775 $1.4981 $1.5536 $1.6107 $1.6695 $1.7299 Rate (No CLA) Tax $ (homestead) $7,805,557 $7,680,793 $7,787,882 $8,076,399 $8,373,234 $8,678,906 $8,992,896 Tax savings due to $0 $0 $67,581 ($42,628) ($156,475) ($275,521) ($398,725) ($805,768) unification Tax $ on $250K $3,754 $3,694 $3,745 $3,884 $4,027 $4,174 $4,325 home Tax savings on $0 $0 $33 ($21) ($75) ($133) ($192) ($388) $250K home

Elmore Homestead Tax $1.4507 $1.4164 $1.4981 $1.5536 $1.6107 $1.6695 $1.7299 Rate (No CLA) Tax $ (homestead) $1,265,488 $1,235,567 $1,306,836 $1,355,250 $1,405,060 $1,456,353 $1,509,042 Tax savings due to $0 $0 ($9,770) $6,281 $24,251 $44,053 $66,035 $130,849 unification Tax $ on $250K $3,627 $3,541 $3,745 $3,884 $4,027 $4,174 $4,325 home Tax savings on $0 $0 ($28) $18 $70 $126 $189 $375 $250K home

Morristown Homestead Tax $1.4507 $1.4164 $1.4981 $1.5536 $1.6107 $1.6695 $1.7299 Rate (No CLA) Tax $ (homestead) $4,628,901 $4,519,456 $4,780,145 $4,957,235 $5,139,430 $5,327,049 $5,519,774 Tax savings due to $0 $0 ($35,737) $22,974 $88,704 $161,136 $241,544 $478,621 unification Tax $ on $250K $3,627 $3,541 $3,745 $3,884 $4,027 $4,174 $4,325 home Tax savings on $0 $0 ($28) $18 $70 $126 $189 $375 $250K home

EMUU/STOWE TOTALS Tax $ raised in town $13,699,945 $13,435,816 $13,874,863 $14,388,884 $14,917,724 $15,462,308 $16,021,711 $0 Tax savings due to $0 $0 $22,073 ($13,373) ($43,520) ($70,333) ($91,146) ($196,298) unification

No Change FY17 Fy18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Stowe Homestead Tax Rate $1.5015 $1.4775 $1.5111 $1.5454 $1.5806 $1.6165 $1.6532 (No CLA) Tax $ (homestead) $7,805,557 $7,680,793 $7,855,462 $8,033,771 $8,216,759 $8,403,385 $8,594,170 Tax savings due to unification Tax $ on $250K home $3,754 $3,694 $3,778 $3,864 $3,952 $4,041 $4,133 Tax savings on $250K home

Elmore Homestead Tax Rate $1.4507 $1.4164 $1.4869 $1.5608 $1.6385 $1.7200 $1.8056 (No CLA) Tax $ (homestead) $1,265,488 $1,235,567 $1,297,066 $1,361,531 $1,429,311 $1,500,406 $1,575,077 Tax savings due to unification Tax $ on $250K home $3,627 $3,541 $3,717 $3,902 $4,096 $4,300 $4,514 Tax savings on $250K home

Morristown Homestead Tax Rate $1.4507 $1.4164 $1.4869 $1.5608 $1.6385 $1.7200 $1.8056 (No CLA) Tax $ (homestead) $4,628,901 $4,519,456 $4,744,408 $4,980,208 $5,228,134 $5,488,185 $5,761,318 Tax savings due to unification Tax $ on $250K home $3,627 $3,541 $3,717 $3,902 $4,096 $4,300 $4,514 Tax savings on $250K home

EMUU/STOWE TOTALS Tax $ raised in town $13,699,945 $13,435,81 $13,896,936 $14,375,511 $14,874,204 $15,391,975 $15,930,565 6 Tax savings due to $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 unification

Key Findings: Merger Without Incentives:

1. In reviewing the data from the financial model, the committee noted that:

2. The numbers (equalized pupil counts, educational spending, yield figures, etc.) used in the model are not set in stone and a lot can happen with them. The model was designed to predict trend lines not future tax rates.

3. A required merger under the state-wide plan would not receive tax incentives under the law (8, 6, 4, 2 cents over four years off the homestead tax rate).

4. All education spending and all equalized pupils throughout the Supervisory Union are combined to arrive at a unified homestead tax rate. The difference between the two trend lines (no change vs. merger) represent the tax savings in the homestead tax rate due to the incentives and the collective impact of a unified tax rate.

5. The property yield is the amount a district would be spending per pupil if its homestead tax rate was $1.00. This year, the yield is $10,160. The model is not designed to account for future variations in the yield so it is constant at $10,160 throughout the modeling years. Using a constant value potentially creates a conservative estimate in future tax savings as the local share of the tax burden must increase while the state share stays fixed.

6. Local tax rates will be different depending on the Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) in each community. The model is set for no change in the CLA over the next five years.

7. The current grand list information was used for each town. If the list changes the numbers will change. The model uses the same grand list totals throughout.

8. The growth in education spending rate used in the model for the new district is the same as for the incentivized model – the aggregate of the individual districts’ growth rates: 4.04%. FY2019 is the assumed date that the new district comes into existence. The estimated educational spending per equalized pupil in year one is the same as in the incentivized model $15,220.76.

9. There are no protections or throttles on tax rate increases in merger under the state-wide plan.

10. By FY2023, all the incentives are gone, and the homestead tax rate in the new unified district is based solely on the ongoing changes in educational spending and equalized pupil counts.

11. These projections translate into a cumulative tax impact on a $250,000 home over the next five years of:

Elmore $ 375.00 tax savings: ~$75.00 per year savings Morristown $ 375.00 tax savings: ~$75.00 per year savings Stowe $ 388.00 tax increase: ~$78.00 per year increase

Summary Findings from Financial Projections: Unifying EMMU and Stowe with or without tax incentives results in marginal savings for tax payers in Elmore and Morristown and a slight increase in taxes for the homeowners in Stowe. This is to be expected given the comparable education spending per equalized pupil in both districts – itself an important measure of the existing equality of taxpayer commitment afforded both districts. It should be noted that citizens have consistently supported LSSU schools over the years by approving their districts’ budgets year in and year out. 59

Furthermore, both EMMU and Stowe are operationally lean districts delivering a quality educational program in an operationally efficient manner comparable with the most cost-effective districts in the state. As will be argued later in this report, LSSU has already wrung out of its operations, particularly in the union of Elmore and Morristown, efficiencies in its operations that have already benefits students and taxpayers alike.

With no additional operational efficiencies to offset existing trend lines in education spending, the only discernible impact in these projections on tax rates comes from the application of state tax incentives, which are transitory at best.

In conclusion, we can find no evidence to suggest that unification, in and of itself, would lead to greater operational savings. That work has already been accomplished. Therefore, creating a single, unified budget assessed across the grand lists of Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe would result in no discernable increase in LSSU’s capacity to increase educational opportunity or assure greater equality (educationally or financially), nor result in marked savings for our taxpayers.

Part B: Debt

Analysis:

EMUU The following bonds and loans are presently outstanding: Amt. Borrowed Pd. thru 6/30/16 Balance 1998 Bond $2,200,000 $1,870,000 $ 330,000 1999 Bond $2,355,000 $1,895,000 $ 460,000

The payment due on each of the above commitment for FY17-18 is as follows: Principal Interest 1998 Bond $ 110,000 $ 8,525 1999 Bond $ 115,000 $ 15,475

Final Payment for 1998 Bond is in 2018-2019. Final Payment for 1999 Bond is in 2019-2020.

New Debt considerations are for a new, 30-year bond for a maximum of $14.5M. This debt will be partially offset by the retirement of the current 20 year bonds.

SSD Amt. Borrowed Pd. thru 6/30/16 Balance 2008 Bond $1,800,000 $ 630,000 $1,170,000 2010 Bond $ 600,000 $ 150,000 $ 450,000

The payment due on each of the above commitments for FY17-18 is as follows: Principal Interest 2008 Bond $ 90,000 $ 45,200 2010 Bond $ 30,000 $ 18,025

Final Payment for 2008 Bond is in 2028-2029. Final Payment for 2010 Bond is in 2030-2031.

New Debt considerations are forthcoming, with an anticipated Capital Committee beginning its work in Fall, 2017. The 2015 Facilities Audit offered a very rough estimate of $6.5M for increased instructional space and improvements to meet current needs.

Key Findings – Debt Given the relative similarities between education spending per equalized pupil, which include current debt, debt does not represent a significant factor with regard to governance structure.

Part C: Operational Efficiencies

Introduction: Over the past nine years, the operational insights gleaned in every phase of our ongoing strategic process have led to increased efficiencies, enhanced educational opportunities for our students, and better professional development opportunities of our faculty and staff. Examples of those improvements include:

Operations: ● Developing a single master agreement with competitive salaries for teachers throughout LSSU, centered on a shared commitment to attract and retain top quality, professional educators with values aligned to LSSU’s student-centered mission. ● Restructuring the use of school and administrative space (saving $150,000). ● Restructuring core services to a supervisory-union-wide model to enhance quality and cost effectiveness for multiple programs: ○ Food service administration ○ Health services ○ All of special education, including paraeducators ○ Transportation ○ Technology administration ○ Human Resources coordination ○ Pre-K administration and programming ○ English Language Learner supports ○ Wellness curriculum and program coordination ● Common Learning Management System (LMS) and Student Information System (SIS). ● Cooperative contract for high speed internet access through fiber. ● Cooperative contract for facilities audits. ● Managed education spending per equalized pupils (and homestead tax rates), staffing ratios, including making significant staffing reductions in Morristown, and ultimately the formation of the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union.

Educational Opportunities: ● Full day Kindergarten for all students. ● Public pre-Kindergarten partnerships for 3-4 year olds, early adopter of universal pre- Kindergarten. ● Common supervision and evaluation system and new teacher mentoring program with peer feedback across systems. ● Increased access to technology for students in underserved schools. ● Expanded Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment courses. ● Cooperative teams for girls hockey, baseball and softball, and member-to-member partnerships.

Act 46: Core Analysis – Current Operational Efficiency EMMU and Stowe are operationally lean districts delivering a quality educational program in an operationally efficient manner comparable with the most cost-effective districts in the state. Student Teacher Ratios and Student Administrator Ratios for the schools of Elmore-Morristown Unified Union and Stowe School District are consistently above Vermont averages.

Student-Teacher Ratio 2011 -2012 2012 -2013 2013 -2014 2014 -2015 2015 -2016 Lake Elmore School 22.00 18.00 20.00 20.00 19.00 Morristown Elementary Schools 12.24 15.39 15.84 14.77 13.50 Peoples Academy 12.51 10.80 9.85 10.87 10.18 Peoples Academy Middle School 12.26 12.26 11.24 10.61 12.27 Stowe Elementary School 13.58 13.16 15.47 15.17 16.11 Stowe Middle/High School 12.24 11.29 11.29 11.29 11.49 Vermont 10.73 10.61 10.56 10.55 10.45

Student:Administrator Ratio 2011 -2012 2012 -2013 2013 -2014 2014 -2015 2015 -2016 Lake Elmore School * * * * * Morristown Elementary School 299.00 371.00 366.00 378.00 359.00 Peoples Academy 297.00 273.00 249.00 242.00 247.00 Peoples Academy Middle Level 275.00 282.00 281.00 259.00 287.00 Stowe Elementary School 275.00 306.00 386.00 386.00 402.00 Stowe Middle/High School 209.00 199.50 203.00 203.00 206.50 Vermont 103.00 105.00 104.00 98.26

Elementary enrollments include PK, which is administered by LSSU.

Education Spending per Equalized Pupils has moderated in Stowe School District and is at or below the Vermont average. With the formation of EMUU, the trend of increasing ES/EP for Elmore has been rectified and Morristown’s consistent trend of ES/EP below Vermont averages continues for the new district.

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Elmore $ 10,925 $ 10,227 $ 11,355 $ 12,888 $ 15,115 $ 16,650 Morristown $ 9,749 $ 10,417 $ 11,257 $ 12,532 $ 13,019 $ 13,724 EMUU $ 14,073 $ 14,391 Stowe $ 12,736 $ 13,032 $ 13,413 $ 13,852 $ 14,053 $ 14,307 $ 14,566 $ 15,011 Vermont $ 12,204 $ 12,287 $ 12,789 $ 13,546 $ 14,009 $ 14,421 $ 14,651

Education Spending per Equalized Pupil $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 Elmore $10,000 Morristown $8,000 EMUU $6,000 Stowe VT $4,000 $2,000 $- FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

Data reviewed as part of governance study in 2009 indicated that “Comparative data for LSSU and seven other supervisory unions with student populations between 1,400 and 1,700 reveal that this supervisory union has over a long period of time consolidated many services provided to member school districts. Evidence of these efforts include, but are not limited to, the following: common school board policies, centralized fiscal services, coordinated curriculum and education programs, planned technology, data collection and analysis, human resources services, student assessment instruments and procedures, consolidated grants and special education.

Comparative financial data reveals that these efforts have also been accomplished with a high degree of efficiency. For example:  LSSU has the highest student to central office personnel staff ratio  Mid-range cost per general administration  Next to the lowest current cost per pupil for all services among these 7 supervisory unions.”

Data from the most recent Summary of the Annual Statistical Report of Schools (FY 2016) suggests that the pattern of operational efficiencies at the supervisory union level has continued with the percentage of budget directed towards general administration at 1.45% of total expenditures as compared to the Vermont average of 2.35%, or roughly 62% lower.

2016 Summary of the Annual Statistical Report of Schools

Expenditures as Percent of total PreK-12 Total Expenditures Instructional Pupil Staff General School Student Other FY16 Instruction Support Support Admin. Admin. Transport. Support VT 59.11% 0.09% 4.82% 2.35% 7.16% 3.62% 11.25% LSSU 54.57% 14.35% 7.59% 4.07% 2.41% 9.53% 7.48% Elmore 69.80% 1.26% 0.65% 4.34% 0.00% 0.99% 22.95% Morristown 66.07% 5.63% 2.93% 0.38% 7.95% 0.73% 12.98% Stowe 66.98% 6.26% 1.93% 0.35% 8.51% 0.64% 12.26% LSSU Subtotal 63.10% 8.30% 3.93% 1.45% 6.50% 3.22% 11.23%

Key Findings: Operational Efficiencies

While LSSU will continue to seek new ways to fulfill our core mission in the most efficient manner possible, the operational improvements we have already implemented over the past nine years mean that whatever savings/efficiencies might accrue through unification would be at the margins without community support to consolidate our existing middle and high schools. It was within that context that the district’s Regional Education District Study explored the potential savings and educational benefits that might be achieved by unifying LSSU and restructuring our schools (See Appendix C) After weighing the educational, operational, cultural, and operational costs and benefits, that study determined that forming a regional education district was not advisable.

Summary Conclusions and Recommendations for Action – Operational Efficiency

Our analysis shows that both districts deliver education at a spending level less than the state average, making our supervisory union a low-cost educational leader in Vermont. In addition, we believe that by maintaining two districts, we are better suited to learn from each other. We assert that education solutions are better identified and implemented when educational leaders have more with which to subsets to work.

Looking ahead, Lamoille South’s investment in new accounting software is providing additional tools for us to ensure cost efficiencies and transparency across both districts. With a fully integrated financial management system in place for January 1, 2018, we will be able to quickly and easily: produce financial statements in conformity with individual, state and federal guidelines, access detailed fund and budget information in a timely manner, increase the efficiency of planning and budgeting cycles, better analyze spending reports and identify areas where supplies or services are needed or where contracts can be renegotiated, and streamline procurement processes.

The unification of the Elmore and Morristown School Districts represented a significant step forward in strengthening the educational programs offered our students and realized additional savings in operations the new unified district. This final self-study has afforded us another opportunity to assess our SU’s current financial realities. What the evidence demonstrates is that there is no compelling financial or operational benefit to be derived through further unification of our supervisory union. 65

Despite the fact that educational spending per equalized pupil is comparable across our districts, merging our supervisory union still results in the tax payers of one community carrying an increased tax burden with no significant educational benefit for our students or our schools due to the different demographic trends driving each district. Therefore, we believe that maintaining our current supervisory union structure is the best way to achieve both the financial and educational goals of Act 46.

Recent history has taught us the benefit of purposeful collaboration across our supervisory union, finding new ways to share our considerable educational resources and new ways to create greater student access to educational opportunities regardless of district affiliation. In the future, we propose to:

1. Continue the newly established practice of having all board members meet to examine student performance data and review and revise LSSU’s Action Plan, as well as the current practice of attending each other’s district’s budget meetings to build a shared understanding of opportunities for enhanced cooperation, equity of opportunity, fidelity of implementation of universal best practice, and areas where differences make sense. 2. Identify additional specific strategies for school boards to ensure a shared, collaborative focus on operational efficiencies: a. Attend board meetings of sister board. b. Common communications about operations and costs. c. Identify additional areas of key board work where collaboration may enhance efficiency. d. Review the supervisory union board structure and meeting schedule and consider options to support increased cooperation and coordination, including the possibility of having all board members on the SU board with weighted voting.

Section 5: Transparency, Accountability, and Community Engagement

Nine years of thoughtful strategic reflection concerning the operations and direction of the Lamoille South Supervisory Union and its member districts – Elmore, Morristown, and Stowe – has resulted in unprecedented levels of transparency, accountability, and community engagement. Our communities care deeply about their schools. Each phase/study led progressively to the next as board and community members joined with their educator teams to think deeply about the issues at the heart of Act 46 – student performance, educational opportunity, equity, efficiency, and governance. Throughout this process community members have passionately communicated their points of view and in the process learned a great deal about their schools.

We are not the same Supervisory Union we once were. The work we have done has opened new lines of communication, mutual understanding, cooperation, planning, and support. As our communities elected leaders, we have done all of this work together and found new ways to govern and share our expertise and resources while at the same time maintaining the requisite autonomy needed to represent and respond to the unique matrix of educational need and aspiration that defines each of the communities we serve. There is a certain appeal to streamlining governance structures, but the complexity of responding to the particular needs of individual communities in a manner that our parents, community members, and taxpayers value, sometimes demands more nuanced responses.

Where we felt unification was the best path forward for our schools and communities, we acted. Given the emerging financial and educational realities facing the Elmore School, we led the districts of Elmore and Morristown into a new and productive partnership. Much work still needs to be done to cement emerging patterns of trust and ownership among our citizens by fostering new opportunities for community involvement so essential to the long-term success of any newly merged district.

While not a “barrier” to implementing a full unification of LSSU, the ongoing work of insuring that EMUU successfully fulfills all the promises made to our citizens is an important consideration for us in thinking about what is best for our schools and communities at this time. Establishing new and effective operational, financial, and leadership structures and integrating them into every operational level of our supervisory union is a challenging and labor-intensive process for our administrative team.

The more important question we faced in considering a move towards full unification in our region was establishing a clear and decisive picture of the educational and financial benefits that might be derived from such a proposal – a change in structure that our citizens would conclude was necessary and in the best interest of their children. Having wrested as many operational savings as possible at both the district and supervisory union level as result of implementing the recommendations of previous operational studies, we examined deeply the costs and benefits of consolidating the middle and high schools in LSSU through a full unification of our districts. Among the obstacles to restructuring our middle and high schools was:

➢ No evidence that the wholesale re-organization of two high-performing K-12 districts would lead to greater educational opportunity or improved student performance. ➢ The very real impact on a significant portion of our student body of longer bus rides, given the geographic size of our SU. The RED study was particularly concerned about ensuring access by all students to fully participate in after-school activities without compromising their ability to 67

complete their homework due to late home arrivals.

➢ The perceived loss of community identification with and support for their schools.

Our Regional Education District Study (see Appendix C), after considering the myriad range of educational, cultural, and operational tradeoffs that would attend restructuring our middle and high schools, concluded that fostering greater educational collaboration throughout our supervisory union, finding new ways to share our considerable educational resources, and creating greater student access to unique programming offered across our districts was the best way to create greater educational opportunity and strengthen student performance in our S.U.

It was a decision that was arrived at thoughtfully and mindfully – a decision that not only acknowledged and celebrated the existing quality of our schools, but asserted the view that maintaining our schools’ educational and cultural integrity was the best path forward to insure every student in our region has an equal opportunity to receive a quality education both now and in the future. Reflected throughout this report are the concrete steps we have taken, and intend to take, to fulfill that collaborative vision.

Finally, in the course of this process we have reached out to other communities and districts in our region to assess the potential benefits of greater collaboration and potentially unification, particularly the Wolcott School District which tuitions many of their middle and high school students to our schools. In preparation for these discussions, LSSU examined the capacity of both EMMU and Stowe to handle Wolcott’s student population, as well as, the financial/tax consequences of Wolcott merging with either district. (See Appendix L) As a result of those discussions, Wolcott determined that it was not ready to change its current operating structure by ceasing to tuition its middle and high school students throughout the region. While the Stowe School District does not have the capacity to educate Wolcott students in its current facility, LSSU remains open to further discussions concerning unification should the Wolcott School district decide to revisit the issue.

Key Findings – Transparency, Accountability, and Community Engagement:

EMUU and Stowe are not “siloed” educational governance structures intent on simply focusing on their own needs or exercising their local prerogatives. Nine years of joint study and communication have:

1. Enhanced board knowledge of all our schools and the children they serve. 2. Established new patterns of PreK-12 strategic thinking and planning across our supervisory union. 3. Provided new opportunities to learn from each other’s unique practices and apply the best innovative ideas across our schools. 4. Led to the creation of coordinated policies, goals and initiatives aimed at: a. The effective coordination and implementation of targeted instructional improvement plans. b. The alignment of instructional and social-emotional support programs across the S.U. c. The institution of student information system and data management tools enabling our principals and teachers to more effectively use individual and aggregate student data to identify student needs, allocate and share resources, and improve instruction. d. A unified program of educator recruitment, support, and professional development. 68

Summary Conclusions and Action Items - Transparency, Accountability, and Community Engagement

But that sense of regional identity needs to become more deeply embedded in the educational ethos of the communities we serve - the sense that the needs of every child that attends school in LSSU is our collective responsibility, grounded in a relationship across our schools and communities that is embraced, nurtured, and celebrated. To that end, we propose to take steps to begin the work of forging a greater sense of regional community engagement in all of the schools. Among those initiatives are:

1. Developing a proposal for a joint Chinese Studies Program for middle and high school students to be planned and implemented by both districts – the first of what we hope will be a number of coordinated educational initiatives. 2. Coordinating LSSU school websites and communication strategies to strengthen the sense of shared mission and identity among the communities and families we serve. 3. Coordinating community activities across schools so that certain functions could take place in one district but serve the students and families of all our schools. (Examples: SU music concerts, art shows, open houses) 4. Celebrating examples of educational progress and student achievement throughout our SU. 5. Exploring ways to coordinate PTA/booster activities. 6. Scheduling community forums on issues of concern to all our parents and citizens to foster community input and dialogue throughout our SU.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Introduction and Executive Summary from Lamoille South Supervisory Union, Phase I Study of Governance Options, by Raymond Proulx, Ed.D., (2009)

Appendix B: Excerpts from Lamoille South Supervisory Union’s Optional Educational Structures Committee Report on Optional Education Structures and Recommendation April – December 2010

Appendix C: Recommendation from the Lamoille South Supervisory Union Regional Education Committee Report, May 2013

Appendix D: Excerpts from the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union Final Report and Articles of Agreement, September 1, 2015

Appendix E: Lamoille South Supervisory Union Act 46 Tax Projections as of 7/1/15

Appendix F: SSD & EMUU Elementary, Middle and High School Program Review - Fall, 2016

Appendix G: Student Assessment Data

Appendix H: Lamoille South Supervisory Union Comprehensive Plan for Continuous Improvement

Appendix I: Mission - Lamoille South Supervisory Union

Appendix J: VSAC Post Secondary Survey Results

Appendix K: Vermont High School Post-Secondary Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Study

Appendix L: Wolcott Unification - Financial Data

Appendix M: Minutes of August 10, 2017, LSSU Meeting with Wolcott School Board

Appendix N: LSSU Geography

Appendix O: LSSU Act 46 Meeting Dates

Appendix A: Introduction and Executive Summary from Lamoille South Supervisory Union, Phase I Study of Governance Options, by Raymond Proulx, Ed.D., (2009)

Introduction: The demographic, economic, and political landscapes for Vermont’s schools have experienced substantial alteration over the past decade. There has been an increase in the overall population in Vermont but with a steady decline in the number of students in most of our schools. The number of full time equivalent public school students in Vermont has dropped to under 90,000 in October, 2009. The cost of fossil fuels, electricity, contracted services, transportation, health insurance premiums, paper products, technology equipment and other areas necessary for school operations have increased exponentially. In addition, school costs have also been impacted by both state and federal departments of education and legislators who have imposed numerous policy decisions, standards and accountability measures beyond what has ever been experienced in the history of Vermont education. Schools have been dealt responsibility for many services to students, families and society that go beyond academics. These initiatives have been needed and are being accepted by Vermont School Districts. At the same time, it is important to connect these areas to the agenda calling for both effectiveness and efficiency.

Finally, the current economic conditions of the United States and world create an urgency to act on all possibilities to enhance effectiveness and efficiency in every Vermont school. There is a call for new content and new ways for educating our populations of all ages. All of this requires that State public policy makers and local school boards look carefully at how the delivery of education is structured and to measure its effectiveness.

The purpose of this report is to provide base-line data and explore options that will enable the LSSU School Boards to make informed governance policy decisions that will map the future of the member schools. In addition, the content of this report will prepare LSSU board members and administrators for possible state-wide restructuring of schools that is currently being framed by the work of groups such as: · The State Board of Education Transformation Policy Committee · The Legislative Committee on the Financing and Effectiveness of the VT Education System for the 21st Century · State Board of Education 2009-14 Strategic Planning Goals · State of Vermont Department of Education · Other State and local administration and agencies To this end, the research will generate data specific to areas of education staffing, enrollment trends, school budgets, costs per pupil, tax impact, facility space and needs, district debt and assets, and applicable State laws impacting education governance.

If the communities of Elmore, Morristown and Stowe desire to formally pursue union school possibilities, a comprehensive study would have to be initiated and completed in accordance with Vermont State Statutes Title 16, Sections 701 through 706, recently revised in the 2008 Legislative

Session. The contents of this report should help to inform and expedite the work of the subsequent study if pursued.

Credits: Appreciation is extended to LSSU administrators, directors, coordinators and staff for their cooperation and assistance. All of these people were instrumental in enabling the collection of data needed to inform this study. I also want to recognize these people, along with LSSU board members, who provided key information about prior studies and reports, current conditions, work requirements and other operating procedures within the LSSU.

Recognition is also extended to the LSSU School Boards and administration for being proactive in preparing for the future of its school districts. Their commitment for sustaining quality education in the most efficient manner possible is transparent. The data collected for this brief report reveals that this work is very timely and necessary.

Executive Summary of General Findings: Public policy decisions on how Vermont schools should be governed are very complex. There are many variables that must be considered when considering action to re-structure schools. · First, governance of public schools must be a means to improving the quality of education for all students and not an end in itself. Governance is not a result but rather a means to greater productivity. · Second, governance needs to consider intended and unintended consequences on communities and Vermont heritage. · Third, the direction of governance needs to address efficiency and the wisest use of limited resources including finances, structures, technology and people. In other words, decisions regarding how to govern Vermont schools must be driven by core values and what is considered best for the entire system. · Fourth, governance is about public policy needed for the future. Therefore, analysis of this study must explore answers to questions like: - How can school communities best insure quality education and learning in the face of declining enrollments and diminishing resources? - How can school districts maximize use of school facilities and structures? - What governance structure will best enable collaborative efforts among schools? - How can we insure equity for all learners? - Can school governance structures positively influence equity for students, parents, tax payers and community members? - How will school be most capable of prospering in a global community? - How can school communities reach and sustain relevance and success in technology and electronic communications?

The following 15 general findings/options are based on data and specific findings included in the full text of this report. The specific findings are detailed in Areas 1 through 12A-E. In addition, there are numerous appendices that provided foundation information. Therefore, it is important to read all of the materials provided here-in. At the same time, the following executive summary of general findings is 72

intended to capture the most salient points and provide the reader a quick reference point for future deliberation and decision making.

General Finding #1: Declining Student Population The number of public school students in Vermont has steadily declined over the past decade to a point where the current number of pupils is below ninety thousand. This represents a decrease of approximately twelve thousand students in ten years. The schools within the LSSU school district have followed a similar pattern. The number of pupils in Elmore, Morristown and Stowe has decreased from approximately 1775 in 1999 to near 1625 in 2009. The number of students in these schools is anticipated to continue to decline by a little over 1% per year over the next five to six years (NESDEC Population Projection, 2009).

Whereas the student population has declined, the total census of Vermont residents has increased from about 580,000 to over 650,000 during the same period of time. The number of homes with children in school has become significantly fewer (only 15 to 20 %). School and community demographics are much different now than they were even ten to fifteen years ago. School and community relationships are shifting as the majority of our population advance to more senior status.

The decline in number of students in Vermont schools must also be measured in terms of economic impact on local communities as well as the entire State. Vermont relies heavily on cost per pupil for measuring efficiency and distributing fiscal resources. Capacity for decreasing expenditures at the same rate as the decline in the number of pupils has not happened. Therefore, the cost per pupil in almost all schools, even with multi-year averaging in the Act 68 formula, has risen at a level that has created a tremendous strain on our state-wide property tax supported system. All three schools within the LSSU District have done well in attempts to control costs and work within the Act 68 system. However, student enrollments will continue to decline over the next five years which will cause even more pressure on efforts to control per pupil costs.

General Finding #2: Structures for Delivering Education Lake Elmore is the only school of 309 in the State of Vermont that operates a school specifically for grades 1, 2 and part of 3. The Elmore School District is one of 70 in Vermont that has a K -12 population of between 100 and 200 students. Eighty-three percent (83%) of these school districts provide education by operating elementary schools (K-5 or K-6) and have either joined a union high school district or tuition out middle and high school pupils. Elmore tuitions all but 21 of its 115 students to neighboring school districts with almost all of them attending Morristown schools.

Morristown and Stowe school districts are among 30 in Vermont that operate Pre-K through grade 12 educational programs. The range in student population for these 30 schools is from a low of 170 to a high of 3,935. The average size for these thirty schools is 880 pupils. Both Morristown and Stowe have student enrollments that are very close to this average.

Vermont Has the Following Variety of Structures for Delivery of Education in 289 School Districts: ● 16 Do Not Operate Schools and Tuition All Students ● 8 Operate Elementary School and Designate High School ● 30 Operate K -12 ● 45 Operate Elementary and Tuition High School 73

● 109 Operate Elementary and Belong to a Union or Joint High School ● 14 Belong to a Union or Joint Elementary and Tuition High School ● 13 Do Not Operate Elementary but Belong to a Union High School ● 9 Gores or Unorganized Towns ● 28 Union High School Districts ● 8 Union Elementary School Districts ● 5 Unified Union School Districts

General Finding #3: School Facilities The amount of space needed for schools has substantially increased in recent years. Factors that have driven the trend for expanded school space include: teaching methods, use of technology for teaching and learning, requirements for health and physical activities, amount of support services and mainstreaming special education students. The Vermont State Department of Education has established maximum numbers of square feet allowed in new construction for purposes of state aid. Elementary schools are allowed 140 square feet/pupil; middle level schools are allowed 160 square feet/pupil; and, high schools are allowed 180 square feet/pupil. This study has used these maximums for estimating space needs for each of the options. The general finding is that the current school facilities do have adequate space for the immediate future to accommodate students in any one of the options. In addition, the schools appear to have adequate space for playground, extra-curricular activities and sports to accommodate the student populations in any of the options. However, adult and student parking will most likely not be adequate at Peoples Academy if this school is to become the Union High School for the entire district. The only way that there would be adequate parking is if the school board established policies limiting or regulating student parking. Otherwise, construction for additional parking space would be needed.

This study did not include an analysis of the current design or the rate of utilization of school space. Therefore, depending on future direction, a more thorough analysis of use and adequacy of space such as science labs, gymnasiums, lunch rooms and the like will have to be done. This more extensive analysis would also have to include a study of “minimum space requirements outlined in Vermont’s School Quality Standards” (See Appendix 5).

General Finding #4: Current Spending Per Pupil and Cost Drivers The school board members and administration for all three school districts within the LSSU should take pride in their efforts to control the cost of operating their schools. All three schools have lower than average current expenses per pupil when compared to other schools that have similar enrollments and the same structure for delivering education (See Areas 4 and 5 for specific findings). However, both Morristown and Stowe exceed the average cost per pupil for the State of Vermont which is $13,395/pupil.

Budget trends for Elmore, Morristown and Stowe School Districts reveal that there are three primary variables that drive costs. First, student to teacher and student to total staff ratios are significant drivers impacting cost per pupil. It is important to preface any comparison of ratios of students to teachers in Vermont to the fact that this State ranks in the top ten among all school districts in the Nation for having very low ratios.

Lake Elmore is a classic example of how ratios impact spending. The Lake Elmore School has a student to teacher ratio of 21 to 1 compared to the State average of 11.2 to 1. In addition, Elmore receives principal’s services via the LSSU Central Office administration while all other comparative 74

schools employed principals and administrative support staff. Lake Elmore does not operate a school lunch program and does not have staffing for extra-curricular programs. Therefore, Lake Elmore has the highest ratio of students to staff of any schools in this study and in turn has the lowest cost per pupil among these same comparative schools.

Morristown and Stowe also have slightly higher than average student to teacher ratios recorded as 12.50:1 and 12.53:1 respectively. Ratios for number of students to administrative staff and other service areas are at par with the comparative schools.

Second, staff salaries and benefits are variable impacting cost per pupil. Elmore and Stowe both have teacher salaries that are above the average for Vermont School Districts. Elmore’s average salary is approximately $2,000 higher than State average and Stowe’s salaries are approximately $6,810 above average. Morristown’s average teacher salary is approximately $2,597 below that of the state-wide teacher average salary. This impact of salaries on overall expenses can be seen when one considers that Morristown and Stowe have approximately equal student to teacher ratios. Yet, Morristown’s average current spending per pupil was $10,920/pupil compared to Stowe at $12,474/pupil.

Third, expenses for special education impact budget cost per pupil. FY 2009 special education budget costs per school enrollment were: · Elmore’s special education costs were $3,275 per pupil and 22.33% of total budget. · Morristown’s special education costs were $2,341 per pupil and 18.17% of total budget. · Stowe’s special education costs were $1,267 per pupil and 9.06% of its total budget.

These factors are particularly important when looking at projected expenses. It is apparent that costs for special education may be one of the reasons for Elmore’s estimated high cost per pupil over the next few years. It is important to note that special education costs are offset by State funds at approximately 59% and therefore the impact on local costs are minimized. Never-the-less, these variables are significant when looking at total budget costs per pupil by school and State-wide.

General Finding #5: Master Contracts Comparison of master teacher contracts reveal that there are major differences that will be significant challenges in any attempts at transforming school governance structures. Area 11 of this report provides details outlining differences in teacher master agreements. Among the most important areas: · Number of school days – 175 for Stowe and 179 for Morristown · Number of teacher days – 182 for Stowe and 187 for Morristown · Pay for extracurricular activities and sports need to be reconciled · Average salary for Stowe is $54,900 compared to $45,493 for Morristown

Changes in general language and working conditions in the two contracts may be readily addressed in developing a common contract. However, days of work, salary schedules and benefits will be a challenge to reconcile in any movement towards forming union schools.

General Finding #6: Assets and Obligations Formal procedures for merging school districts call for articulation of how the new entity will handle assets and obligations belonging to each member school district. Area 10 reveals details important to 75

this issue and will need to be reviewed and updated carefully when attempting any consolidation.

Some of the questions that these data suggest are:  Will long term debts, such as Morristown’s obligation for a construction loan currently at $2,605,000, be assumed by the new entity?  How will material assets for building and equipment be determined? Will you use insurance values, depreciated audited values, current market values or other determinations? For example, Stowe’s depreciated values for school buildings total $7,616,083 but the insurance replacement value for these same buildings is $23,456,900.  How will equipment and other contents owned by each district be handled?  How will current leases and contracts be honored?

General Finding #7: LSSU Services and Operations Comparative data for LSSU and seven other supervisory unions with student populations between 1,400 and 1,700 reveal that this supervisory union has over a long period of time consolidated many services provided to member school districts. Evidence of these efforts include, but are not limited to, the following: common school board policies, centralized fiscal services, coordinated curriculum and education programs, planned technology, data collection and analysis, human resources services, student assessment instruments and procedures, consolidated grants and special education.

Comparative financial data reveals that these efforts have also been accomplished with a high degree of efficiency. For example: · LSSU has the highest student to central office personnel staff ratio · Mid-range cost per general administration · Next to the lowest current cost per pupil for all services among these 7 supervisory unions.

It appears that both management and educational leadership services are being offered and utilized well by Elmore, Morristown and Stowe.

General Finding #8: Summary Chart of Options Chart 1: Impact of Various Options on Costs per Pupil by District Grades K through 12: K-12 Status Elmore and Elmore Union Middle Union High K-12 Unified School Quo Morristown Tuition All School of School Of Union School District Elementary Students to Stowe and Stowe and District Form a K-5 Morristown Morristown Morristown Union Schools

Elmore $14,668 $13,867 $13,130 $14,425 $14,520 $13,327 + $350 K-12 = $13,677

Morristown $12,757 $12,637 $13,038 $12,979 $12,855 $13,327 K-12

Stowe $13,985 $13,985 $13,985 $13,679 $13,657 $13,327 K-12

General Finding #9: Elmore and Morristown K-5 Union If Elmore and Morristown were to form a K-5 Union Elementary School it would have to be formed in accordance with Title 16, Section 701 through 721. There would be one school board proportioned in accordance with a census of community populations. The school would be governed by this board and there would be a single budget. This budget would be voted on by the two communities and the ballots would be co-mingled. There would also be one cost per pupil and all operations would be under the direction of this union school board. This option, if a stand alone initiative, would add one school board to the mix (from 4 to 5). Elmore would still have a school board for tuition students in grades 6 through 12 and would have to meet at least once a year to attend to responsibilities. There would be a new Elmore-Morristown Elementary Board for grades K -5. The current Morristown school board would then be responsible for grades 6 – 12 but would not be responsible for grades K through 5.

This option would avail the Lake Elmore student population with a wider array of school programs and services provided for by specialized staff. The number of teachers and staff needed would be increased by 1 FTE in order to provide the needed aides to individual students. The current cost per pupil for 375 Morristown elementary students is $11,031. The Union cost per pupil is estimated at $10,859 or a reduction of Morristown of $172/pupil.

Calculating Elmore projected costs is much more complex because of the variables that need to be considered for addressing grades 6 through 12, special education and maintaining the Lake Elmore facility. Details for these estimates are on pages 29 and 30 of this report. The cost per pupil for the Union would be the same ($10,859/pupil) for both Elmore and Morristown. However, the cost for Elmore students in grades 6 -12 coupled with expenses for other variables included in this option would result in a cost per pupil of $16,438 for the 62 upper grade students. The net result for Elmore would be a K – 12 cost per pupil of $13,867 which is $801 less than present.

In conclusion, formation of an Elmore and Morristown Union Elementary School District has potential for offering more opportunities to 21 Lake Elmore students and does result in slightly lower costs per pupil for both school districts. This option increases the number of school boards in the LSSU and would result in major alterations to the Morristown governance structure. Elmore would gain governance regarding the education of K – 5 elementary students currently being educated via tuition. 77

General Finding #10: Tuition All K-5 Elmore Students to Morristown Elementary The number of school boards within the LSSU would remain 4 in this option. However, the Elmore School Board would no longer operate the Lake Elmore School. The present Morristown School board would continue to have sole governance responsibilities for K -12 school operations. Estimated staffing and other related budget costs would be the same as outlined in the Elmore- Morristown Elementary School Union option. However, Morristown would now charge an allowable tuition rate rather than to share all costs per pupil equally. Both Elmore and Morristown would have variables to consider in calculating costs that are different from the Union School calculations. These new calculations would result in elementary costs per pupil for Morristown of $11,438. Elmore’s elementary cost per pupil would be $11,829 or about $1,000 more than under the Union alternative. Morristown’s cost per elementary student would increase by $407 over current rate.

If this option were exercised it is anticipated that Elmore’s cost per pupil for K-12 would be $13,130 rather than the current rate of $14,668. Morristown’s K-12 cost per pupil would increase from $12,757 to $13,038.

General Finding #11: Formation of a Union Middle School for Morristown/Elmore and Stowe If this option were to be implemented as a stand alone initiative it would add an additional school board to the present LSSU governance structure. In turn, it would require substantial alterations in the operations of the current Morristown, Stowe and Elmore school boards who would retain responsibility for K-5 and 9-12 education. Continuity for K -12 governance would be a major concern.

The staffing pattern proposed in this option assumes that all current subjects and programs offered by either school would be available to all students. Staffing also assumes the guidelines for ratios of students to specials provided by the Vermont Quality Standards. The number of core subject classroom teachers would be reduced by 3 in accordance with the 24 to 1 D.O.E. suggested ratio. The number of special subjects teachers would be decreased in some areas and increased in others in order to meet State standards. The net result is to add .12 teachers over the current combined staffing for the two Middle Schools.

There is currently one principal for each school. The proposed administrative services are to reduce the number of principals to one and add an assistant principal. There would be a net decrease in salary and benefits but the same number of administrative staff.

The total number of combined school staff would be reduced from 62.92 FTE’s to 58.50 FTE’s. Opportunities for formal extracurricular activities would be decreased because the merged school would have to follow Head Master’s Regulations. More intra-mural functions could be established but are not included in this projected budget.

A merger would require establishing a new master contract for teachers as well as other employees. This proposal is assuming no changes in salaries except for added or deleted positions. An average of current staff salaries for the two schools has been used in estimating salaries for added and deleted positions in the proposed budget.

The proposed Middle School would be housed in Stowe. The projected budget for the combined Middle Schools provides all of the courses and programs currently offered in both schools. For example, the PAML has a heavier emphasis on technology than Stowe. On the other hand, Stowe has a heavier focus on foreign languages. The proposed budget offers all 396 pupils access to these programs. Therefore, the number of classroom teachers has been reduced by 3. However, 3.12 special subjects teaching positions have been added to cover needs for additional technology and foreign languages. The number of teacher aides has been reduced by 4.86 in order to do away with duplicated workloads. The aides that remain are to cover classroom work, aides to individual students and special assignments.

The office of the principal is proposed to have one principal and one assistant principal. This maintains the same number of administrators. However, there is a projected salary differential of $23,100. Another significant estimated reduction is in special education services. It appears that there is duplication of services in the current separated structure. The estimates used the average cost per pupil for the current special education services in the two schools and applied this number to the projected 396 pupils.

Plant operations must include both the current Stowe Middle level budget as well as the Stowe High School budget since the combined Middle School will be taking over the entire building. The current $318,250 cost for operating the PA Middle Level School will be combined into the High School scenario.

The estimated budget resulting from a merger of the two middle schools reveals an increase in the cost per pupil for Morristown from $13,149 to $13,450. Stowe’s cost per pupil would be reduced from $14,620 to $13,450. Students from both communities would have access to additional academic areas. Formal co-curricular areas would (focus on athletics) have fewer participants because of the Headmaster Rules regarding the number of players on various teams.

General Finding #12: Formation of a 9-12 Union High School Including Morristown and Stowe as Required School Districts The present secondary facilities in Morristown are best suited to house grades 9 through 12. The current facilities in Stowe would not provide the necessary number of square feet needed to house 558 students.

This option, if left as a stand alone, would require an additional school board. The concepts and variables that were outlined in the Union Middle School option apply here: · All students would have access to the same courses. · Morristown’s apparent heavier emphasis on technology and Stowe’s emphasis on the languages would be melded into course offerings for all students. · There would be more cost effective implementation of specialized courses such as Advanced Placements, Advanced Chemistry, Advanced Physics, and the like.

The estimated cost per pupil for the Union High School would be $14,233 (see page 45). This figure compares to the current cost per pupil of $14,417 for students attending Peoples Academy and $15,191 for secondary students attending Stowe High School. Therefore, the budget costs per pupil in both schools would result in savings.

General Finding #13: Unified Union School District This option would require a formal study in accordance with Vermont Law, Rules and Regulations. It would require the approval of the State Board of Education and would also have to be voted on by citizens in each of the separate school districts. Those districts determined as necessary members of the Union would have to vote in the affirmative and the votes of each community would be counted separately.

Formation of a Unified Union School District would dissolve all four of the current school boards within the LSSU and cause the creation of a single governance body made up of members from each community. The number of school board members and the proportion of members from each community would be determined by the Union Study Committee in accordance with Vermont statutes and Federal Constitution calling for “one man one vote”.

The new board would be responsible for the operations of all school buildings and entities within the union inclusive of Central Office. There would be one budget and a common cost per pupil across all communities. Under current law the Common Level of Appraisal for each member community would remain separate. Therefore, tax rates would vary by town even though costs per equalized pupil would be the same.

Implementing this option appears to have the most significant possibilities for ease of transition from the current governance structure to a new one. It also appears to have the greatest potential for efficiencies and effectiveness in management of the member schools. At the same time, it has the greatest impact on dissolving the footprint of current school districts and all of the traditions and rituals that make a community. The concept of community and how to honor it will have to be a topic of conversation if this potential initiative is to be pursued further.

Elmore’s budget cost per pupil for all students K -12 is $14,688. If it were to become part of the Unified Union School District its cost per pupil would be the same as Stowe’s and Morristown’s ($13,327). However, under current State statutes, Elmore would lose its small school’s grant that equates to $350 per pupil. Therefore, Elmore’s net would be $13,677. This remains to be a substantial reduction in the cost per pupil of $1,011.

Morristown would realize an increase of $570 per pupil while Stowe would see a decrease of $658/pupil.

Note: All of the financial estimates of gains or losses may be altered significantly depending on how employee contracts are merged and the impact on salaries and benefits. The scenarios in this study use current average salaries and current benefits to estimate future costs.

General Finding #14: Joint Contract School Districts Vermont Law includes provisions for the formation of Joint Contract School Districts whereby two or more school districts may enter into a contract similar to a corporate agreement for operating one or more schools. Under this provision, members from local school districts are elected to the Joint Contract Board and sit on the governance board. The Joint Board employs teachers and staff, sets programs and curriculum, develops its budget and sets policy for governing the school. Community school boards are still elected by their community and school districts continue to hold annual meetings and vote their portion of the budget. This option may be of interest as an alternative to any 80

of the union proposals because it allows for greater flexibility in what is included in the contract, conditions of agreement and also offers greater opportunities in what is sustained at the local school district level. The Joint Contract School District appears to be somewhat easier to enter into than the formal unions. It also appears to be easier to dissolve joint contracts if the need or desire presents itself in future years.

General Finding #15: Central Office Services Vermont State Statute allows for supervisory union school districts to contract services through other supervisory unions. There are a few supervisory unions that have contracted with others to provide professional development for its staff, carry out payroll services, assist in obtaining substitute teachers, assist in technology planning and other such services. There have also been attempts in forming “Regional Collaboration Units” for the purpose of providing centralized management services and giving students more choices in education. Appendix 11 is one sample of a regional collaboration initiative. There have been variations to the regional concept but they all have the same basic goals: · To strengthen capacity for delivering quality management services over a wider range of schools. · To allow schools to contract for services that best meet their needs. · To reduce the number of supervisory unions without loss of services to local districts. · To allow students to choose among schools to select specific courses of study. · To provide for greater efficiency in managing schools.

Appendix B: Excerpts from Lamoille South Supervisory Union’s Optional Educational Structures Committee Report on Optional Education Structures and Recommendation April – December 2010

I. Introduction

In the spring of 2010, Lamoille South Supervisory Union (LSSU) Superintendent Tracy Wrend, under the direction of the LSSU Board, sought 13 committee members residing in the LSSU towns of Elmore, Stowe and Morristown with fairly diverse lives and of varying ages. It would be called the Optional Educational Structures Committee. The LSSU board asked the Committee to investigate whether the school districts within the LSSU should “alter structures, ways and means for delivering education to all pupils within the union, and if so, what alternatives does the committee recommend to the LSSU board for further consideration.” The LSSU board’s reason for initiating this process is concern about maintaining excellence in our K-12 education system at an affordable cost to the community. The board asked the committee to report back its finding by December 15, 2010.

We, the committee, are retired or working, students and teachers. We are married, single, with and without school age children, property owners and non-property owners, taxpayers and non-taxpayers who live in each of the three LSSU towns. We are regular citizens and upon joining the group had widely differing preconceptions of what we might have just been asked to do. Mostly we just didn’t know. We didn’t know many, many facts about school organization and school funding. We didn’t know what old and new laws might apply to our school system/s. We had mostly gut feelings and incomplete information. What we did know was that we had strong opinions. It seemed likely our opinions could lead us to disagree. But, we discovered we all had a precisely similar goal. Students, teachers, parents and citizens all, we wanted the best education we can get for ourselves, our children and grandchildren.

Therefore we undertook to study improving our schools with regard to some type of consolidation of services (educational and governance). We knew this meant considering consolidating our three town’s school districts under one super school board and maybe even consolidating both our middle schools and high schools. We always held the thought that we would study anything that would preserve, or better, local educational efforts at a sustainable expense.

It turned out that all of us knew a time comes when it is not efficient to cut expenditures and, on the flip side, a time comes when you just can’t keep spending. The time comes to study and think. That time is now.

II. Process

A. Description of Process The committee’s work followed a Phase One Governance Study[1] the LSSU board had commissioned in the fall of 2009. That study contains a wealth of information about our local schools and alternative structures. The study is available from the LSSU office and website (lamoillesouthsu.org), which is incorporated into this report in Appendix D.

The committee met on a biweekly basis from April through December. The members were as follows: Elmore – Max Cohen, JB McKinley, Kate Osborne, Susan Titterton; Morrisville – Penny Bishop, Abby Fitzgerald, Paul Griswold, Reeves Larson; Stowe – Emily Bradbury, Jeff Dacales, Olivia DeRienzo, David Jaqua. Dr. Raymond Proulx, a former superintendent, was the committee’s facilitator.

The committee’s process was as follows: 1. Learn about our local schools and their governance structures. 2. Agree upon the overall values for the three school districts, based largely upon the values that each district has already adopted. 3. Identify possible education structures the committee will evaluate and criteria to be used for the evaluation. 4. Characterize the alternatives and determine the pros and cons for each. 5. Identify the most suitable structure for further study. 6. Present the identified structure to the community and seek its thoughts. 7. Write a report to be delivered to the LSSU by December 15, 2010. The committee meetings were open to the public and the meeting schedule and minutes were posted on the LSSU website. Discussions about potential changes to our local schools are undoubtedly of great concern to many. One point the committee emphasizes is that our findings are advisory and not binding. We are a voluntary group trying to understand the various issues and options. Our recommendation to the LSSU board calls for further study of a particular education structure. If the LSSU board so chooses, they can elect to conduct a Phase Two study that will examine this structure in greater detail. In Phase Two the public will have an ample opportunity to participate. If the Phase Two study concludes favorably, any changes to the status quo would require a majority vote in each of the towns prior to implementation.

B. Context of Committee’s Work Statewide there has been a call for communities to thoughtfully examine how they provide K-12 education. With 60 supervisory unions, 362 school districts, 422 governing bodies, and 393 schools spread amongst 250 towns for 92,000 pupils, the governance of public education in Vermont is complex. Recognizing that perhaps these circumstances do not best serve the interests of all Vermont’s children and residents, our political leaders’ recently enacted legislation providing new pathways to alternative school governance structures. The LSSU board is to be credited with being proactive and initiating this much needed discussion.

Each of the three LSSU towns has its own school district and school board. Both Morristown and Stowe provide a K-12 education program for their resident pupils in facilities within their respective districts, and accept tuition pupils from neighboring communities. Elmore provides grades 1-3 education at the Lake Elmore School, grades 4-6 pupils attend Morristown Elementary School and tuitions grades 7-12 pupils to other schools, including Morristown and Stowe. The three school districts have collaborated in many areas, successfully delegating some of their responsibilities to the LSSU in order to enhance curriculum and efficiency. The LSSU is already doing many of the items called for in recently enacted legislation in Act 153 (Appendix E). In 2009, Morristown schools had 950 pupils of which 770 were town residents. Stowe schools had 660 pupils of which 620 were town residents. Both towns receive tuition paying pupils primarily from Elmore and Wolcott. Elmore had 125 pupils, of which 21 attended the 1-3 Lake Elmore School and

the remaining attended other area schools to which Elmore pays a tuition rate. Although tax rates differ among the three towns, school spending per pupil in 2009 was remarkably similar[2], with Elmore at $13,509, Morristown at $12,885 and Stowe at $13,972.

C. Values The committee identified values that would be used to guide the assessment process. The committee studied and used the mission statements of the three school districts to agree upon a common set of values. We value: · The relationship between schools and the community, acknowledging that schools have a role in engaging and involving families and community members, and that strong community involvement is vital to a successful educational experience. · Diversity among our students, families and community members and that our schools provide a sense of belonging, safety and value. · That every student can be a successful learner given high expectations, appropriate learning opportunities, and access to resources. · Developing the skills and dispositions in each student that are necessary to become life-long learners and contributing citizens. · The availability of rich and diverse curricular and extra-curricular courses and activities—including music, art, athletics, and world languages—that represent a well-rounded education. · Providing opportunities for students to develop their creativity, intellectual curiosity and communication skills in individual and collaborative settings. · Providing opportunities in a differentiated manner that matches the particular learning styles, intelligences and needs of each student. · Personal responsibility among students - that each student is accountable and has a shared responsibility for their own learning. · Safe and secure school facilities, environment and infra-structure. · Technology as an important and critical tool for the advancement of learning. · Providing children a public education in a financially sustainable and responsible manner.

D. Assessment of Optional Structures Subsequent to identification of these values, the committee analyzed the status quo and explored several alternative education structures. Structures studied: 1. Status quo – Three separate school districts 2. Union School Districts for middle and/or high schools 3. Joint Contract School District 4. Unified Union School District 5. Regional Education District

The committee identified the following characteristics that were used to describe the alternative structures. Characteristics used: · Governance structure · Schools / Facilities · Curriculum · Equity / access

· Special education · Efficiency · Extracurricular · Parental engagement · Transportation · Finance and reporting · Implication for taxpayers · Implication for educators · Path to implementation

The committee used the characteristics to describe each alternative structure on a common basis given the information available to it. The intent was to describe the structures, but not make any value judgments.

The committee next determined the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. During this process we used the values we had previously identified in order to help us make our judgments.

The characteristics and pros and cons for each alternative are presented in tabular format in appendix B.

III. Discussion of Options, Recommendation and Rationale

A. Recommendation ...As a result of the Committee’s process, we recommend that the LSSU board further study creation of a Regional Education District (RED) comprised Elmore, Morristown and Stowe. The committee’s consensus statement is as follows: In order to advance the communities’ values and educational quality, we recommend exploration of a Regional Education District. We recommend that two scenarios for a RED be explored: 1) merging into one consolidated Middle School and one consolidated High School for the three towns, and 2) maintaining a Middle and High School in Morristown and a Middle and High school in Stowe.”...

[1] Available at http://www.lamoillesouthsu.org/documents/GovernanceStudy_Phase1.pdf [2] The figures for Morristown and Stowe are reported school budget divided by school enrollment, which includes most but not all categorical spending and tuition payments and students.

Appendix C: Recommendation from the Lamoille South Supervisory Union Regional Education Committee Report, May 2013

When it comes to education, the communities of Elmore, Morristown and Stowe have much in common. Each community feels that schools are the heart of the community and values and supports quality public education for their children.

In the context of a number of challenges to sustaining and growing the quality educational system that each community expects, the districts of LSSU have engaged in four years of deep study of the many options for sustaining and growing quality education in our region in the future. As an outcome of that study, we have concluded that there are two primary options: #1 continuing in the current structure or #2 forming a Regional Education District (RED) and restructuring the middle and high schools. Other models of governance consolidation do not leverage any advantages for the districts of LSSU.

There are opportunities and challenges with each option. The significance of each challenge and opportunity may be weighted differently by each community and must be considered in the context of an uncertain future. In considering the implications of the formation of a RED and restructuring the middle and high schools, the LSSU RED Committee notes the following key points:

 The strengths and scope of the increased quality and opportunity is dependent upon choices ultimately made by a RED board in the future.  The continuum of savings is linked to the future decisions made about quality and educational opportunity.  There are non-economic advantages to formation of a RED, most notably in the areas of staffing, scheduling and stability.  The disadvantages and challenges to formation of a RED include the impacts on student transportation, perceptions of local control and community identity, and the impact of statewide conversations about changes in school governance.  The challenge of significant change in and of itself is also a key variable for consideration. In the context of high performing K-12 districts, the fear of loss of quality may outweigh communities’ comfort in supporting change, even if increased educational opportunities and lower costs are possible.

Given the history of success of the current systems, the history of strong community support for the current systems, and the uncertain future context of public education in Vermont the LSSU RED committee has determined it is not advisable to form a Regional Education District at this time.

The study process has been extremely valuable. The LSSU RED committee’s work has resulted in improved opportunities for children in each of the districts of Elmore, Morristown and Stowe by highlighting systemic strengths, and areas of possible improvement, which individual School Boards and communities have considered, and in many cases addressed proactively. The study process also highlighted the benefits of the selective collaboration already in place between and among the districts of LSSU. And finally, the study provides a firm factual foundation for navigating a changing and uncertain future context for governance of public schools in Vermont. Each of the districts of LSSU is well poised to answer questions about the implications of possible changes, and capitalize on any positive opportunities that may arise in the future.

Appendix D: Excerpts from the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union Final Report and Articles of Agreement, September 1, 2015

Recommendation, September 1, 2015

The Boards of the Elmore and Morristown School Districts, following a year of community engagement and discussion, acted in April, 2015 to formally study the formation of a Unified Union. The Elmore-Morristown Unified Union study committee was formed and has completed this, the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union Study Report.

Specifically, the committee finds that overall, formation of a Unified Union District between the Districts of Elmore and Morristown strengthens quality and opportunity, promotes achievement of high standards, creates efficiencies and flexibility, provides taxpayer value, and promotes transparency and accountability. All students in Elmore and Morristown will continue to have access to a rich array of high-quality learning opportunities within an aligned PK-12 education system and all students in grades 9-12 will have access to public high school choice through Vermont’s public high school choice system. All students and school systems will benefit from increased financial and programmatic stability within a larger operational structure. In time, an estimated savings of $490,000 can be realized. Elmore will experience significant tax rate reductions. Morristown will avoid significant tax rate increases (or program cuts). A single financial and accounting system will simplify both revenue and expenditure reporting and local control will expand, as all citizens will have a voice in the education of all students, PK-12 in Elmore and Morristown.

The Elmore and Morristown School Districts have a long history of strong, productive partnerships. Each community feels that schools are the heart of the community and values and supports quality public education for their children. Based upon the strong history of collaboration, the report findings, and the thoughtful framing of the Articles of Agreement, the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union Study Committee unanimously finds that it is advisable to form a Unified Union District.

Executive Summary Quality and Opportunity; Achievement of High Standards ● All students in Elmore and Morristown will continue to have access to a rich array of high- quality learning opportunities within an aligned PK-12 education system. ● All students in grades 9-12 will have access to public high school choice through Vermont’s public high school choice system. Elmore students will no longer have publically funded choice in grades 7-8 or for independent schools. ● All students will benefit from increased stability in the available educational opportunities: (1) due to combined enrollment which supports maintenance of reasonable school sizes; (2) possibilities for program improvement/expansion if savings can be reinvested; and (3) through preventing losses of programs. ● The Elmore School cannot be closed for the first four years of the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union unless the voters of Elmore approve closure; four years is the maximum time period for this provision allowed by law. The Elmore School’s future operations will benefit from financial stability within larger operational structure.

Efficiencies, Flexibility and Taxpayer Value ● With full implementation, an estimated savings of $490,000 can be realized. ● The Elmore-Morristown Unified Union will receive a $150,000 merger incentive grant. ● Efficiencies can be increased and the sharing of resources across schools will be facilitated with much more flexibility. ● Elmore will experience significant tax rate reductions; Morristown will avoid significant tax rate increases (or program cuts); all will benefit from increased tax rate stability. ● Elmore will contribute $600,000 less per year in total taxes paid to the Education Fund. ● Morristown will avoid the possible impacts of the loss of $1,200,000 in revenue.

Transparency and Accountability ● A single financial and accounting system will simplify both revenue and expenditure reporting. ● Local control will expand---all will have a voice in the education of all students, PK-12 in Elmore and Morristown. ● The Lamoille South Supervisory Union board will be comprised of seven (7) members, utilizing proportional representation, including three (3) representatives from the Stowe School District and four (4) representatives from the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union District Board, which provides for proportional representation based upon the census, promotes effective and efficient operations of the supervisory union and ensures that all continue to have a voice in supervisory union operations. ● The Elmore-Morristown Unified Union Board structure provides for representation from each community, ensuring that a broad spectrum of perspectives is represented in the governance of education systems.

Appendix E: Lamoille South Supervisory Union Act 46 Tax Projections as of 7/1/15

The five model projections include: 1. No Governance Change 2. Form an Education (Supervisory) District 3. Form an Education (Supervisory) District, less $200,000 in expenditures 4. Do Nothing – AOE Forms Mandated Education District 5. Elmore-Morristown Unified Union (EMUU) merger study

Data and Graphs: There are 8 graphs illustrating the projected homestead tax rates as follows: · 4 graphs that illustrate the homestead tax rate for each model · 3 graphs that include the above comparative data for each district · 1 graph illustrating the proposed Elmore-Morristown Unified Union merger

Key assumptions used in each of the model projections include:

A. Inflation: A nine-year actual average is used for each district as follows for:

 Elmore: 5.9%  Morristown: 3.8%  Stowe: 4.3%  Average: 4.65% (for years combined as Education District)

B. Equalized Pupil Count: A nine-year actual average is used for each district as follows:

 Elmore: -1.9%  Morristown: -1.0%  Stowe: 1.1%  Average: -0.63% (for years combined as Education District)

C. Base Amount: 1% increase per year

D. Homestead Tax Rate: $0.02 increase per year

E. Common Level of Appraisal (CLA): Fixed (no change from FY15-16)

Appendix F: SSD & EMUU Elementary, Middle and High School Program Review - Fall, 2016

Elementary Core Class Size Elementary Core Class Size

MES 2011-12 SES 2011-12 Elmore 2011-12 MES 2015-16 SES 2015-16 Elmore 2015-16

Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average Students Teachers

K 48 3 16 39 2 19-20 K 67 4 16.8 60 3 20.0 76 4 19 45 3 15 6 1 57 4 14.3 48 3 16.0 8 1 42 2 21 44 2 22 8 2 53 4 13.3 59 3 19.7 6 2 1 1 61 3 20-21 47 2 23-24 8 3 50 3 16.7 63 3 21.0 5 3 4 75 4 18-19 51 2 25-26 4 52 3 17.3 46 3 15.3 5 78 4 19-20 46 2 23 5 67 3 22.3 T 380 20 19 272 13 20-21 22 1 T 279 18 15.5 343 18 19.1 19 1

Total of E, MES, and SES Teachers =34 Changes: MES 5th to PAML; overall enrollment increase at SES

Notes: EMUU S/T ratio = 15.68; SSD K-4 S/T ratio = 18.4; SES K-4 enrollment 276

Specials Specials

2011-2012 2015-2016

MES SES MES SES

Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average

PE* 380 1 380 272 1 272 PE* 279 1 279 343 1 343

Art* 380 0.6 633-634 272 0.8 340 Art* 279 0.6 465 343 0.8 428.8

Enrichment 380 0 272 0.8 340 Techer Lead 279 1.3 214.6 343 2 171.5

Library* 380 1 380 272 0.8 340 Library* 279 1 279 343 0.8 428.8

Spanish 380 0 272 1 272 Spanish 279 0 0 343 1 343

Music 279 0.8 348.75 343 1.2 285.8

Guidance* 380 1 380 272 1 272 Guidance* 279 1 279 343 1 343

Total 380 3.6 105.6 272 5.4 50.4 Total 279 5.7 48.9 343 7.8 44.0 Total of MES and SES = 9

Changes: SES Enrichment became 1.0 and also includes Math Teacher Leader responsibilities; SSD restructuring of music Total of MES and SES Teachers = 9 program and increase of 1.0 FTE K-12

* = Required by Education Quality Standards FY17 Updates: SES added 0.2 FTE librarian; MES added 1.0 Math Interventionist (Grant funded)

Middle Level Core Class Size Middle Level Core Class Size

2011-2012 2015-2016

PAML 2011-2012 SMS 2011-12 PAML 2015-2016 SMS 2015-2016

Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average

6 69 3 23 54 3 18 5 86 4 21.5

7 62 4 15-16 67 3 22-23 6 52 3 17.3 53 3 17.7

8 68 4 17 66 3 22 7 75 4 18.8 59 3 19.7

T 199 11 18-19 187 9 20-21 8 77 4 19.3 66 3 22.0

T 290 15 19.3 178 9 19.8

Changes: Move of 5th grade to Middle Level at PAML

FY17 Updates: PAML adopted 5/6 and 7/8 house structure

Specials

PAML 2011-2012 SMS 2011-12 PAML 2015-2016 SMS 2015-16

Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average

PE* 199 0.6 331-332 187 0.5 374 PE* 204 0.6 340 178 0.5 356

Art* 199 0.6 331-332 187 0.5 374 Art* 204 0.6 340 178 0.6 296.7

Info Tech 199 0.6 331-332 187 0 FCS/Health 204 1 204 178 0.4 445.0

FCS* 199 0.6 331-332 187 0.3 623 FL 204 0 0 178 1.6 111.3

Spanish 199 0 187 1 187 Des&Tech* 204 0.6 340 178 0.6 296.7

Des&Tech* 199 0.6 331-332 187 0.6 311-312 Music 204 0.6 340 178 0.8 222.5

Guidance* 199 1 199 187 0.8 233-234 Techer Leader 204 1.3 156.9 178 0 0

Total 199 4 49.75 187 3.7 50.5 Guidance* 204 1 204 178 1 178

Total of PAML and SMS = 7.7 Total 204 5.7 35.8 178 5.5 32.4

* = Required by Education Quality Standards

Changes: Elimination of Information Technology at PAML; FCS becomes Health at PAML

FY17 Udpates: addition of 0.5 Math Teacher Leader at SMS

High School Class Sizes

2011-2012 2015-2016

PA 2011-2012 SHS 2011-2012 PA 2015-2016 SHS 2015-2016

Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average Students Teachers Average

English 311 3.75 82-83 239 3 79-80 English 256 3.6 71.1 234 4 58.5

Math 311 3 103-104 239 3 79-80 Math 256 3 85.3 234 3 78

History 311 3 103-104 239 2.5 95-96 History 256 3.4 75.3 234 3 78

Science 311 3 103-104 239 3 79-80 Science 256 3 85.3 234 3 78

F. Lanauge 311 2 155-156 239 2.5 95-96 FL 256 2 128.0 234 2.4 97.5

Art 311 1.4 222-223 239 1.8 132-133 Art 256 1.4 182.9 234 1.8 130

PE/Health 311 1.4 222-223 239 1.1 217-218 PE/Health 256 1.4 182.9 234 0.5 468.0

Driver's Ed 311 1 311 239 0.5 578 DE 256 1 256.0 234 0.5 468

Advisory 311 1 311 239 1 239 Advisory 256 1 256.0 234 0 0

Info Tech 311 1 311 239 0 Des& Tech 256 0.4 640.0 234 0.4 585

Des& Tech 311 0.4 777-778 239 0 Teacher Lead 256 0.3 853.3 234 0 0

Buis/Acct 311 0 239 0.4 597-598 Music 256 0.4 640.0 234 1 234

Guidance 311 2 155-156 239 1 239 Guidance 256 2 128.0 234 1 234

Total 311 22.95 13.6 239 19.8 12.1 Total 256 22.9 11.2 234 20.6 11.36

Total PA + SHS = 42.75

Changes: minor adjustments to English FTE at PA; Extended Day Porgram Coordiantor at PA, redeployed Advisory teacher at SHS to English based on utilization; added 0.4 FTE Design and Tech at SHS; restructured music program at SHS and added 1.0 FTE K-12; eliminated Latin Teacher at SHS FY17 Changes: Added 0.5 Math Teacher Leader at SHS; included Math Teacher Leader; PA and PAML have a Math Interveionist (grant funded)

Appendix G: Student Assessment Data NECAP Reading, Math and Writing

NECAP Achievement Gap Comparison – Reading

NECAP Achievement Gap Comparison – Math

100

101

SBAC SBAC – 2016 Compared to Vermont

102

103

SBAC – Achievement Comparison, Year to Year

104

105

SBAC – Achievement Comparison, FRL v. Not Gap

106

General Findings Regarding Student Outcomes With the transition to SBAC, the percentage of Stowe students who are proficient continues to be higher in than in Morristown. The differences in overall student performance are less pronounced when looking at data through the lens of scaled scores. The difference between Stowe and Elmore-Morristown student performance is smaller when comparing students not economically disadvantaged (FRL). The achievement gap between students who are economically disadvantaged (FRL) and not is smaller in Elmore-Morristown schools as compared to Stowe schools. For the districts of LSSU, there is greater transparency in accountability for student outcomes by school and school district, as has been the practice given our current governing structures, as compared to a single reporting system for a merged organization. Accountability and reporting data in a unified context, comparable to supervisory union level reporting (not shown in the the analysis above) in the current governance and operational structure, while indicative of strong systemic performance overall as compared to Vermont averages, will likely mask differences in performance which are critical to surface for future work in support of strong outcomes for all students. Both systems experience differences in student outcomes between students who are economically disadvantaged (FRL) and those who are not. EMUU schools serve about twice as many students who are economically disadvantaged (FRL), and appear to have smaller achievement gaps, in some cases due to lower proficiency levels among students who are not economically disadvantaged (FRL), and at some grade levels, strong performance by all students, those who are economically disadvantaged and those who are not. SSD spends slightly more per student overall as compared to EMUU, and EMUU spends more on supports for students who are economically disadvantaged (FRL). These differences in outcomes as well as spending are key considerations for future continuous improvement plans. It is essential that both systems study thoroughly the contributors to success where we see it and identify strategies to grow those successful practices, with intentional consideration of scale. What is working in EMUU and how can that be replicated in Stowe at a scale appropriate for Stowe’s needs? What is working in Stowe that can be implemented at an appropriate scale in EMUU? How can both systems work together to address the common need to ensure all students achieve at high levels, including those who are economically disadvantaged and those who are not? The EMUU and Stowe School Districts have a history of working together towards shared goals and scaling up for systemic implementation. Our work on Proficiency Based Learning (PBL) and personalization exemplifies this practice. We have developed common proficiencies and collaborate on supports and systems for implementation. Schools across the system have focused implementation efforts on different aspects on PBL and personalization, based on readiness and need, and lessons learned and decisions made during individual school implementation are shared and adapted for other schools in the system as they become ready to incorporate additional shifts in professional practice. For example, Stowe High has been working on a student portfolio, called Anagnorisis, for a number of years and approached initial work towards a PBL and personalization with the student portfolio as a starting point for the instructional shifts of PBL and personalization. PA had been working on instructional design aligned with the latest research on learning and the brain, and focused on student voice and learning scales as leverage points for shifts instructional practices. Both schools are sharing successes and lessons learned as the other expands work in an areas of focus by the other school 107

and faculty work together to support each other in their respective next steps in continuous improvement. This sort of practice should be replicated with a critical eye to student outcomes with faculty and staff. This practice should also be replicated for the work of boards in overseeing and supporting a shared commitment to both improving outcomes for all students and closing the achievement gap.

Continuous Improvement Plan:

 Continue the newly established practice of having board members attend the other district’s budget meetings to build a shared understanding of opportunities for enhanced cooperation, equity of opportunity, fidelity of implementation of universal best practice, and areas where differences make sense.  Identify additional specific strategies for school boards to ensure a shared, collaborative focus on closing the achievement gap in all schools: o Board meeting attendance o Common communications about student outcomes data and other subjects o Identify additional areas of key board work where collaboration may be enriching.  Where there are common priorities that are difficult to support in individual districts, explore ways to work together such as with shared staff.  Reframe data reporting to compare outcomes with top performing systems in Vermont, rather than Vermont averages. Set specific goals for student outcomes that reflect very high levels of student performance for all student groups.

108

Appendix H: Lamoille South Supervisory Union Comprehensive Plan for Continuous Improvement Needs Assessment and Action Plan

LSSU Mission: Students of LSSU will use core knowledge to construct, express, and act upon learning.

Students of LSSU will construct meanings and respond to complex situations using sound reasoning and creative thinking. Students of LSSU will express ideas accurately, creatively and effectively to a variety of audiences. Students of LSSU will act upon their rights and obligations as informed, respectful individuals and citizens of a democratic and interdependent society.

LSSU Value Statements:

All children belong. All children learn. Education should inspire imagination and creativity. Learning is enhanced with personalization, courage, humor, relationship and risk taking. Learning is a process that is to be taught, nurtured, and supported.

109

School Board Adoption and Review Dates:

Elmore Morristown Stowe Adoption Date August 10, 2015 August 25, 2015 August 17, 2015 Elmore - Morristown Year 1 Review Date - May 17, 2016 May 16, 2016 2016 Year 2 Review Date - May 2, 2017 July 13, 2017 2017 Year 3 Review Date - 2018 Year 4 Review Date - 2019 Year 5 Review Date - 2020

110

Professional Development:  To continuously grow and improve requires new learning and support. It is recognized that every focus area requires some level of systemic and individual professional development. Expectations for Professional Culture:  The schools of LSSU embrace the need for change for the benefit of students. This expectation is embedded and considered with each action step.  Integration of technology to transform teaching and learning is an expectation.  Regular and specific feedback, through formative assessments and other strategies, is an essential component of teaching practice.

111

Focus Area 1: Personalize learning by facilitating student engagement and empowering student voice. Needs Statement Goal Student voice is the individual and collective perspective By April 2020, and actions of young people within the context of learning 1. Every student grades 5 - 12 will have an and education. It is premised on the understanding that: individual Personalized Learning Plan and a portfolio ● Young people have unique perspectives on of authentic evidence which documents their growth. learning, teaching, and schooling; 2. Every high school senior has taken advantage ● Their insights warrant not only the attention of at least one flexible pathway opportunity during but also the responses of adults; and their high school years. ● They should be afforded opportunities to t 3. Effectively integrate technology for instruction despite challenges and obstacles, and take visible (SAMR Model) to expand, enhance and transform delight in accomplishing their work. Student learning opportunities for each student. engagement requires that teachers, administrators, 4. Set new targets for the 2020 – 2024 and school structures actively create the conditions implementation plan. that foster this reaction.

To advance student achievement toward our mission the LSSU community will:

Action Plan

Steps to be taken

1. Create multiple pathways to rigor and relevance based upon a student’s personal interest, learning styles, and needs, as illustrated by Personal Learning Plans. 2. Ensure multiple avenues for students to have a voice in meaningful decision- making opportunities about school academics and environment. 3. Create opportunities for authentic and public demonstrations of learning which align with Personal Learning Plans. 4. Improve and expand systemic, age appropriate, reflective processes for students to curate, reflect, share and personalize their learning. 5. Develop systems for student feedback about instruction and engagement.

112

Possible Evidence:

 Goal Setting Conferences w/ students  climate survey results  student leadership and decision making opportunities  public demonstrations of learning (such as: open house, community meetings, concerts, academic fairs, art shows, shared blogs, etc.) and with authentic audiences  academic pathways and mechanisms for choice  personal learning plans - portfolios  teacher technology standards and articulated proficiencies for teachers to support personalization

113

Focus Area 2: Cultivate a safe and healthy school culture to facilitate learning for all individuals. Needs Statement Goal Positive social relationships and attitudes about school are By April 2020, as important to the environment as are safe and well-kept 1. Schools of LSSU will have a robust multi-tiered buildings and grounds. A safe, clean, and well-maintained system of supports to teach and respond to school with a positive psychosocial climate and culture can behavioral needs. foster school connectedness, which in turn boosts student 2. Increase participation in the school and and staff health as well as students’ educational community in ways that enhance a sense of achievement. belonging. 3. Evidence of comprehensive health and wellness will be apparent in all aspects and spaces of school. 4. Set new targets for the 2020 – 2024 implementation plan.

To advance student achievement toward our mission the LSSU community will: Action Plan

Steps to be taken

1. Establish an environment of shared accountability that promotes collaboration, mutual respect, and an understanding of roles and responsibilities. 2. Analyze our behavior data and identify research based responses which are proactive, positive and preventative. 3. Foster student, teacher, and community pride in the aesthetics of the school, including a visual environment that reflects student work. 4. To enhance learning, provide comprehensive integrated wellness education and opportunities for students and adults. 5. Cultivate an environment for students and adults that promote understanding of and respect for the many facets of diversity. 6. Implement integrated ‘digital citizenship’ education. 7. Create a culture within the schools that promotes expectations of organizational changes for the benefit of students.

114

Possible Evidence:  adult climate survey  student and adult climate survey results  wellness committee completed work & implementation  assessment results  TA or Homeroom relationships and teaching opportunities  display of student work  new and improved remodeled facilities as it relates to number 4 in action steps  SAP resources and data  culturally sensitive literature available and used  responsive classroom/PBIS/AWOD practices school-wide  behavior data

115

Focus Area 3: Build positive family – school – community partnerships. (understanding of educational shifts) Needs Statement Goal Family and community involvement in education is one way By April 2020, in which our society shows children that they are valued and 1. Schools, families and community partners have a important. Improved connections between family, school, shared vision of education. and community has been shown to: 2. All families are engaged in the school community. ● Increase test scores and graduation rates. 3. Set new targets for the 2016 – 2020 implementation ● Increase the number of children attending plan. schools and decrease the number of absences. ● Increase motivation and improve self-esteem. ● Decrease the use of drugs, alcohol, and violent behavior.

To advance student achievement toward our mission the LSSU community will: Action Plan

Steps to be taken

1. Use technology to access and share authentic learning beyond the school walls. 2. Create multiple pathways to rigor and relevance based upon a student’s personal interest, learning styles, aptitudes, and needs. For example, these pathways could include internships, dual-enrollment, community service, and global partnerships. 3. Develop a proficiency-based reporting system and transcript designed to capture evidence of Construct, Express, Act. 4. Ensure multiple opportunities for expositions of student work that highlight Mission Related Goals accomplishments and fosters community support for learning. 5. Communicate effectively to engage with families and community members in support of learning. (Evidence may include: PR, Branding, School level communication) 6. Establish a clear, coordinated system for identifying, utilizing, and maximizing appropriate community resources to support student needs. (Expand connections outside of crisis situations) 7. Build a culture of active listening and learning with parents. (Responding to parent concerns, specific student) 8. Provide parent, community, and other stake-holders with information/education on changing assessment and instructional practices using a variety of formats. ( such as PLP presentations, student-led conferences, revised programs of studies, open houses, public forums, blogs, etc.,). 116

Evidence: ● Increase in number of students who take advantage of learning opportunities outside of school. ● Parent Climate survey ● Established blogs/public sources of communication between community and school ● Community Advisory Board (Wellness) ● PLP

117

Focus Area 4: Build a multi-tiered system of support which is responsive to individual learner’s needs and holds both students and adults accountable for continuous student improvement.

Needs Statement Goals Educators identify students’ needs and adjust instructional By April 2020, strategies to ensure growth. Key factors to ensure that 1. Schools of LSSU will have a robust multi-tiered every student achieves include progress monitoring and use system of supports to respond to academic needs. of student performance data to continually evaluate the 2. Schools of LSSU will have a systemic effectiveness of instruction and make informed instructional approach to collect, analyze, and utilize student decisions. performance data to inform instruction.

To advance student achievement toward our mission the LSSU community will: Action Plan

Steps to be taken

1. Implement research based formative and summative assessments (classroom, district, state level) to collect, analyze and utilize data to influence instructional and behavioral outcomes.

2. Focus instruction on proficiency targets while identifying and providing flexible pathways for success; (Including, but not limited to: Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Differentiated Instruction (DI), community partnerships, internships, dual enrollment, blended learning, early college, on-line courses, etc.).

3. Define and implement an Educational Support System (ESS), focusing on both academic and behavioral growth, utilizing the Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) model and consistent progress monitoring.

4. Make decisions about structures such as: scheduling, school resources, personnel, and technology, to create a systemic focus on student learning.

118

Evidence: ● Student work/data which shows growth ● Examples of strategies used in the classroom (formative and summative) ● percentage of students achieving the proficiency targets for their grade level ● percentage of student participating in flexible pathways (dual enrollment etc.) ● personal learning plans (PLP) 5th - 12th grades ● Academic and Behavior data ● ESS meeting minutes

Focus Area 5: Collaboratively develop curriculum, assessment, and instructional practices to promote a proficiency based system of learning. Needs Statement Goal Curriculum is a course of study. A clearly articulated and By April 2020, aligned curriculum, with common and agreed upon student 1. Schools of LSSU will have systems and expectations and performance indicators is a key feature of practices to monitor progress and achievement of effective schools. It fully outlines the content, concepts, proficiency. and skills that are essential within an academic discipline 2. Graduation decisions are made based on and at each grade level to ensure all students have the student evidence within a proficiency based system opportunity to achieve proficiency. Such a curriculum is a of learning. combination of opportunity to learn and time. All students 3. Comprehensive instructional strategies, require equal access to content with sufficient time for methods, assessments and materials will be recorded learning to occur. In this way focus area 5 defines our in ATLAS and support the collection of evidence of essential learning with grade level performance indicators, proficiency. while focus area 4 is our deliberate and integrated response to children who may not be meeting these targets.

119

To advance student achievement toward our mission the LSSU community will: Action Plan

Steps to be taken

1. Examine and develop formatting options for ATLAS that continue to support integrated curriculum and proficiency based learning. 2. Utilize the district curriculum maps in ATLAS as part of mentoring and the supervision and evaluation process, to promote a culture of collaboration. 3. 3. Continue to review and maintain the structures that support on-going growth and collaboration (i.e. Curriculum Council, steering committees, Curriculum Camp, etc.) 4. Implement research based instructional strategies which support students achieving proficiency. 5. Revise the LSSU local assessment system so that it provides evidence of proficiency through a variety of means emphasizing formative assessment and authentic application. 6. Ensure collaboration and integration across disciplines (e.g. STEAM, whole child focus, humanities). 7. Create a culture for learning which encourages and models reflection, practice, effort, and other dispositions that influence achievement. (i.e. growth mindset, Habits of Mind) 8. Develop common performance levels for proficiency standards,

Evidence: ● Graduation Proficiencies ● Atlas documentation indicating clear connections to proficiency based learning ● PLP’s ● Integration of subject areas within lesson plans/activities/team teaching ● Instructional practices ● Student work

120

Appendix I: Mission - Lamoille South Supervisory Union

121

Appendix J: VSAC Post-Secondary Survey Results

2016: (NCS Data Used)

Peoples Academy:

77.9% of seniors in the Class of 2016 participated in the Senior Survey (Of the 53 seniors who completed the survey 56.6% were female and 43.4% were male.)

N/A of seniors participated in the Follow-up Senior Survey.

80.4% agree or strongly agree school provided them a good education. 55.7% agree or strongly agree school gave me the skills to succeed in life. 55.8% agree or strongly agree school gave them the skills to succeed in work or college 56% agree or strongly agree that classes were rigorous and challenging.

N/A of graduates continued their education on a full or part-time basis within six months of high school graduation N/A% Males and N/A% Females enrolled within 6 months

55.7% of Parent 1 had not completed a bachelor's degree or higher. 68.6% of Parent 2 had not completed a bachelor’s degree or higher

Most important Reason Seniors decided not to continue their education:

29.4% I need a break 23.5% I want to work to support myself 5.9 % I need to work to support myself 5.9% I am joining the military 11.8% I am unsure of my plans 11.9% Travel 5.9% Other

23.5% reported ability to pay for college a major concern.

122

Stowe:

80% of seniors in the Class of 2016 participated in the Senior Survey (Of the 40 seniors who completed the survey 47.5% were female and 52.5% were male.)

N/A% of seniors participated in the Follow-up Senior Survey.

87.5% agree or strongly agree school provided them a good education. 50% agree or strongly agree school gave me the skills to succeed in life. 66.7% agree or strongly agree school gave me the skills to work or college. 78.9% agree or strongly agree that classes were rigorous and challenging.

N/A% of graduates continued their education on a full or part-time basis within six months of high school graduation N/A Males and N/A% Females enrolled within 6 months

28.9% of Parent 1 had not completed a bachelor's degree or higher. 39.4% of Parent 2 had not completed a bachelor’s degree or higher

Most important Reason Seniors decided not to continue their education:

0% I need a break 0% I want to work to support myself 0% I need to work to support myself 0% I am joining the military 33.3% I am unsure of my plans 33.3% I want to travel 33.3% Other (travel)

24.3% reported ability to pay for college a major concern.

123

2014: (NCS Data Used)

Peoples Academy:

75.3% of seniors in the Class of 2014 participated in the Senior Survey (Of the 55 seniors who completed the survey 52.7% were female and 47.3% were male.)

72.6% of seniors participated in the Follow-up Senior Survey.

12.7% of graduates indicated that a high school diploma was the highest level of education they planned to complete. 10.9% of graduates plan to earn an associates degree. 56.3% plan to complete a bachelors degree or higher

61.8% agree or strongly agree school provided them a good education. 48.1% agree or strongly agree school gave me the skills to succeed in life. 37.7% agree or strongly agree that classes were rigorous and challenging.

50.9% of graduates continued their education on a full or part-time basis within six months of high school graduation 45.8% Males and 55.2% Females enrolled within 6 months

53.7% of mothers had not completed a bachelor's degree or higher. 62.3% of fathers had not completed a bachelor’s degree or higher

Most important Reason Seniors decided not to continue their education:

23.5% I need a break 29.4% I want to work to support myself 17.6 % I need to work to support myself 0% I am joining the military 0% I am unsure of my plans 5.9% Other

17.2% reported ability to pay for college a major concern.

124

Stowe:

79.3% of seniors in the Class of 2014 participated in the Senior Survey (Of the 46 seniors who completed the survey 41.3% were female and 58.7% were male.)

79.3% of seniors participated in the Follow-up Senior Survey.

0% of graduates indicated that a high school diploma was the highest level of education they planned to complete. 2.2% of graduates plan to earn an associate’s degree. 93.5% plan to complete a bachelor’s degree or higher

95.7% agree or strongly agree school provided them a good education. 60.8% agree or strongly agree school gave me the skills to succeed in life. 80% agree or strongly agree that classes were rigorous and challenging.

80.4% of graduates continued their education on a full or part-time basis within six months of high school graduation 74.1 Males and 89.5% Females enrolled within 6 months

27.9% of mothers had not completed a bachelor's degree or higher. 31.1% of fathers had not completed a bachelor’s degree or higher

Most important Reason Seniors decided not to continue their education:

33.3% I need a break 33.3 I want to work to support myself 0% I need to work to support myself 0% I am joining the military 0% I am unsure of my plans 33.3% Other (travel)

35.7% reported ability to pay for college a major concern.

125

2012: (NCS Data Used)

Peoples Academy:

92.0% of seniors in the Class of 2012 participated in the Senior Survey 90.7% of seniors participated in the Follow-up Senior Survey.

10.1% of graduates indicated that a high school diploma was the highest level of education they planned to complete. 8.7% of graduates plan to earn an associate’s degree. 66.7% plan to complete a bachelor’s degree or higher

36.4% agree or strongly agree there were accommodations for different learning styles. 36.9% agree or strongly agree there were opportunities to think and creatively problem solve. 23.1% agree or strongly agree that classes were rigorous and challenging.

58.8% of graduates continued their education on a full or part-time basis within six months of high school graduation 46.7% Males and 68.4% Females enrolled within 6 months

64.2 percent of graduates were from households where neither parent had completed a bachelor's degree.

Most important Reason Seniors decided not to continue their education:

23.1% I need a break 15.4% I want to work to support myself 19.2 % I need to work to support myself 11.5% I am joining the military 7.7% I am unsure of my plans 15.4% Other

17.1% reported ability to pay for college a major concern.

126

Stowe:

75.4% of seniors in the Class of 2012 participated in the Senior Survey 75.4% of seniors participated in the Follow-up Senior Survey.

0% of graduates indicated that a high school diploma was the highest level of education they planned to complete. 2.2% of graduates plan to earn an associate’s degree. 63% plan to complete a bachelor’s degree or higher

67.4 agree or strongly agree there were accommodations for different learning styles. 75% agree or strongly agree there were opportunities to think and creatively problem solve. 77.2% agree or strongly agree that classes were rigorous and challenging.

60.9% of graduates continued their education on a full or part-time basis within six months of high school graduation 50% Males and 70.8% Females enrolled within 6 months

15.6 percent of graduates were from households where neither parent had completed a bachelor's degree.

Most important Reason Seniors decided not to continue their education:

33.3% I need a break 0% I want to work to support myself 16.7 % I need to work to support myself 0% I am joining the military 16.7% I am unsure of my plans 33.3% Other

23.1% reported ability to pay for college a major concern.

127

2010:

Peoples Academy:

89.3% of the Class of 2010 participated in the first stage of the Senior Survey. 74.6% returned a completed follow-up survey.

15.0% of graduates indicated that a high school diploma was the highest level of education they plan to complete. 5.0% of graduates plan to earn a certificate or associate's degree 60.0% plan to complete a bachelor's degree or higher.

96.0% of graduates "strongly agree" or "agree" that Peoples Academy provided them with a good education.

64.6% of graduates continued their education on a full- or part-time basis within six months of high school graduation. 56.5% of males and 67.3% of females continued their education immediately after graduation.

The most important reason graduates from Peoples Academy reported for not continuing their education was "I wanted to work instead of continuing my education." "Cost” was not listed as an important reason.

128

Stowe:

67.4% of the Class of 2010 participated in the first stage of the Senior Survey. 64.5% returned a completed follow-up survey.

0.0% of graduates indicated that a high school diploma was the highest level of education they plan to complete. 0.0% of graduates plan to earn a certificate or associate's degree 95.5% plan to complete a bachelor's degree or higher.

100.0% of graduates "strongly agree" or "agree" that Stowe High School provided them with a good education.

89.3% of graduates continued their education on a full- or part-time basis within six months of high school graduation. 93.8% of males and 91.7% of females continued their education immediately after graduation.

The most important reason graduates from Stowe High School reported for not continuing their education was "Other." "Cost” was not listed as an important reason.

129

Appendix K: Vermont High School Post-Secondary Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Study

National Student Clearing House Data as of November 22, 2016

Introduction:

Postsecondary Persistence Rate: This report represents Vermont students who graduated with a regular high school diploma and enrolled in an institution of higher education within 16 months of High School Graduation; and persisted in postsecondary for at least three semesters within two academic school years.

Important Note on Data:

The National Student Clearinghouse collects enrollment data from ~98% of the postsecondary institutions that participate in Title IV Student Loans. While this captures the majority of postsecondary enrollments, it may not include many trade, vocational, military, and international institutions, or apprenticeship programs. This report does not include publicly tuitioned students that attend out of state high schools. Also, students and schools can opt for a Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) blocker on their enrollment records and therefore not be included in NSC reports.

130

131

132

133

Appendix L: Wolcott Unification - Financial Data

134

APPENDIX M: MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2017 MEETING WITH WOLCOTT SCHOOL BOARD Special Board Meeting Wolcott, VT August 10, 2017

Members present from Elmore-Morristown: Stephanie Craig and Christy Snipp; Stowe: Tiffany Donza and Jim Brochhausen. Tracy Wrend, Superintendent, represented the administration. Guests were Kayla Collier, Tom Snipp, Richard Craig, Rick Pembroke, Matthew Foster, Members of the Wolcott Board, and Guests of the Wolcott Board.

The purpose of the special meeting was to share information with the Wolcott School Board. A quorum of Lamoille South Supervisory Union board members was present for the conversation. The LSSU meeting came to order at 6:06pm.

Stephanie Craig and Jim Brochhausen shared information on Elmore-Morristown Unified Union’s and Stowe School District’s plan and process for completing a self-evaluation and request for an alternative governance structure by October of 2017.

Wolcott board members indicated Wolcott was committed to an alternative governance structure within Orleans Southwest Supervisory Union.

Tracy Wrend presented models, based on FY 18, of tax rate impacts if Wolcott merged with either Elmore-Morristown or Stowe, operating the elementary school and then sending all students in grades 7-12 to Peoples Academy Middle Level/Peoples Academy or Stowe Middle/ High School. Tracy also reviewed the estimated tax rate implications in year one of transition if students attending other schools were grandfathered and able to finish school in their current school of choice.

Wolcott board members and community members asked questions.

Superintendent Wrend and LSSU board members present emphasized that the Wolcott board is encouraged to reach out if interested in discussing future options further.

The discussion ended at 6:35pm and the LSSU meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Tracy Wrend Clerk, pro tem

135

APPENDIX N: LSSU GEOGRAPHY

Distance between Peoples Academy and Stowe High School: 12.2 miles, 24 minutes Distance between Morristown Elementary School and Stowe Elementary School: 9.6 miles, 17 minutes Distance between the Elmore School and Morristown Elementary School: 5 miles, 8 minutes Town of Elmore: 39.58 sq mi (102.5 km2)

Town of Morristown: 51.68 sq mi (133.9 km2)

Town of Stowe: 72.76 sq mi (188.4 km2)

136

Roads of Lamoille South

137

APPENDIX O: LAMOILLE SOUTH SUPERVISORY UNION ACT 46 MEETINGS

July 21, 2015 September 9, 2015 March 30, 2016 September 14, 2016 November 30, 2016 December 14, 2016 March 22, 2017 April 26, 2017 May 8, 2017 May 31, 2017 July 10, 2017 August 10, 2017 August 16, 2017 September 13, 2017 September 25, 2017 – Community Engagement Meeting September 26, 2017 – Community Engagement Meeting October 24, 2017 November 15, 2017

138

Proposed Statewide Plan for School District Governance 2015 Acts and Resolves No. 46, Sec. 10(a)

June 1, 2018 Heather Bouchey, Ph.D., Acting Secretary of Education

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 6 I. Background ...... 8 II. Overview of Process...... 11 III. Section 9 Proposals ...... 13 IV. The Law’s Goals and Mandates ...... 15 V. Thematic Observations ...... 17 VI. District Mergers –Proposals and Analysis ...... 22 A. Existing Union High School Districts and Their Member Elementary Districts ...... 25 a. Traditional UHSDs ...... 26 1. The Brattleboro Union High School District and its Four Member Elementary Districts (Brattleboro; Dummerston; Guilford; Putney) ...... 26 The Brattleboro Elementary School District ...... 27 The Dummerston Elementary School District ...... 28 The Guildford Elementary School District ...... 30 The Putney Elementary School District ...... 31 2. The Missisquoi Valley Union High School District and its Three Member Elementary Districts (Franklin; Highgate; Swanton) ...... 37 3. The Oxbow Union High School District and its Two Member Elementary Districts (Bradford; Newbury) ...... 43 The Newbury School District ...... 44 The Bradford Incorporated District and the Oxbow Union High School Districts ...... 45 4. The Spaulding Union High School District and its Two Member Elementary Districts (Barre City; Barre Town) ...... 49 5. The Union 32 High School District and its Five Member Elementary Districts (Berlin; Calais; East Montpelier; Middlesex; Worcester) ...... 51 b. MUUSDs and NMEDs ...... 60 6. The Barnard Elementary School District (NMED) ...... 63 7. The Cambridge Elementary School District (NMED)...... 71 8. The Huntington Elementary School District (NMED) ...... 74 9. The Orwell Elementary School District (NMED) ...... 79 10. The Windham Elementary School District (NMED) ...... 83 c. USDs with Un-Like Members...... 89 11. The Bellows Falls Union High School District and its Four Member Districts (Athens, Grafton, Rockingham, and Westminster) ...... 91

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 2 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

12. The Hazen Union High School District AND the Lakeview Union Elementary School District and All Member Districts (Greensboro; Hardwick; Stannard; Woodbury) ...... 97 13. The Lake Region Union High School District and its Seven Member Districts (Albany; Barton; Brownington; Glover; Irasburg; Orleans; Westmore) ...... 100 14. The Mount Anthony Union High School District and its Five Member Districts (Bennington; North Bennington; Pownal, Shaftsbury; Woodford) ...... 102 Bennington, Shaftsbury, and Woodford School Districts ...... 103 North Bennington Incorporated District ...... 104 Pownal School District ...... 104 15. North Country Union High School District and its Member Districts (Brighton; Charleston; Derby; Holland; Jay; Lowell; Morgan; Newport City; Newport Town; Troy; Westfield) and the Coventry School District ...... 109 B. Single-Town Districts that Pay Tuition for All Resident Students, PreK-12 (“Nonoperating Districts”) ...... 113 16. The Pittsfield School District ...... 115 17. The Sandgate School District ...... 117 18. The Searsburg School District ...... 119 19. The Stratton School District ...... 121 20. The Winhall School District ...... 123 C. Town Districts Responsible for PreK-12 and Union Districts Not Exempt from Merger 125 a. Districts for Which Merger is “Possible” … BUT is Merger Also “Practicable”? And/or is Retaining the Same Structure “Best”? ...... 126 21. The Blue Mountain Union School District (Towns of Groton, Ryegate, and Wells River) ...... 126 22. The Cabot School District ...... 132 23. The Danville School District ...... 132 24. The Twinfield Union School District (Towns of Marshfield and Plainfield) 132 The Cabot School District ...... 133 The Danville School District ...... 135 The Twinfield Union School District ...... 136 25. The Craftsbury School District ...... 143 26. The Elmore-Morristown UUSD and the Stowe School District ...... 146 27. The Enosburgh School District and the Richford School District ...... 150 28. The Fairfax School District, the Fletcher School District, and the Georgia School District ...... 157 29. The Hartland School District and the Weathersfield School Districts...... 161 30. The Montgomery School District ...... 166 Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 3 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

31. The Sheldon School District ...... 174 32. The Stamford School District ...... 180 33. The Waits River Valley Union School District (Towns of Corinth and Topsham) ...... 182 b. Districts for Which Merger is Either NOT “Possible” or NOT “Practicable” or Both 185 34. The Arlington School District ...... 185 35. The Canaan School District...... 185 36. The Coventry School District ...... 185 37. The Sharon School District...... 185 38. The South Hero School District ...... 185 39. The Strafford School District ...... 185 40. The Thetford School District ...... 185 41. The Vernon School District ...... 185 42. The Windsor / West Windsor UUSD...... 185 43. The Wolcott School District ...... 185 VII. Adjustment of SU Boundaries ...... 187 APPENDICES ...... 189

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 4 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Franklin Highgate North Country Jr UHS North Country Jr UHS Norton Canaan Missisquoi Valley UH Berkshire Richford Jay North Country Sr UHS Holland Averill Alburgh Franklin Northwest TroyNewport Town Derby Warners Grant North Country Newport City Warren Gore Franklin Northeast Averys Gore Grand Isle Swanton Sheldon Morgan Lemington Enosburgh Westfield Coventry Essex North Isle La Motte Lewis Montgomery Charleston North Hero Brownington Irasburg Bloomfield Maple Run Bakersfield Orleans ID Brighton Maple Run USD Lowell Orleans Central Lake Region UHSD Barton Westmore Albany Brunswick Grand Isle Georgia Ferdinand Fletcher Newark Fairfax Lamoille North MUSD Glover Franklin West Lamoille North MUSD Sutton Craftsbury East Haven Milton Lamoille North Maidstone South Hero Milton Cambridge Orleans Southwest Caledonia North Burke Greensboro Millers Run UESD Granby Lakeview UESD Essex Westford Wolcott Essex-Caledonia Colchester Essex Westford Lyndon Victory Guildhall Colchester Lamoille South Hazen UHSD Stannard ElmoreMorristown USD Hardwick BurlingtonWinooski Kirby BurlingtonWinooski Mt. Mansfield MUSD A Stowe Walden St. Johnsbury Lunenburg South Burlington St. Johnsbury Woodbury South Burlington Danville Concord Chittenden East Worcester Mt. Mansfield MUSD B Cabot Washington Central Waterford U-32 UHSD Champlain Valley USD Caledonia Central Calais Champlain Valley Middlesex Washington NortheastPeacham Huntington Barnet East MontpelierTwinfield USD Montpelier Harwood USD Montpelier Blue Mountain Monkton Starksboro Harwood Blue Mountain USD Buels Gore Berlin Barre CityBarre Spaulding UHSD Mt. Abraham UHSD Barre Town Orange Addison Northwest Addison Northeast Northfield Addison Northwest Bristol WilliamstownOrange North New Haven Washington South Newbury Lincoln Waits River Valley U Oxbow UHSD Roxbury Washington Orange East

Bradford Granville Addison Central USD Chelsea Addison Central Orange Southwest USD Orange Southwest Rivendell Interstate Hancock Rivendell Tunbridge

Rochester Strafford Bethel White River Valley Thetford Orange East Orwell Royalton Otter Valley UUSD Pittsfield Sharon Rutland Northeast Dresden Interstate Stockbridge Norwich Barstow UUSD Addison-Rutland Barnard Norwich Benson Hubbardton Pomfret Windsor Central Fair Haven UHSDCastleton-Hubbardton Hartford West Haven Proctor Killington Rutland Central Woodstock UHSD Hartford Fair Haven Rutland City West RutlandRutland City Bridgewater Woodstock Rutland Town Hartland Ira Poultney Plymouth Rutland Southwest Mill River Reading Middletown SpringsMill River UUSD Windsor Southeast West WindsorWindsor

Wells Mount Holly Black River UHSD Cavendish Ludlow Weathersfield Two Rivers Pawlet Danby Mount Tabor Baltimore Currier Memorial USD Green Mountain UHSD Mettawee Community S Chester-Andover UESD Springfield Andover Chester Springfield Legend Rupert Dorset Mountain Towns USD Bennington-Rutland Windham Northeast Supervisory Unions Grafton Windham Rockingham Sandgate Manchester Winhall District governance resolved Battenkill Valley Bellows Falls UHSD Jamaica Athens Townshend Section 9 proposals Arlington Sunderland Westminster Stratton Leland & Gray UHSD

Wardsboro Brookline Windham Central Putney Shaftsbury Glastenbury Somerset Newfane Dover N. Bennington ID Southwest Vermont Dummerston Bennington Searsburg Mt. Anthony UHSD Wilmington MarlboroWindham Southeast Woodford Brattleboro

Readsboro Pownal Stamford Whitingham Halifax Guilford Windham Southwest Vernon Brattleboro UHSD

Secretary’s Proposed Plan Pursuant to Act 46, Sec. 10 Executive Summary Legislative Mandate • Act 46 was enacted in July of 2015. It created three phases of voluntary school district merger and one non-voluntary phase to be mandated by the State Board of Education and implemented on July 1, 2019. • This proposed plan is required by Act 46, Section 10 and is submitted to the State Board for its consideration as it begins to write the final statewide plan, to be issued on or before November 30, 2018. • This proposed plan was written after consideration of unmerged districts’ proposals under Act 46, Section 9, and formal conversations with those districts’ representatives as required by Act 46, Sec. 10. Statewide Governance Context Vermont’s General Assembly passed Act 46 in response to, among other factors, a substantial change in the state’s demographics. Over the past twenty years, consistent with trends across the northeast and rural states generally, Vermont’s student population has shrunk by more than 24 percent. Some school districts now educate fewer than half the students they had 20 years ago. Act 46 offered districts a package of phased tax reductions and other transitional assistance in exchange for merging small, usually single-school, single-town school districts, into larger more sustainable governance units.

Many districts chose to take advantage of the voluntary merger phases. Taking into account earlier legislative programs offering tax rate reductions and transitional assistance for school district mergers, a total of 157 districts came together to create 39 new unified districts – a net reduction of 118 districts. Taken as a whole, this statewide shift in governance was a monumental effort undertaken through processes that included study committees, community outreach, local elections, and legislative feedback. As of June 1, 2018, nearly 68% of all students are in merged districts or in districts the Legislature has deemed to be at a sustainable scale. In total: • Voters in 146 towns • Voted to merge 157 former districts • Into 39 new unified districts • In 33 former Supervisory Unions • For a net reduction of 118 districts and 4 fewer supervisory unions

At the end of 2017, districts that had not merged under one of the voluntary merger programs and were not otherwise exempt under Act 461 were required to engage in a process of self- reflection and to submit a proposal for their own governance, either individually or in concert with neighboring districts. A total of 44 individual school districts or groups of school districts submitted written or verbal proposals to the State Board and Agency under Act 46, Sec. 9. The proposals represented the thinking of 95 school districts in 90 towns. The proposals ranged

1 Nine supervisory districts (single-district supervisory unions) with an average daily membership greater than 900; two federally-sanctioned interstate school districts; and five single-town districts that received early State Board approval not to merge under either the 3-by-1 or 2-by-2-by-1 Program. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 6 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

across a spectrum of options including proposing to maintain the current governance structure, recommending merger with a neighboring district or group of districts, or making no recommendation at all.

The Secretary, along with Agency of Education staff, held 42 formal conversations with school board representatives pursuant to Act 46, Sec. 10 regarding the 44 written or verbal Section 9 submissions. This proposed plan was written after participating in those conversations and analyzing each individual Section 9 Proposal.

Proposed Plan Highlights This proposed plan addresses all 44 written and verbal proposals received, but the following proposed plan regroups them as a discussion of 43 individual districts or groups of districts. For example, the members of a union high school district might have submitted four separate proposals, but they are grouped below into one discussion. Conversely, a group of districts that submitted a single proposal might be discussed separately – for example, one discussion regarding a union high school district and all of its member districts and a separate discussion of a district that is not a member of the union district.

Regarding the 43 districts or groups of districts discussed below:

• The Secretary recommends merger with respect to 18 • The Secretary proposes no action with respect to 3, so that each community’s ongoing voluntary merger process can proceed • The Secretary does not recommend merger with respect to 12, because merger is not practicable at this time and it would not advance the goals of Act 46 • The Secretary does not recommend merger with respect to 10, because it is not legally possible due to differing operating/tuitioning structures within the region

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 7 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Proposed Statewide Plan for School District Governance 2015 Acts and Resolves No. 46, Sec. 10(a) I. Background

A. Statistical Realities

Vermont has great schools, progressive education policy, and high levels of public commitment to our children. Every school board and every town is passionate about educating its children well. Nevertheless, persistent declines in enrollment, pressures of affordability, complex structures, and increasing poverty threaten the State’s ability to support high quality education into the future. From Fiscal Year (“FY”) 1997 to FY 2018, Vermont’s kindergarten to grade 12 average daily membership experienced a 24% decline. Some districts now educate fewer than half the students they had some 20 years ago.

During the same years, the proportion of Vermont students with severe emotional needs increased from 1.5% of the population in FY 1997 to 2.3% in FY 2015, the year the Legislature enacted Act 46. 2 From July 1997 through July 2014, the number of Vermont children ages 6 through 17 residing with families receiving nutrition benefits increased by nearly 48%, from 13,000 to 19,200. In addition, the proportion of students from families in crisis due to loss of employment, opiate addiction, and other factors also increased during this time period, requiring the State’s public schools to fulfill an array of human services functions. While our student numbers have decreased over time, our schools have grappled with an increase in external factors that impede student learning. These factors tend to hit small, rural districts harder than those with greater scale and available resources.

Act 46’s findings stated, “[w]ith 13 different types of school district governance structures, Vermont’s elementary and secondary education lacks cohesive governance and delivery systems. As a result, many school districts: (1) are not well-suited to achieve economies of scale; and (2) lack the flexibility to manage, share, and transfer resources, including personnel, with other school districts and to provide students with a variety of high-quality educational opportunities.”

In addition, the ability to compare data across districts to gauge the success of schools has become increasingly challenging as school districts have become smaller. In very small districts, student data may not be legally reportable under federal privacy protections. In addition, the diversity of district structures (e.g., PreK-4; PreK-6; PreK-8; 7-12; 9-12) and operating/tuitioning patterns limits the ability to compare data between districts.

Since passage of Act 46, voters have engaged in hard conversations about how to best care for and educate their children, including those needing additional supports, in an equitable way in the face of the trends described above. Under Act 46 and incorporated earlier legislation that

2 2015 Acts and Resolves No. 46. Note that, where applicable, any reference to any Act or section of an Act in this document refers to the Act or section as amended by any later Act. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 8 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

also offered tax rate reductions and other transitional assistance for school district mergers, a total of 157 districts came together to create 39 new unified districts, for a net reduction of 118 districts. B. Act 46 and Related Governance Laws

The stated purpose of Act 46 is “to encourage and support local decisions and actions that: (1) provide substantial equity in the quality and variety of educational opportunities statewide; (2) lead students to achieve or exceed the State’s Education Quality Standards, adopted as rules by the State Board of Education at the direction of the General Assembly; (3) maximize operational efficiencies through increased flexibility to manage, share, and transfer resources, with a goal of increasing the district-level ratio of students to full-time equivalent staff; (4) promote transparency and accountability; and (5) are delivered at a cost that parents, voters, and taxpayers value.”3

Incorporating existing laws, Act 46 established a multi-year, phased process that provided multiple opportunities for school districts to unify existing disparate governance entities into “sustainable governance structures" that are designed to meet the identified educational and fiscal goals, while recognizing and reflecting local priorities.

In Act 46, the Legislature identified the preferred model of governance as a unified union school district4 responsible for the PreK-12 education of its resident students (whether by operating all grades; by operating PreK-6 or PreK-8 and tuitioning the remaining grades; or by tuitioning all grades) that is large enough to function effectively5 as a supervisory district (i.e., a single-district supervisory union). The four identified operating/tuitioning structures represent the most common governance structures in the State.6

Act 46 acknowledges that the creation of a supervisory district is not always “possible” or “the best” means to accomplish the Act’s stated goals and that there will be supervisory unions with multiple merged and/or unmerged districts in some regions of the State (“Alternative Structures”).7

3 Act 46, Sec. 2. 4 See Part VI for Definitions of Essential Terms. 5 Existing statutes that have been in law for decades do not identify one size that is “large-enough” for a supervisory union or supervisory district, instead allowing the State Board to determine what is best for each region. The Legislature provided guidance, however, when in Act 46 it offered tax rate reductions and other transitional assistance for unified union districts that had an average daily membership of at least 900. 6 Act 46, Sec. 5(b). 7 Act 46, Sec. 4(c) – discussed in more detail below, including amendments by 2017 Acts and Resolves No. 49. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 9 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Act 46 created or incorporated three phases of voluntary merger8, each of which offered the potential for tax rate reductions and other transitional assistance and all of which relied upon a decades-old statutory process for the creation of union school districts.9 Districts that did not pursue or did not expect to achieve a voluntary merger by July 1, 2019 were required to evaluate their ability to meet or exceed State goals, to talk with other districts, and to present proposals to the State Board of Education regarding the best way to meet or exceed the goals going forward.10

During 2018, Act 46 requires the Secretary of Education to develop a proposal and the State Board to issue a final statewide plan that redraws SU boundaries and realigns unmerged districts into sustainable models of governance that meet State goals - to the extent the changes are necessary, possible, and practicable for the region.11

The Act 46-required process set out in Section 9 of self-study, regional conversations, and recommendations is necessary both to support local continuous improvement and to inform State Board decision-making in connection with its final statewide plan.

C. Voluntary Phases

As mentioned above, Act 46 created or incorporated three phases of voluntary merger into unified districts:

Phase 1 –The Accelerated Program (Act 46, Sec. 6); Phase 2 – The Regional Education District (Act 153 of 2010), Side-by-Side District (Act 156 of 2012, Sec. 15), and Modified Unified Union School District (Act 156 of 2012, Sec. 17) Programs; and Phase 3 – The “Conventional” Merger Program (Act 46, Sec. 7).

All three phases of voluntary merger programs rely upon the decades-old statutory process for creation of union school districts under which all current union high school districts, union elementary school districts, and unified union (PreK-12) districts were formed.12

See Appendix A for details about the new unified districts and the merging districts that formed them.

8 The earlier incorporated acts were: 2010 Acts and Resolves No. 153, which created the Regional Education District program. 2012 Acts and Resolves No. 156, Secs. 15-17, which created the “Side-by- Side” program, the Union Elementary District program, and the Modified Unified Union School District program. 9 16 V.S.A. ch. 11. 10 Act 46, Sec. 9, as amended by Act 49, Sec. 10. 11 Act 46, Secs. 8 and 10. 12 16 V.S.A. § 701, et seq. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 10 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

II. Overview of Process A. Duties of Unmerged Districts

Act 46 required the board of each school district in the State that will not be in a newly unified structure by July 1, 2019 to submit a “Section 9 Proposal” by December 26, 2017 in which the school board:

• analyzed the district’s current ability to meet the Act 46 Goals; • recounted its conversations with other districts on ways to improve opportunity, equity, and efficiency regionally; and • presented a proposal to improve by either: 1. merging with other districts; 2. working with other districts in some other way; or 3. retaining the same governance structure.

Section 9 required the proposal submitted by each school board or group of school boards to:

• “demonstrate[], through reference to enrollment projections, student to staff ratios, the comprehensive data collected pursuant to 16 V.S.A. § 165, and otherwise, how the proposal … supports the district’s or districts’ ability to meet or exceed each of the [Act 46 goals]; and • … identif[y] detailed actions it proposes to take to continue to improve its performance in connection with each of the goals ...”

The proposing district or districts may amend or supplement the proposal at any time before the State Board issues the final statewide plan, discussed in Subpart C below.13 B. Secretary’s Review, Conversations, and Proposed Statewide Plan

Act 46 requires the Secretary of Education14 to review “the governance structures of the school districts and supervisory unions of the State as they will exist, or are anticipated to exist, on July 1, 2019.” The Legislature requires the review to “include consideration” of Section 9 proposals and “conversations” with both the districts submitting the proposals “and other districts.”15

By June 1, 2018, the Secretary must develop and publish on the Agency’s website a proposed statewide plan that may incorporate a school board’s Section 9 Proposal in full, in part, or not at all.

13 Act 49, Sec. 8 (amending Act 46, Sec. 10) 14 Laws frequently require the “Secretary” of an Agency to take an action. A Secretary could not individually perform all functions assigned to her/him. Instead, although a Secretary and the Governor are ultimately responsible for the work of the Agency, a Secretary necessarily delegates legislatively- required work to Agency staff. Accordingly, this proposal was developed with the assistance of many Agency employees. This delegation was intended by the Legislature. See the memorandum dated April 4, 2018 from legislative leaders as well as the State Board and the Governor attached as Appendix D. 15 Act 46, Sec. 10(a). Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 11 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

C. Review, Public Testimony and Discussion, and Final Statewide Plan

The State Board of Education must review the proposed statewide plan after it is made public on June 1 and may “take testimony or ask for additional information from districts or supervisory unions.”16 Act 46 requires the State Board to issue a final statewide plan by November 30, 2018 that will merge districts and redraw SU boundaries to the extent necessary to achieve sustainable governance structures capable of meeting or exceeding the Act 46 Goals of equity, excellence, and efficiency. The State Board’s final statewide plan may incorporate the Secretary’s proposed plan in full, in part, or not at all. Similarly, the Board’s statewide plan may incorporate a school board’s Section 9 Proposal in full, in part, or not at all.

The State Board will issue default articles of agreement to be used temporarily by all unified districts created by the statewide plan.

Although the State Board’s final statewide plan is effective when issued, Act 46 does not require merged districts and reconfigured SUs to be fully operational until July 1, 2019.

The members of the State Board individually began to review Section 9 proposals in February, 2018. They intend to devote at least one public meeting in June to the Secretary’s proposed statewide plan. In July, August, and September, the Board plans to hold its regular monthly meeting in the north, central, and southern regions of the State, where the Board will discuss the region, including the pertinent Section 9 proposals, and take testimony from board members and other community members. The State Board is scheduling an additional public meeting in October to discuss and make final decisions regarding its final statewide plan, with the intention that it will issue the plan by the end of October – one month before the legislative deadline – to provide as much transition time as possible before the full-operation date of July 1, 2019.

16 Act 46, Sec. 10. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 12 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

III. Section 9 Proposals A. Proposals Received by the Agency

School Boards submitted a total of 44 individual and joint proposals under Act 46, Sec. 9. These written and verbal proposals represent the thinking of 95 school districts (e.g., PreK-12 town districts, union high school districts, town elementary districts that are members of a union high school district, etc.) serving 90 towns. Five of the 44 proposals were from “Non Member Elementary Districts” – the town elementary districts that are a high school member of a Modified Unified Union School District. Also included within the 44 proposals were submissions from school boards within two supervisory unions indicating that they had formed new study committees and were exploring merger pursuant to 16 V.S.A. § 706 and from a third district stating that it is exploring the creation of an interstate school district.

Written proposals ranged in size from a one-page letter to a written summary with four large binders of supporting documents. Some school boards presented verbal proposals.

The content of the proposals vary widely as well. For example, while some school boards propose retaining a supervisory union with multiple member school districts – even where those districts share the same operating/tuitioning structure or are members of the same union high school – other school boards believe that the best way forward is for the State Board to require the merger proposed by a local study committee but rejected by the voters of some or all “necessary” districts. In addition, elementary districts that are members of a union high school sometimes independently proposed plans that conflict with the plans from other member elementary districts, even though the State Board’s Plan will necessarily address the union school and all of its members in a consistent manner.

Links to the Section 9 Proposals can be found on the Agency’s website, at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage. B. Conversations with School Board Representatives

As required by Act 46, Sec. 10(a), Agency staff had a “conversation” with school board representatives of 42 of the 44 districts or groups of districts that submitted a written or verbal Section 9 Proposal.

In advance of each Conversation, the Agency provided the school boards with the same list of topics and other information drawn from the language of Act 46 itself to assist the boards in their preparation. This document is attached as Appendix E.

At least three individuals at the Agency read each proposal prior to meeting with representatives of the respective school board for the Conversation and read the proposal at least one more time prior to finalizing this report. Additional individuals also reviewed the proposals during the five months leading to the issuance of this proposal.

Each Conversation was an opportunity for the school board representatives to highlight those elements they believe to be most important in their Section 9 Proposal and to provide additional nuance or context for the Proposal. Although the Agency asked clarifying questions, the meeting provided an invaluable opportunity for the Agency to listen to the priorities and Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 13 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

concerns of the proposing districts and to acquire a better understanding of local systems and their options.

The Agency was committed to reviewing every proposal and entering every Conversation without prejudgment. Although Agency staff discussed details of both the written proposals and the Conversations, they waited until they had met with the board representatives of all school districts before drawing any conclusions or making any decisions – as a team or individually. C. “Snapshots” and Initial Data Points

The Agency prepared a “Snapshot” of each proposal by inserting key passages from the Section 9 Proposal itself into the common list of topics provided to each school board in advance of its Section 10 Conversation. In some cases, the Snapshot also includes additional information gleaned from the Section 10 Conversation. If the board representatives prepared written responses to the common list of topics and provided them electronically, then those responses are included in the Snapshot as well. Finally, in some situations, if the written or verbal information provided by a district did not easily translate into responses to the common list of topics, then the board’s information is listed as notes rather than as responses to each topic.

The Snapshot for each district or group of districts is attached as Appendix F.

A common group of data points for each district or group of districts is attached as Appendix G.

Both Appendices list the districts in the same order that they appear in this proposal.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 14 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

IV. The Law’s Goals and Mandates

As mentioned above, the law identifies the preferred model of school governance in Vermont to be a unified union school district with an average daily membership of at least 900 that provides for the education of its PreK-12 resident students in one of the four most common operating/tuitioning patterns and is large enough to function effectively as its own single- district supervisory union.17

The law requires the State Board to “move districts into the more sustainable, preferred model of governance” “to the extent necessary to promote” the Legislature’s stated purpose, except where it “is not possible or practicable” to do so.18 Some mergers are not “possible” because the law does not permit the State Board to merge districts with unlike operating and tuitioning patters.

The law’s stated purpose for requiring the State Board to create the final statewide plan is to “provide educational opportunities through sustainable governance structures designed to meet” the educational and financial goals of Act 46 concerning equity, excellence, and efficiency.19

The same legislative mandates and guidance govern development of both this proposal and the State Board’s final statewide plan. A. Mandated Elements

The law requires the statewide plan, “to the extent necessary to promote the purpose stated [above, to] move districts into the more sustainable, preferred model of governance set forth in Sec. 5(b)” of Act 46.20

It recognizes that there may be exceptions:

“If it is not possible or practicable [for the statewide plan to merge districts, where necessary, into a Preferred Structure] in a manner that adheres to the … protection for tuition-paying and operating districts[] or that otherwise meets all aspects of [a preferred structure], then the [Plan] may also include alternative governance structures as necessary, such as a supervisory union with member districts or a unified union school district with a smaller average daily membership” – “provided that” the SU is designed (1) to “ensure adherence” to the Sec. 4 protections for operating and tuition-paying districts (i.e., that only the electorate can decide whether to operate a school or pay tuition for the district’s students, and at which grade(s)) and (2) to “promote” the stated goals of Act 46.21

17 Act 46, Sec. 5(b). 18 Act 46, Sec. 10. 19 Act 46, Sec. 10. 20 Act 46, Sec. 10. 21 Act 46, Sec. 10 (emphasis added). Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 15 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Finally, it provides that that the “State Board shall approve the creation, expansion, or continuation of a supervisory union only if the Board concludes that this alternative structure:

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [Goals] in a particular region; and “(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”22

Every type of education governance proposal must be evaluated not only on its own merits, but also on the impact it may have on the students, the districts, the region, and the State.23

The Secretary must post a proposed statewide plan on the Agency’s website by June 1, 2018. On or before November 30, 2018, the State Board of Education must “publish … its order merging and realigning districts and supervisory unions where necessary.”24 B. Legislative Guidance

Act 46 instructs the State Board, when creating the final statewide plan, to “be mindful” of actions that would result in the geographic isolation of a district from other districts of like structure, “including the potential isolation of a district with low fiscal capacity or with a high percentage of students from economically deprived backgrounds.”25

In addition, Sec. 5 of Act 46 as amended by Sec. 7 of Act 49 of 2017 lists the characteristics of a supervisory union with member districts that may satisfy the goals of the Act:

1. the member districts consider themselves to be collectively responsible for the education of all prekindergarten through grade 12 students residing in the supervisory union; 2. the supervisory union operates in a manner that complies with its obligations under 16 V.S.A. § 261a and that maximizes efficiencies through economies of scale and the flexible management, transfer, and sharing of resources among the member districts, which may include a common personnel system, with the goal of increasing the ratio of students to full-time equivalent staff; 3. the supervisory union has the smallest number of member school districts practicable, achieved wherever possible by the merger of districts with similar operating and tuitioning patterns; 4. the supervisory union has the smallest number of member school districts practicable after consideration of greatly differing levels of indebtedness among the member districts; and 5. the combined average daily membership of all member districts is not less than 900.

22 Act 46, Sec. 8(b) (emphasis added). 23 See, e.g., 16 V.S.A. § 706c(b); Act 46, Secs. 8 – 10. 24 Act 46, Sec. 10(b). 25 Act 46, Sec. 8. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 16 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

V. Thematic Observations

Although this document is necessarily composed of individual decisions based upon the specific circumstances identified in each Section 9 Proposal and Conversation, these proposals and conversations also brought into relief certain tenets and observations that inform the Secretary’s recommendations. Taken as a whole these are:

Act 46 Work Requires Looking Beyond Current Boundaries

Formulation of the following proposed plan required the Secretary to consider not only what might be best for the proposing district or group of districts, but also what was best for other nearby districts, the region, and the State. Likewise, when the State Board of Education considers this proposed plan, the Board will make its own judgments about the best means for ensuring sustainable education governance, not just for any one district’s particular circumstances, but for other nearby districts, the region and the State as a whole. Furthermore, in the course of the Conversations required by Act 46, Sec. 10, many school board members, administrators, and community members have revealed that, even if resistant to Act 46 at first, they valued the self-evaluation and regional conversations Act 46 required and have learned valuable information about their own district and their region as a result.

School districts have, in the overwhelming majority, used the information gleaned from these activities as a catalyst to improve and expand collaboration with neighbors. In a few instances, however, Act 46’s instruction for school district boards to look outside of current district and supervisory union boundaries has had a seemingly paradoxical effect. These districts have actually become more insular, exhibiting concern only with the students and taxpayers in their own town and not with the good of the region and the State as a whole.

Governance Change Cannot, on Its Own, Create Equity, Efficiency, and Opportunity

Despite the many documented advantages of larger, more flexible governance units, governance change on its own does not automatically translate into more equity, excellence, or efficiency. School leaders must be prepared to take advantage of the flexibility provided by governance change.

A primary conclusion from Act 46 work to-date has been that successful system transformation takes time and is challenging work. Newly merged districts need to let go of who they were before they can focus on what their new community might become. In order to build strong collaborative governance, merging communities need to take time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision. In communities that have taken the time to build trust and common cause, the subsequent work of collaborating to reduce cost and improve quality becomes easier. As one superintendent noted: “We’ve learned we have to go slow now, in order to go fast later.”

This proposal is made with awareness that districts that are ultimately required to change their governance structure by the State Board’s final statewide plan but resist collaborative governance may continue to have many of the difficulties seen today (e.g., program cuts; educator and administrator turnover; low test scores; performance gaps especially for students in poverty and on IEPs; increasing budgets/tax rates). This reality, however, is not a sufficient

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 17 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

reason for the Secretary’s proposed plan to stop short of recommending the governance changes that are necessary to comply with Act 46.

Small Schools Are Not Inconsistent with Sustainable Governance Structures

There is no question that Vermonters prize small schools. Across all conversations and proposals, board members asked to retain their community-centered school (regardless of size) and the unique flavor of the local school. But what we define as small and what is nationally defined as small are two different things. In Vermont, we have “micro systems,” where entire schools – and entire school districts – can be as small as 15 to 20 students. In some cases, the entire student body of one school could fit in a neighboring school seven minutes away on a paved road, without incurring additional cost, and we would still have student-to-teacher ratios that are less than half the national average.

In some cases, the geography of our rural mountainous state requires maintenance of very small schools. This is a separate consideration, however, from school district size. Small school districts, which lack the flexibility and resilience of larger systems, can face many impediments to equity, excellence, and efficiency.

Unified governance is not about closing small schools. It is about providing more equitable, high-quality opportunities and using resources more efficiently by taking advantage of the inherent flexibility of a larger governing entity. Act 46 included in its findings, “(i) Vermont recognizes the important role that a small school plays in the social and educational fabric of its community. It is not the State’s intent to close its small schools, but rather to ensure that those schools have the opportunity to enjoy the expanded educational opportunities and economies of scale that are available to schools within larger, more flexible governance models.”

Examples of the kind of opportunities described above can be found in the districts that pursued voluntary mergers in recent years. The Smilie Memorial School in Bolton, for example, was able to remain open only by working with its neighbors. The district that operated the Smilie School merged with other districts in the Chittenden East SU to form the Mount Mansfield MUUSD. Now the Mount Mansfield MUUSD offers school choice among its five elementary schools, including the Smilie School. The Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union merged its member districts into the Otter Valley Unified Union School District, enabling a shift of grades among existing buildings without any building closures. This restructuring created larger peer groups for its students, which the community felt was lacking in its previous structure. The Echo Valley Community School District (Orange and Washington) and the White River Unified District (Bethel and Royalton), both of which will be operational on July 1, 2018, are also shifting grades between schools to create larger peer groups and more age- focused programming.

Act 46 Disfavors the Continued Existence of Supervisory Unions Where Merger is Possible

Many of the Section 9 proposals and the subsequent conversations argued against joining a larger governance unit based on the premise that the district and its fellow supervisory union members currently collaborate very well and have achieved savings or operational efficiency within the existing supervisory union. The most frequent illustration of this argument was the

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 18 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

delivery of special education or transportation services on a supervisory union level, actions required by law since 2012. The fact that some efficiencies have been achieved within a supervisory union does not mean that the current structure is the best way to achieve efficiencies. There are obvious merits in removing this layer of additional structure.

Furthermore, Act 46 expressly identifies PreK–12 systems of 900 or more students as the preferred structure for meeting the five goals of the Act. There are efficiencies and opportunities available to a unified union school district that are not available to even the most efficiently run supervisory union. Preference for the structure currently in place or “the way we’ve always done things” is not sufficient to outweigh the legal requirement to create larger, more sustainable governance structures where possible and practicable.

Assumption that Good Programs Will be Lost or Diluted in a Merger

Some proposals expressed fear that programs currently offered would be eliminated or diluted in a larger governance structure by a merged board that included members from other communities that favor lowering tax rates. This was a particular concern in districts that have a greater actual or perceived wealth than their neighbors. While an understandable concern, it is equally likely that a successful program would be recognized as such and continued or expanded. There is no reason to assume that, within the same governance structure, other communities have less commitment to their children’s education. Moreover, the continued existence of a successful program would be more secure within a more flexible governance structure that demonstrates that it considers itself “to be collectively responsible for the education of all PreK-12 students residing in the supervisory union.” This is more readily achievable through a larger structure’s ability to weather enrollment decreases and to even out tax rate fluctuations.

Diversity of District Structure Prevents Merger Unless Someone is Willing to Change

No district is required to change its structure of operating or tuitioning one or more grades, whether through voluntary or mandatory merger, unless the voters of the district choose to do so. In approximately 19 of the 157 districts that voluntarily merged, the district’s electorate approved a change in the grades it operated or tuitioned. The majority of voluntary mergers, however, were undertaken by districts joining with like districts. For instance, seven districts (representing eight towns) that each operated a school through grade 8 and paid tuition for grades 9-12 merged into the Kingdom East Unified Union School District that operates seven schools offering kindergarten through grade 8 and pays tuition for grades 9-12.

Under the protections of Act 46, Sec. 4, the Secretary’s proposed plan cannot propose a merger that would combine two districts with unlike operating and tuitioning structures, nor may it propose that any district change its operating and tuitioning structure. As a result, there are necessarily regions where, as described in Act 46, Sec. 10, it “is not possible or practicable to develop a proposal that realigns some districts, where necessary, into an Education District in a manner that adheres to the protections of Sec. 4.”

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 19 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Other Observations

• Regardless of whether a larger, unified school district achieves any operational savings (there is initial evidence that many, in fact, do) larger governance units can serve to even out tax rate fluctuations and allow small schools to stay open or avoid eliminating programs in spite of external cost pressures, dips in enrollment, or unforeseen one-time costs. • In many cases, Section 9 proposals submitted to the Agency illustrated that districts with smaller student-to-teacher ratios had staffs with lower pay, on average, than neighboring districts. This inability to pay a competitive salary often means that a small district struggles to retain experienced licensed educators or suffers from high turnover. • Similarly, many districts described the practice of employing part-time teachers – sometimes in concert with other districts within a supervisory union, allowing an individual employee to earn a full FTE, but with multiple contracts and multiple employers – often leading to high turnover when full time positions are available in other districts. • Many boards making Section 9 Proposals repeated similar statements about the desire for local school boards, school-level decision-making, and citizen involvement. Paradoxically, many of the same boards stated that they frequently hold uncontested school board elections, have difficulty finding board members, see low attendance at board meetings, and have low voter turnout in the structures that exist today. • In districts that had unsuccessful unification votes, a variety of explanations were offered for the “no” result. Some cited lack of information, bad information, or misinformation while others cited timing of the vote leading to very low turnout. On the whole, the proffered explanations may or may not be a good indicator of a community’s feelings about what would really occur in a merger and, for the reasons explained more fully below, are not given great weight in this proposed plan. • The Legislature determined that a unified district is the structure most likely to meet the Act 46 goals, including the 2nd Goal: to “lead students to achieve or exceed the State’s Education Quality Standards.” The self-analysis in many Section 9 Proposals underscored the reality that comparison of test scores is generally not helpful in Vermont’s small schools because class sizes are often too small to permit disaggregation by poverty, special needs, gender, or any other factor. In addition, in many instances it was impossible to report data at the school or grade level in way that does not disclose how a particular cohort of students performs on standardized tests. As such, there is often no basis to challenge the Legislature’s presumption that merger will lead to better results.

Abundantly clear throughout the process is that most school boards care greatly about their students. Agency of Education staff who have worked with and spoken with these dedicated public servants are heartened by the grace and concern for students evident from many of the representatives and their proposals.

There were also less encouraging sentiments expressed during Section 10 Conversations. Many school board members discussed their neighbors with what can only be described as thinly disguised socioeconomic bias. Some school board members explicitly stated they only care about their “own” students. Some school board members spoke only in terms of taxes and

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 20 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

taxpayers or the ability of local citizens to maintain, improve, and make decisions about the physical school building itself, with little or no mention of student opportunity, equity, or needs. Lost in this is the fact that all students, whether residing in the district or not, are funded by the same statewide system that has as its foundation the principle that all Vermont students must be afforded educational opportunities that are substantially equal.

This proposal is guided by what the law requires and what is, based on the available evidence, best for all students in Vermont.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 21 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

VI. District Mergers –Proposals and Analysis

Definitions of Essential Terms

A union school district (“USD”) is a single legal entity encompassing two or more towns that is organized to provide for the education of all students of the member towns in the specific grades for which the district was created – e.g., a union high school district (“UHSD”) or a union elementary school district (“UESD”). .

A unified union school district (“UUSD”) is a type of USD that is responsible for the education of resident students of the member towns in all grades, PreK-12, whether by operating all grades, tuitioning all grades, or operating some grades and tuitioning others.26 (The words “merger” and “unification” and their grammatical variations are used interchangeably throughout this document.

A supervisory union (“SU”) is an administrative, planning, and educational service unit that provides services on behalf of member school districts.

A supervisory district (“SD”) is a type of SU that consists of a single district town district (e.g., Burlington; Springfield) or a single UUSD (e.g., Maple Run; Mill River).

The Legislature determined that the “preferred structure” for school districts in Vermont is a UUSD that is large enough to operate as its own SU (i.e., an SD). In addition to the legal and structural flexibility inherent in all UUSDs, a district that is large enough to be its own SD eliminates both the overarching administrative layer of an SU and its board as well as the SU assessments over which voters have no direct control.

The Legislature identified an alternative governance structure (“AGS”) as any structure that is not a “preferred structure,” and indicated that two examples are an SU with multiple member districts (i.e., not an SD) and a UUSD with an average daily membership (“ADM”) that is smaller than the optimal 900.

Average daily membership (“ADM”) is a 20-day full-time equivalency of the number of resident students for whom a district provides education at public expense. It is distinguished from enrollment, which is the number of students enrolled in a school as of a specific date, regardless of their district of residence.

This Part VI of the proposal address potential district governance mergers of school districts into UUSDs and UESDs. SU boundary changes are addressed in Part VII below.

UUSDs as the “Preferred Structures”

When districts merge to form a UUSD, the underlying, merging districts dissolve and the UUSD is a single legal and structural entity even though it may continue to operate multiple community-based schools. This multi-town, unified entity has an inherent flexibility that, if

26 16 V.S.A. § 722. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 22 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

utilized, can lead to increased educational opportunities and equity, improved efficiencies, and decreased costs and tax rates. 27

For example, a UUSD’s structure enables (or makes it much easier for) the district to:

• Share staff, resources, and programs among the schools the UUSD operates. • Offer intradistrict K-6 or K-8 choice among the schools the UUSD operates. • Transform some or all of the UUSD’s elementary schools into magnet schools that focus on and enhance the unique strengths, programs, and environment of each school. • Improve communication within and between schools, departments, and grade levels to support district-wide initiatives such as better alignment of world languages across buildings and more consistent preparation for the transition to high school. • Eliminate administrative redundancies and centralize supports so that administrators are able to focus on their roles as educational leaders. • Create a unified program of educator recruitment, induction, and mentoring, including for paraprofessionals and substitute teachers. • Reconfigure grades among existing buildings to address shrinking population, create more robust peer groups, and provide other educational benefits. • Maintain or improve programming while decreasing costs by, e.g., managing student-to- staff ratios, taking advantage of staff attrition, repurposing facilities, and centralizing maintenance services and training. • Provide clear accountability for student outcomes beginning in prekindergarten and continuing until grade 12.

Even if a UUSD declines to take advantage of the inherent flexibility in its structure, the larger total student population in a UUSD minimizes tax rate fluctuations caused by enrollment changes or by an increased need for special services.

Legal Mandate

As explained more fully above, the law requires that the statewide plan, “to the extent necessary to promote the [educational and fiscal goals of Act 46] move districts into the more sustainable, preferred model of governance.”

The Legislature acknowledged that the statewide plan may also include “alternative governance structures as necessary, such as a supervisory union with member districts or a unified union school district with a smaller average daily membership” “if it is not possible or practicable [to merge districts into the preferred structure] in a manner that adheres to … the …protection for tuition-paying and operating districts” or “that otherwise meets all aspects of” a preferred structure.28

The State Board’s final statewide plan may include multi-district SUs “only if the Board concludes that this alternative structure … is the best means of meeting the [Goals] in a

27 Although most of the new UUSDs created under the voluntary phases of Act 46 are not yet operational, UUSDs have begun to report examples of increased educational opportunities and equity, improved efficiency, and lowered costs. See the January 2018 Report to the General Assembly, attached as Appendix C, at pages 9-11, for examples. 28 Act 46, Sec. 10 (emphasis added). Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 23 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

particular region; and … ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large”29

In general, statutes require that the State Board review every type of education governance proposal not only on its own merits, but also on the impact it may have on the students, the districts, the region, and the State.30

This proposal includes recommendations that the State Board unify the governance structure of some districts. It is important to understand that each recommendation is grounded on the underlying belief that if the State Board requires unification, then the involved districts will embrace the flexibility and opportunities inherent in a larger governance structure and will work together to improve educational opportunities and equity for all students and to increase fiscal efficiencies.

Final Note

The reader will note that certain analyses are repeated across the full set of recommendations. Although this will no doubt be tedious to someone reading the entire document, it was done intentionally so that readers interested only in a particular recommendation would have access to a full analysis of the Secretary’s decision for that proposal.

29 Act 46, Sec. 8(b) (emphasis added). 30 See, e.g., 16 V.S.A. § 261 and § 706c(b); Act 46, Secs. 8–10. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 24 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

A. Existing Union High School Districts and Their Member Elementary Districts

Structurally, a union high school district and its member elementary school districts are the districts most easily unified into a new UUSD. This is especially true if all member elementary school districts share the same operating/tuitioning pattern. For example, if each town elementary district operates a school offering kindergarten through grade 6 and these districts are members of a single union high school operating grades 7-12, then the districts can merge into a single multi-town UUSD that provides for the PreK-12 education of the students in all member towns by operating multiple elementary school buildings and one secondary school without the need for the voters of any elementary district to vote to change its operating/tuitioning pattern.

As a practical matter, this configuration of districts is the most likely to form a UUSD because the member towns have a history of working together to operate the union high school and – perhaps most significantly – are more likely to think of all students enrolled in the union high school as “our” students, rather than the students from Town A or Town B.

Finally, in most instances, the combined ADM of an existing union high school and its member elementary districts renders the UUSD “large enough to support the planning and administrative functions of a supervisory union” as required by 16 V.S.A. § 261(c) – and thus it is capable of being a “preferred structure.”31

The districts discussed in this Part VI, Subpart A are divided into three categories:

• Union High School Districts with member elementary districts that provide for the education of their resident students under the same operating/tuitioning structure are under the subheading “Traditional UHSDs”

• Modified Unified Union School Districts that have one Non Member Elementary District are under the subheading “MUUSDs and NMEDs”

• Union School Districts with at least one member district that has an unlike operating/tuitioning structure are under the subheading “USDs with Un-Like Members”

31 The Legislature’s “Phase 1 – Accelerated Merger” program was designed to encourage creation of UUSDs that are their own SDs by districts where structure, practicality, and size made unification most likely to occur. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 25 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

a. Traditional UHSDs

For each of the five union high school districts addressed under this subheading, all of the member school districts share a common operating/tuitioning structure for the grades for which they are independently responsible.

1. The Brattleboro Union High School District and its Four Member Elementary Districts (Brattleboro; Dummerston; Guilford; Putney)

The Windham Southeast SU consists of the Brattleboro, Dummerston, Guilford, and Putney School Districts, each of which operates an elementary school and each of which is a member of the Brattleboro Union High School District. The SU also includes the Vernon School District, which is a single-town PreK-12 district that operates a school through grade 6 and, beginning in FY 2019, pays tuition for its students in grades 7-12.

The K–12 ADM in FY 2018 is as follows:

Windham Southeast SU (K-12) – Brattleboro (K-6) – 713.15 Dummerston (K-8) – 142.00 Guilford (K-8) –130.90 Putney (K-8) – 156.65 Brattleboro Union High (7/9-12) – 816.27 Vernon (K-6 o / 7-12 t) – 299.45 Brattleboro UHSD (7/9-12) – 816.27

Over the last five years, data reflect that the K-8 ADM for the Brattleboro, Dummerston, and Guilford Districts has steadily declined by between 5.3% and 6.6%. Although the Putney School District saw drastic declines in both FY 2016 and FY 2017, its FY 2018 ADM as risen to be nearly identical to that in FY 2014. The Union High School District experienced the most dramatic loss of ADM, decreasing by nearly 15% since FY 2014.32

The districts of the Windham Southeast SU formed a § 706 study committee in September 2015. The study committee unanimously endorsed a proposal to create a UUSD and the four elementary district boards presented the committee’s report and proposed articles of agreement to the voters on November 7, 2017. The voters did not approve the proposal:

Brattleboro – 375 Yes; 850 No Dummerston – 91 Yes; 473 No Guilford – 161 Yes; 262 No Putney – 171 Yes; 370 No

32 This was due to the Vernon ADM being counted at the Vernon School District as opposed to the Union High School District. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 26 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The Districts’ Sec. 9 Analyses and Proposals

Each of the four member districts of the Brattleboro UHSD submitted a Section 9 Proposal independently of the others, all of which are addressed separately below. The Dummerston District submitted a joint proposal with the Vernon District, which is a member of the SU but not of the Brattleboro Union High School District. The discussion below focuses on the Brattleboro Union School District and its four member districts. See Part VI(C)(b) for a discussion of the Vernon School District.

For more details, see the districts’ Snapshots at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; links to the Section 9 Proposals at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage; and the Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage.

The Brattleboro Elementary School District

Although the current Brattleboro Board Members are not unanimously in favor of the Board’s proposal to create a UUSD, a “majority believe the Articles developed by the WSESU Act 46 Study Committee provide the best solution for meeting the goals and objectives of the law. Additionally, [these members] wish to continue to build upon the momentum gained over the last two years towards achieving a region-wide collaborative approach to the education of the children in [the] region.”

For more than two years, the study committee reviewed and compared educational opportunities, demographics, behavioral and other supports available throughout the school day, along with costs and assessment results. It also compared the current staffing patterns in the various schools with potential staffing in a unified system.

The study committee envisioned that unification would result in a single mission and vision that would benefit all students in the region regardless of the town in which they reside, while preserving what makes each school community unique. Anticipated educational benefits included opportunities to offer comprehensive extended day and summer program throughout the unified district; to allow elementary students to enroll in the school with the size and focus that best fits the student’s needs and preferences; to provide better continuity for students whose families move from one town to another within the unified district; and to attract and retain high quality teachers based on an ability to offer full-time positions and who can be shared or transferred as needed.

The study committee observed that the SU experienced system-wide savings from the previous consolidation of transportation, food service, collective bargaining, and special education and anticipated that district unification would result in additional savings by gaining “flexibility to adjust staffing assignments to maximize student/teacher ratio” as well as through more efficient financial planning, streamlined accounting systems, larger scale purchasing, and consolidation of custodial services. The committee identified initial, ongoing cost reductions of $100,000 in connection with audits, board stipends, and professional and technical services. In addition, it anticipated potential cost reductions of $1 million over a three-to-five year period due to increased student-teacher ratios and implementation of more flexible staffing patterns.

During the April 6 Conversation, the Brattleboro School District Board Chair, who had also been a member of the § 706 study committee, described compromises in the proposed articles of Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 27 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

agreement designed to address concerns expressed both by the smaller districts fearful of school closure and also by Brattleboro, which has a larger and less affluent population than the other districts. The Chair also identified what a majority of the Board considers to be weaknesses in the WSESU Alternative Governance Structure Proposal (“AGS Proposal”), which has been adopted by the Dummerston and Vernon Boards and is addressed below, noting for example that the AGS proposal suggests sharing teachers by hiring them at the SU-level while also stating the importance of maintaining local control.

A member of the Brattleboro Board who does not support district merger expressed concern that unification would result in an unsustainable system. The member provided charts forecasting significant tax rate increases for citizens of Brattleboro, the town with the highest poverty levels. The member is fearful that a tax rate increase, together with his prediction of decreased public participation and transparency (due to decoupling the district from Brattleboro’s unique Representative Town Meeting structure and the adoption of Australian balloting), would lead to the rejection of school budgets and the need for programmatic cuts.

The second board member opposed to district unification opined that citizen engagement is at the core of democracy. Stating that fewer people are voting and that it is increasingly difficult to find candidates to run for school board seats, the member argued that local school boards provide opportunities for community and connections that are undermined by a centralized board, meetings held in other towns, “little representation” on a board, and “no provision for the dissemination of information.” The Dummerston Elementary School District

The Dummerston and Vernon Boards jointly endorsed the analysis and proposal developed by the Alternative Governance Structure (“AGS”) Proposal Committee. Because the Vernon School District is an independent PreK-12 district that, unlike the other town school districts in the SU, is not a member of the union high school district, it is discussed separately below in Part VI(C)(b).

The AGS Proposal urges the State Board to permit the Windham Southeast SU and its member districts to retain its current governance structure – four town elementary districts; one union high school district; and one PreK-12 town district (Vernon), which is K-6 operating / PreK and 7-12 tuitioning.

The AGS Proposal includes a list of actions by which it believes the districts could meet and/or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. For example:

• School-Based Community Leadership Councils (CLCs) – Create a volunteer committee for each PreK-8 district with “at least one school board member, a teacher, a parent, an administrator, an interested citizen, and student representatives, where deemed appropriate … to discuss and work towards an understanding of the needs (and strengths) of each school.” • Opportunity and Equity Committee (OEC) – School Board members serving on the CLCs would meet as representatives to this “official committee.” The OEC Committee would: • Meet “regularly to investigate, propose and recommend equity and efficiency initiatives throughout the [supervisory] union.”

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 28 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

• Participate at full board “carousel” meetings to update the SU board members on “compliance with Act 46 goals and to set collective goals for efficiency and equity.” • Engage the “districts in collaborative efforts and resource sharing to accomplish cross-district equity instead of the current practice of only focusing on local budgets at Town Meetings.” • Perform additional functions described below. • Regional Education Assistance Fund – The AGS Proposal suggests that the “WSESU investigate initiating a Regional Education Assistance Fund. It is proposed that all districts contribute to this fund to improve equity and efficiency, transparency and accountability supervisory-union wide. Alternatively, the REA fund could be created through a process of SU assessment.” • The OEC Committee would “determine the best use for REA funds and make recommendations to the full Supervisory Union board” • “Funding apportionment should be sensitive to factors agreed by the OEC committee and proposed to the SU as appropriate” • “Cost-savings found through increased staff sharing identified by the Opportunity and Equity committee might effectively offset REA contribution costs.” • Limited Student Transfer Policy – The districts would adopt a policy that allowed a limited number of students to enroll in another district’s elementary school, noting that enrollment “flexibility can also provide incentives to parents for enrolling students in the public school system, rather than private schools, as studies have shown that availability of only a single desirable school feature can often make or break a placement decision.”

The AGS Proposal acknowledges that there are inequities in student outcomes within and among the districts. It notes, however, that “consolidation alone will not, in and of itself, remove these differences. Similar disparities exist among the consolidated [sic33] three schools of our largest town district. … Focused remediation within the limits of available resources must occur across any governance system.”

The Proposal states that the current, single-town school board structure “allows for immediate local access by constituents, and these boards can take rapid responsive action. … Our larger consolidated [sic34] school district, Brattleboro, does not provide quite the same level of simple local community access.” At the Conversation, the Dummerston Board indicated that it has never had a problem finding candidates eager to serve on the school board and, in fact, had a contested seat in March.

In addition, the AGS Proposal states that “cross-district problem solving is possible to achieve within a cooperative union structure and has in fact occurred in the past.”

The AGS Proposal summarizes the primary barriers to merger as:

33 The AGS Proposal repeatedly refers to the Brattleboro Elementary School Districts as an example of a “consolidated” district. Brattleboro is not a consolidated district. It is a single-town district that operates more than one school. In structure, it is no different than the nearby Rockingham and Westminster Elementary Districts, both of which operate more than one elementary school. 34 See previous footnote. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 29 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

• The voters of each district rejected the Study Committee’s merger proposal • Putney has capital debt; Dummerston has no capital debt • Differing sizes of towns mean disparate voting power • Vernon cannot be merged because it pays tuition for some grades and does not want to change that practice • Brattleboro’s taxes will increase in a merged district

The Guildford Elementary School District

The Board of the Guilford Elementary School District proposes that the State Board merge the districts as set forth in the § 706 study committee’s report and proposed articles of agreement (see the Brattleboro section above for an overview of the study committee’s conclusions).

In recent years, the Guilford School District has experienced a steady decline in its student population, although its prekindergarten program is at capacity and has 15 or 16 children on a waiting list. The Guilford Board foresees educational opportunities in a merged district to include development of a regional middle school program. The Board notes that because of the district’s small and declining student population it has fewer programs and a higher per pupil cost than Brattleboro, which has a higher level of poverty.

The Guilford Board repeatedly emphasized that the district is not sustainable in its current form. The Board predicts that if Guilford remains a single-town elementary school district, then it will ultimately be forced to eliminate the programs and opportunities that make its school special. It believes that the school is more likely to remain open and vibrant if the districts are merged as a result of, e.g., intra-district school choice; the ability to share programs and staff; and more stable tax rates due to a larger total ADM. In addition, if declining student populations make it necessary to consolidate elementary students into a smaller number of buildings, then the Board believes that merger would enable the unified district to address challenges faced throughout the entire merged district by closing one of Brattleboro’s three elementary school buildings and continuing to operate elementary grades in the more rural buildings.

The Board observes that the AGS Proposal (see the Dummerston section above) adds complexity to the existing group of systems and does not sustainably address issues arising from a small district’s declining population and rising per pupil costs.

The Board’s Section 9 submission states:

The GTSB is very much aware of the driving forces behind Act 46, and has felt first-hand the impacts of declining enrollment and rising costs on Guilford Central School. We have made tough budget decisions and been forced to limit programming opportunities in an effort to keep costs affordable to our tax payers. We have experienced the fluctuations in annual enrollments and the subsequent effect on our ability to respond to the changing needs of our students while controlling costs. We recognize the necessity for imminent change.

Our biggest challenge is the volatility of our cost per student, and the impact that calculation has on our school offerings and our long term

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 30 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

sustainability. The path to compliance with Act 46 for Guilford school must directly address that challenge.

The Putney Elementary School District

After the failed merger vote in November 2017, the Putney School Board surveyed its community in an attempt to better understand “community values, how to address increasing costs in light of decreased enrollment, what to retain or expand in the Articles of Agreement, and recommendations for the future of education in Putney.” The Board considered many options including “keeping our School Board, merging with Dummerston and/or Guilford, Marlboro and Westminster; giving all kids school choice[; and] turning PCS into an independent school.” In addition, Putney Board Members participated in the committee that developed the AGS Proposal (see the Dummerston section, above).

Although the Putney School Board believes that the district will be sustainable only if changes are made, the members do not agree on the nature or scope of those changes. As a result, the Board’s submission under Section 9 “serves as a report of [its] understandings rather than a declaration as to how [the] district should best comply with Act 46 and Act 49.” At least some of its members, however, believe that the AGS Proposal would dilute Putney’s ability to take care of its students without allowing any community in the SU to reap the tax rate benefits of an increased ADM.

As noted above, Putney’s K-8 ADM has risen in FY18 until it is nearly equal to its ADM in FY14. In addition, the district has experienced increasing enrollment in its full-time PreK program. The Board notes that the district has begun to enroll fewer grade 7-8 tuitioning students from Westminster, speculating that the decrease is due both to completion of renovations at the Bellows Falls Middle School and a reported Westminster Board policy discouraging enrollments outside the SU. Nevertheless, the Putney Board is hopeful that the district’s ADM will continue to rise when a new 22 unit housing project is completed and helps to ease the town’s shortage of affordable housing.

The Board’s Section 9 submission notes that more than 40 percent of its elementary students are eligible for the Free and Reduced Price Lunch program, an indicator of poverty. Grants have enabled the district to implement the same enrichment programs as other districts in the SU, including individual and small group after-school tutoring programs, but the Board has had to integrate them more slowly due to budgetary concerns. Despite ADM fluctuations and the needs of its students, the Board has successfully developed a budget that has been just below the excess spending threshold in each of the last five years.

The Board reports that: it has a chronic problem recruiting board members, few residents attend Board meetings, and it is cost-prohibitive to broadcast meetings on community access TV. Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

Under Act 46, a UUSD that is large enough to be its own SD is the “preferred structure” for education governance in Vermont. That is, the Legislature has deemed a unified district to be the structure most likely to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 31 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Act 46 acknowledges that there are regions of the State where it may be necessary for the statewide plan to “include alternative governance structures …, such as a supervisory union with member districts or a unified union school district with a smaller average daily membership.” Nevertheless, the Legislature limits the State Board’s authority to include SUs with multiple member districts in the statewide plan by declaring that the “State Board shall approve the creation, expansion, or continuation of a supervisory union only if the Board concludes that this alternative structure:

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

Therefore, Vermont law requires the State Board to look to the entire region when making its determinations, and not just at the possible consequences of merger on any one of the potentially merging districts.

A large percentage of the electorate voted against unification in all four towns of the BUHSD. Nevertheless, the Section 9 Proposals offered by the four member districts are not uniformly in opposition to or in support of merger: Boards of two districts propose that the State Board require the districts to create a UUSD (one by a closely divided Board vote); the Board of one district believes that changes are necessary to ensure sustainability, but does not recommend any specific actions; and the fourth Board endorses the AGS proposal, which proposes to retain the current governance structure, and form committees to achieve the goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. Each of the Boards, in its own way, acknowledges that the districts must begin to interact in a different, more collaborative manner in order to sustainably meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46.

The AGS Proposal submitted by the Dummerston Board alleges that differing levels of capital debt are a barrier to merger. Basing a decision on debt levels is short-sighted, and – given the Legislature’s identification of a UUSD as the best means to sustainably achieve the Act 46 goals – should not be the sole or primary reason to prevent merger where it is otherwise the best alternative. Although assumption of a portion of one district’s capital debt may result in tax increases under the districts’ modeling, the increases may be mitigated by savings that could result from approaching the possibilities of merger in a creative manner. In addition, today’s district with little or no debt will tomorrow become the district that needs a new roof. In other words, long-term decision making should not be based on point-in-time circumstances. Finally, capital debt does not last forever, it is eventually paid off. Districts need to take the long view when determining what will best serve their students, particularly in small districts with steadily declining populations, increasing budgets, or unstable tax rates.

Similarly, a contention that unification will raise tax rates for one or more groups of taxpayers cannot be the sole reason to prevent merger, particularly where there is no evidence that the calculation resulting in the projected increase accounted for the potential savings that can be realized by the creative and efficient use of the unified district’s resources and flexibility. Experience throughout the State demonstrates that decreasing student population in a small district is not sustainable and ultimately leads to a downward spiral of increasing tax rates,

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 32 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

reduced programming, and frequent staff turnover. Larger governance structures have been shown to provide the flexibility needed to mitigate annual budget and tax increases, moderate tax rate fluctuations, and allow small or struggling schools to stay open and programs to remain intact or be expanded.

Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” because of community opposition. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into this structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The law does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision.

It is also worth noting that a school board is charged with making decisions that are best for its students and its taxpayers and it is understandable that a school board endeavors to “respect” the will of the community. In contrast, Act 46 and longstanding statutory law require the State Board to decide what is best for the district, the region, and the State – and, given the statutory purpose underlying the State Board’s existence, that means the State Board must focus on what is best for the education of the State’s children.

Some Board members claim that maintaining decision-making at the local board-level and approving district budgets at Town Meeting are the best ways to ensure responsiveness, transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility and that a centralized board, unified budget, and Australian balloting are not. It is understandable that community members would mourn transition from a school-centric budget that is amended and voted on “from the floor” to a multi-school budget developed by a unified board and decided by Australian ballot. Given the Legislature’s presumption that the “preferred structure” with centralized decision-making is the best way to achieve all the goals of Act 46, including transparency and accountability, the shift to a unified board and Australian ballots is not a reason to preclude the State Board from requiring merger.

Some variation of the transition from local to more centralized decision-making has occurred in each of the new UUSDs created under the voluntary merger programs enacted by the Legislature. In most of those unified districts, the articles of agreement require formation of community-based entities that advise and otherwise serve as a bridge between the local community and the unified board. In addition, it is important to note that, other than the initial vote voluntarily to form a UUSD and the election of the board members, statute does not require Australian balloting. In fact, some of the UUSDs formed since Act 46 have eschewed a switch to Australian ballots and will instead continue to debate and vote on their unified budgets and other public questions “from the floor.”

A related concern has also been expressed that a smaller district’s proportionally smaller representation on a unified board will lead to: reduced programmatic offerings in favor of lowering tax rates or at urging of communities perceived as less willing to support budgetary increases at the polls; failure to perform needed or desired structural improvements to school buildings in smaller towns; and the ultimate closure of smaller, more rural elementary schools. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 33 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Even assuming that the members of a unified board are incapable of learning to view all of the district’s students as “our” students rather than as students of “either my town or some other town,” this concern has little merit if the merging districts allocate members of an equal or more similar number to each town under the Hybrid Model of board representation.

The Dummerston Board’s AGS Proposal argues, in part, that merger will decrease responsiveness, transparency, and accountability by eliminating local control of the region’s elementary schools. Many of the Board’s proposals, however, result in less local control, responsiveness, transparency, and accountability than are found not only in a unified district but also in the current structures the Dummerston Board wishes to protect.

For example, the AGS Proposal suggests that the smaller, more rural districts can increase programmatic offerings and create a more stable workforce of full-time staff by sharing teachers and other professionals who would be hired by the SU. In such an arrangement, the respective cost of each SU-level employee would be allocated to the districts in which the employee works. The local board would thus have a diminished personnel-related role in relation to the SU’s employee and the voters would have no ability to control or reject the costs the SU allocates to the local budget.

The Dummerston Board alternatively suggests that each interested district could hire the same individual for a fractional position, all of which would total 1.0 FTE. Small districts have employed this approach throughout the State for many years. Although it is at times a successful strategy, more often districts report either that highly valued employees leave for a single full-time position with full benefits in a larger, often unified, district or that the candidates interested in cobbling together employment through a series of part-time contracts are less well qualified. While this approach may be all that is available in some regions of the state – especially where districts cannot merge unless the voters agree to change the current operating/tuitioning structures – it is an inherently unstable one.

The Dummerston School Board’s AGS Proposal also suggests the possible creation of a Regional Education Assistance Fund to promote equity and sustainability among the districts’ elementary schools. An Opportunity and Equity Committee, comprising the school board members of each proposed School-Based Leadership Council, would meet “regularly to investigate, propose and recommend equity and efficiency initiatives throughout the [supervisory] union.” The Committee would also “determine the best use for REA funds and make recommendations to the full Supervisory Union board.”

The Dummerston Board proposes either that all districts would voluntarily contribute to the Regional Education Assistance Fund or that the SU would allocate a proportionate cost of the Fund to each district for inclusion in that district’s local budget. While undoubtedly creative and well-intentioned, this intricate structure assumes that voters in each independent district will voluntarily agree to raise their own taxes to support a fund that will ensure equity in other districts – but that those same voters would not be willing to agree to support increased taxes to support a unified budget working to support equitable opportunities for the students of the entire region. Alternatively, if the SU were to allocate a proportional share of the Regional Education Assistance Fund’s costs to each member district, then those costs would become one more line item in the local budget over which the local voters have no control – and which could negatively affect their ability to fully fund the programs in their own elementary school. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 34 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

If the Dummerston Board’s suggestion that “[c]ost-savings found through increased staff sharing identified by the Opportunity and Equity committee might effectively offset [the Regional Education Assistance Fund] contribution costs,” then similar cost-savings in a unified district could very well lower the increased tax rates that the Board fears are likely to occur in Brattleboro. Finally, finances aside, the Secretary can find no argument supporting creation of a multi-layered structure and special funding mechanism to identify inequities and then to raise and provide funding to alleviate them, when a unified district and its board are designed to accomplish the same result in a simpler and more sustainable manner.

The AGS Proposal’s simplest suggestion – a multi-district policy permitting limited elementary school choice – is a reasonable option for districts where merger is not possible or practicable. For the member elementary districts of the BUHSD, however, the proposal is not as effective as the broader and more accessible ability to support elementary school choice in a unified district, much less the “best” approach for the region.

The Secretary agrees with the districts when they state their beliefs that their current structures are not sustainable and will lead to reductions in programming and staff. Guilford in particular recognizes current trends and believes that the best chance for preserving what is unique about its school lies in making the structural changes that would allow the ability to share programs. It also sees in merger the opportunity to participate in a regional middle school while retaining its elementary school. While not all the schools are feeling the effects of declining students as acutely as Guilford, all of them face the issue.

Of the BUHSD member boards making proposals, the Dummerston School Board was the only board that unambiguously proposed a result other than merger. That Board’s argument that the AGS Proposal is the “best” means of creating a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals is not convincing enough to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD is the “preferred” means of doing so.

No facts have been presented that support a conclusion that merger is not “possible” or “practicable” in this instance, nor can the Agency identify any other facts that would do so. In addition, the unified district would be of a size sufficient to support the functions of an SU, thereby creating what the Legislature has determined to be a “preferred structure.”35

The Secretary trusts that the communities’ concern for the well-being of all their children will impel them eventually to embrace the opportunities of a unified structure and work together to improve educational opportunities and equity for all students in the region.

35 The State Board would need to decide whether to move the Vernon School District’s membership to another SU, such as the Windham Central SU, in order to enable a Brattleboro-Dummerston-Guilford Putney UUSD to operate as a single-district SU. Alternatively, the State Board might choose to maintain the Windham Southeast SU structure with the B-D-G-P UUSD and Vernon District – and possibly other districts, such as Marlboro – as members. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 35 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for each district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the governance structures of the Brattleboro Union High School District, the Brattleboro School District, the Dummerston School District, the Guilford School District, and the Putney School District into a single unified union school district that provides for the education of its PreK-12 students by operating multiple schools.

The Secretary makes this recommendation because the Legislature has determined that a larger governance structure, with its inherent flexibility and opportunities, is the best means of meeting the Act 46 goals, which is the loadstone for this document. However, this recommendation is made with the full awareness that without the commitment of the communities to create a new definition of “us,” potential opportunities will not be realized and unification may be blamed for any encountered difficulties.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 36 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

2. The Missisquoi Valley Union High School District and its Three Member Elementary Districts (Franklin; Highgate; Swanton)

The Franklin Northwest SU consists of the Franklin, Highgate, and Swanton School Districts, each of which operates an elementary school and is a member of the Missisquoi Valley Union High School District for grades 7-12. The SU also includes the Sheldon School District, which is a single-town PreK-12 district that operates a school through grade 8 and pays tuition for its students in grades 9-12.

The K–12 ADM in FY 2018 is as follows:

Franklin Northwest SU (K-12) – 2,000.50 Franklin (K-6) – 99.1 Highgate (K-6) (K-6)– 300.10 Swanton (K-6) – 521.1 Missisquoi Valley Union (three towns; 7-12) – 747.79 Sheldon (K-8 o / 9-12 t) – 338.60

Data reflect that since FY 2014 the Franklin’s ADM has declined by 23.86%, while Missisquoi has experienced a more modest decline of 10%. The ADM for the Highgate and Swanton Districts have fluctuated during the last five years, ending in a slight increase of 6.4% and 0.96% respectively. Districts’ Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The districts submitted a joint Section 9 Proposal. The discussion below focuses on the Missisquoi Union District and its member districts. See Part VI(C)(a) for a discussion of the Sheldon School District.

The Franklin Northeast SU districts did not participate in a § 706 study committee or present a merger proposal to their voters. In November 2017, however, they asked their voters if they approved submitting a Section 9 Proposal recommending that the districts and SU maintain their current governance structures. The voters in each district supported the recommendation as follows:

Franklin -- 161 Yes / 0 No Highgate – 103 Yes / 1 No Swanton– 148 Yes / 105 No Sheldon – 87 Yes / 0 No

The Section 9 Proposal recommends approval of an “Enhanced Alternative Governance Structure” – i.e., maintaining the same governance structure while addressing weaknesses identified during the process of self-analysis in order to “Act Merged – Stay Local.” The Districts state that it “is not the intention of our ‘Enhanced FNWSU AGS’ to be satisfied with just meeting the goals of Act 46. FNWSU intends to explore new ideas which may have never been tried, or even thought of, to exceed the goals of Act 46.”

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 37 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

staff have equal access to professional development opportunities as well. Turnover varies from school to school, but the Highgate District has had a high administrator turnover (four principals in seven years). The districts have experienced the phenomenon of young professionals teaching in the Franklin Northwest SU districts for a few years to gain experience before accepting a position in Chittenden County.

The Section 9 Proposal reports that although the districts have aligned their curricula, they do not have uniform results on standardized testing and are examining methods of delivery of instruction and accountability. Further, the districts have determined that although information flows well from the elementary schools to the UHSD, the reverse is not true. The districts report that they are working to address this as well.

Some of the specific improvements and action steps identified in the Section 9 proposal include:

• “Research and implement” elementary/middle school choice among the districts of the SU; possibilities include: five students in and out per year with school board approval; splitting ADM 50/50 between the sending and receiving districts.36 • “Investigate a foreign student/out of state student team to research and develop a system designed to attract foreign and out of state students to enroll at” MVU MS/HS – from China, Canada, and New York. • “Implement curriculum focus and accountability measures to ensure all students are provided equitable learning opportunities (i.e., all teachers using and implementing same curriculum) and learning successes.” • “Establish an ‘Instructional Resource Team’ to promote access to learning opportunities and ensure all students are afforded educational opportunity.” • “create site-based school improvement team” (Principal, Guidance Counselor, Math Teacher, Literacy Teacher, SpEd Teacher) – “to create, monitor, and update all site-based continuous school improvement plans.” • “formally establish[] an SU level school improvement team.” • “Continue exploring and sharing resources” although the Proposal notes that “Many of the efficiency measures being adopted by merging districts … have already been implemented by FNWSU.”

In support of maintaining the same governance structure while working to improve upon identified weaknesses, the Section 9 proposal makes the following points:

36 This could be done only if the Legislature amends current law. 37 The text of the question voted by the electorates of Franklin, Highgate Sheldon and Swanton was, “Should the [Town] School District, with other members of the Franklin Northwest Supervisory Union, propose to the Vermont State Board of Education to enhance the current operation of the Franklin, Highgate, MVU, Sheldon and Swanton school boards (which is an enhance Alternative Governance Structure as defined in the Act 46/49 law)?” Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 38 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

• Sheldon has different structure than other Franklin Northwest SU districts and so cannot be merged. • The districts have not found evidence that merging will improve test scores.

For more details, see the districts’ Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

The Section 9 Proposal asserts that the Franklin Elementary School District has high test scores and low taxes and that merger will increase the cost per pupil and tax rates in Franklin without improving student performance. Even assuming the accuracy of the assertion, the Legislature requires the State Board to have a regional focus as it merges districts where necessary to create sustainable structures. In addition, the Franklin District, which is far smaller than the Highgate and Swanton Districts, has been experiencing a steady, significant decline in its student population to a degree not faced elsewhere in the SU. Experience throughout the State demonstrates that decreasing student population in a small district is not sustainable and ultimately leads to a downward spiral of increasing tax rates, reduced programming, and frequent staff turnover (which the Section 9 Proposal states is already an issue). Larger governance structures have been shown to provide the flexibility needed to mitigate annual budget and tax increases, moderate tax rate fluctuations, and allow small or struggling schools to stay open and programs to remain intact or be expanded. Experience of unified districts also suggests that the best way to ensure the continued operation of the Highgate and Swanton elementary schools may be to form a UUSD that can deploy resources efficiently in support of the schools. Furthermore, a contention that unification will raise tax rates for one or more

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 39 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

groups of taxpayers cannot be the sole reason to prevent merger, particularly where there is no evidence that the calculation resulting in the projected increase accounted for the potential savings that can be realized by the creative and efficient use of the unified district’s resources and flexibility.

The Section 9 Proposal states that the residents of all districts “made it clear” in the November 2017 vote that they want to maintain local control and that “town identity was critical to them.” Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” because of community opposition, however. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into this structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The law does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision.

It is also worth noting that a school board is charged with making decisions that are best for its students and its taxpayers. It is understandable that a school board endeavors to implement the will of the community. In contrast, Act 46 and longstanding statutory law require the State Board to decide what is best for the district, the region, and the State – and, given the statutory purpose underlying the State Board’s existence, that means the State Board must focus on what is best for the education of the State’s children.

Inherent in the desire to maintain “local control” and “identity” is the premise that maintaining decision-making at the local board level and approving district budgets at Town Meeting are the best ways to ensure responsiveness, transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility and that a centralized board, unified budget, and Australian balloting are not. It is understandable that community members would mourn transition from a school-centric budget, which often is amended and voted on “from the floor,” to a multi-school budget developed by a unified board and decided by Australian ballot. Given the Legislature’s presumption that the “preferred structure” with centralized decision-making is the best way to achieve all the goals of Act 46, including transparency and accountability, the shift to a unified board and Australian ballots is not a reason to preclude the State Board from requiring merger.

The Section 9 Proposal suggests that the elementary districts can increase programmatic offerings and create a more stable workforce of full-time staff by sharing teachers and other professionals who would be hired by the SU. In such an arrangement, the respective cost of Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 40 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

each SU-level employee would be allocated to the districts in which the employee works. The local board would thus have a diminished personnel-related role in relation to the SU’s employee and the voters would have no ability to control or reject the costs the SU allocates to the local budget – which could negatively affect their ability to fully fund the programs in their own elementary school.

Alternatively, interested districts could hire the same individual for a fractional position, all of which would total 1.0 FTE. Small districts have employed this approach throughout the State for many years. Although it is at times a successful strategy, more often districts report either that highly valued employees leave for a single full-time position with full benefits in a larger, often unified, district or that the candidates interested in cobbling together employment through a series of part-time contracts are less well qualified. While this approach may be all that is available in some regions of the state – especially where districts cannot merge unless the voters agree to change the current operating/tuitioning structures – it is an inherently unstable one.

The Section 9 Proposal cites Sheldon’s different operating and tuitioning structure as a barrier to merger. This statement is correct only as it relates to merger of all five districts within the SU. There is no such barrier, however, to the merger of the Franklin, Highgate, Swanton, and Missisquoi Union High School Districts.

The Franklin Northwest SU districts approached the Act 46-required self-analysis in an earnest manner and, for example, identified disparities in assessment results and “gaps” in middle school programming. They report that they are examining ways in which their methods can improve and are developing action plans.

Many of the more specific action items listed in the Section 9 Proposal (creation of an Instructional Resource Team, site-based school improvement teams, and an SU-level school improvement team) are approaches that have been employed for many years in other districts or are elements of unified union school districts. In addition, the Section 9 Proposal’s specified action items primarily are to “continue doing” or “build upon” what the districts already do, are offered as items to be studied with no particular plan of action offered at this time, or are services that an SU is already statutorily required to provide on behalf of member districts (e.g., special education services). While these approaches may well yield improvements, they do not result in an “Enhanced Alternative Governance Structure,” but rather are standard elements of sound SU and district operation.

Even the Franklin Northwest districts’ proposal to explore limited multi-district elementary school choice is not the “best” approach for the region. Although it is a reasonable option for districts where merger is not possible or practicable, a program of limited multi-district choice is not as effective as the broader and more accessible ability to support elementary school choice in a unified district. In addition, the strategy to share ADM 50/50 between the sending and receiving districts cannot occur unless the Legislature is willing to amend current law.

The Section 9 Proposal’s plan to “investigate a foreign student/out of state student team to research and develop a system designed to attract foreign and out of state students to enroll at” the union high school might be an interesting option to explore. Even if pursued and

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 41 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

implemented, however, it provides no assurance of sustainability for student numbers or funding sources.

The juxtaposition of the Section 9 Proposal’s focus on identifying one district’s test scores as favorable and unlikely to improve with merger with the acknowledgement that there are disparities in assessment results and “gaps” in middle school programming exposes a parochial approach to regional analysis. As is often the case in Vermont’s very small districts, the Section 9 Proposal’s self-analysis and conclusions underscore the reality that comparison of test scores is generally not helpful because in most instances the class sizes are too small to permit disaggregation by poverty, special needs, gender, or any other factor. In addition, in many instances it is not possible to report data at the school or grade level in way that does not disclose how a particular cohort of students performs on standardized tests. As such, there is no basis to conclude that merger will not lead to better results when the Legislature determined that a unified district is the structure most likely to meet the Act 46 goals, including the 2nd Goal: to “lead students to achieve or exceed the State’s Education Quality Standards.”

No facts have been presented to support a conclusion that merger is not “possible” or “practicable” in this instance, nor can the Agency identify any other facts that would do so. In addition, the unified district would be of a size sufficient to support the functions of an SU, thereby creating what the Legislature has determined to be a “preferred structure.”

The Franklin Northwest districts’ argument that the proposed “Enhanced Alternative Governance Structure” is the “best” means of creating a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals is not convincing enough to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD is the “preferred” means of doing so.

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for each district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the governance structures of the Missisquoi Valley Union High School District, the Franklin School District, the Highgate School District, and the Swanton School District into a single unified union school district that provides for the education of its PreK-12 students by operating multiple schools.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 42 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

3. The Oxbow Union High School District and its Two Member Elementary Districts (Bradford; Newbury)

The Orange East SU includes the Oxbow Union High School District and its two member districts: the Bradford Incorporated District and the Newbury School District, both of which operate an elementary school. The SU also includes the Waits River Valley USD and the Thetford School District.

At is May 2018 meeting the State Board redrew the SU’s boundaries pursuant to 16 V.S.A. § 261 to include the Blue Mountain USD. The Section 9 Proposals were submitted and the Conversations occurred prior to this boundary adjustment.

The K–12 ADM of all districts in the SU for FY 2018 are as follows:

Orange East SU (with Blue Mountain) – 1,737.5 (1,343.5 without Thetford) Newbury (K-6) – 137 Bradford ID (K-6) – 221 Oxbow Union High (7-12) – 273.83 [total: 631.83]

Blue Mountain Union (three towns; K-12 o) – 380.25 Thetford (K-6 o / 7-12 designating – 394 Waits River Valley Union – 332.42

Data reflect that the ADM of both the Bradford and Newbury Districts have fluctuated during the last five years, although the trend has generally been a slight increase. The Oxbow Union High School District has similarly seen fluctuating numbers, but has decreased by approximately 38 students, or 12%, over the last five years.

Districts’ Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Bradford and Newbury Districts entered into a § 706 Study Committee with the Blue Mountain Union School District, which at the time was its own single-district SU to the north. The study committee did not propose creation of a unified district and so the boards did not present such a proposal to the State Board or their electorate.

Although the Bradford, Newbury, and Oxbow Union Districts acknowledge the educational and financial weaknesses of the districts, the absence of a positive working relationship among the schools boards and the SU board, and the potential benefits of increased collaboration and even of merger, the three districts did not submit a joint Section 9 Proposal. Rather, the Newbury School District submitted one proposal and the Bradford and Oxbow Union Districts submitted a separate and different one. Both proposals are set out separately below.

For more details, see the districts’ Snapshots at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and links to the Section 9 Proposals at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

See also the discussion of the Blue Mountain USD, which is #21 in Part VI(C)(a).

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 43 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The Newbury School District

The Newbury District currently exchanges elementary students with the Blue Mountain Union School District on a one-to-one basis. The Section 9 Proposal acknowledges that assessment results for Newbury Elementary students “are below state norms.” Although the Board “does not view test scores as the most effective metric for measuring student learning,” it does use the results to inform its decisions. As a result, the district’s “Continuous Improvement Plan offers specific actions that will be undertaken to address areas where the test scores indicate performance gaps,” such as using an instructional coach for PBL [proficiency-based learning] design, including interventionists and special educators during PBL design meetings, and monitoring student data for growth.

When discussing the Oxbow Union School District, the Newbury Board notes that the middle/high school is “sufficiently large enough to provide the array of opportunities required to meet the EQA standards.” Nevertheless, the Newbury Board is “especially intrigued by the possibilities” of Blue Mountain District’s membership in the Orange East SU. “By coordinating the programs offered at the Middle and High School levels at the SU level, it would be possible to facilitate the sharing of staff between the two schools and to create magnet programs at each of the schools.” In addition, through such an expansion of the SU, “it may be possible to provide shared staffing and/or enhanced special education programs among [the Bradford, Newbury, and Blue Mountain] elementary schools”

The Newbury Board notes that the elementary district’s “overall cost-per-equalized student is not out of line with other comparable districts in Vermont” and that its student-to-teacher ratios are above State averages.

A survey of residents provided the Newbury Board with “clear evidence that the communities not only value the schools, they value the local, fundamental democratic structures: the town meeting and the elected town school boards.”

During its March 19 Conversation, the Board observed that there are possible benefits in governance merger, but that positive, productive relationships among the schools districts do not exist. The Board members believe that the districts and their school boards should first work on building trust and then make governance changes.

After “examining the potentially adverse consequences of a forced merger and the potential benefits of improved collaboration at the SU level, the current OESU districts are likely to be more open to working collaboratively to achieve economies of scale and more willing to exploring programs the SU can offer more effectively and efficiently” as distinct, independent districts.

In addition, the “Newbury School Board is reluctant to proceed with any merger discussions until the status of Thetford, Waits River, and Blue Mountain is clear. If any one of these districts is not incorporated in a SU with Newbury, the Newbury School does not believe a preferred governance structure is feasible.”

Accordingly, the Newbury School Board’s Section 9 Proposal, submitted prior to the State Board’s May 2018 SU boundary adjustment, proposes that all five districts within the Orange

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 44 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

East SU retain their current governance structures and that the Blue Mountain District be added as a sixth member district.

The Bradford Incorporated District and the Oxbow Union High School Districts

While acknowledging many of the same struggles as the Newbury School Board, the joint Section 9 Proposal of the Bradford and Oxbow Union Boards reaches a different conclusion.

The Bradford and Oxbow Union Boards state that the Orange East districts “are not yet fully compliant with the mandates of” 16 VSA § 261a (special education and transportation services, etc.). Not only do the districts lack a history of working together, there are “long-term, systemic challenges within the OESU governance structure.”

The Boards conclude that “there is a functional and cultural need for change if our schools are to provide effective 21st Century learning experiences.” The Section 9 Proposal avers:

It will be impossible, based on past and current practice, to improve learning opportunities for students until a governance structure places everyone at the table and a common vision is the first order of business.”

At their March 23 Conversation, the Board Chairs stated that even if there are split votes on a UUSD board, the board and the unified district itself would be going in a single direction.

As a result, this Section 9 Proposal suggests that the State Board merge the Bradford, Newbury, Oxbow Union, and Blue Mountain Union Districts – and possibly the Rivendell Interstate District – into a single unified district. The districts’ written proposal envisions that the Orange East SU would have three member districts: the newly unified district (above), the Waits River USD, and the Thetford School District. At the March Conversation, the Chairs suggested that perhaps the newly unified district could be its own single-district SU by moving the Waits River USD into the new Central VT SU and Thetford into the White River SU.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 45 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

Therefore, the Vermont law requires the State Board to look to the entire region when making its determinations, and not just at the possible consequences of merger on any one of the potentially merging districts.

The Newbury Board’s Section 9 Proposal states that its voters have provided it with “clear evidence that the communities not only value the schools, they value the local, fundamental democratic structures: the town meeting and the elected town school boards.” Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” because of community opposition, however. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into this structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The law does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 46 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

There is no structural barrier to the merger of the Bradford, Newbury, and Oxbow Union School Districts. In addition, both proposals acknowledge the weaknesses of the current districts, the lack of collaboration among the districts and the boards, and the potential benefits of merger. The primary difference between the proposals is timing.

The Newbury District’s comment is well-taken: both collaboration among independent districts and merger of governance structures have the best chance of being successful if the parties first develop a relationship of trust and respect. It is important to note, however, that the districts’ long-standing enmity has precluded the Orange East SU from fully complying with legislative mandates of 16 VSA § 261a. There is nothing in their history suggesting that the districts, if independent, would now begin to build a positive, collaborative relationship that would allow them, collectively, to meet and exceed the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. We can have no confidence that, without a structural change, the districts will develop the positive relationship that would lead, eventually, to a merged governance system.

There is more merit to the argument in the Bradford and Oxbow Union Districts’ joint proposal that it “will be impossible, based on past and current practice, to improve learning opportunities for students until a governance structure places everyone at the table and a common vision is the first order of business” and that “there is a functional and cultural need for change if our schools are to provide effective 21st Century learning experiences.” In essence, collaboration will only be possible if the old structures and relationships are ended and replaced with a single entity that pursues a single – although not always unanimous – vision.

As stated above, the circumstances of Blue Mountain Union School District are relevant to this discussion. Under 16 V.S.A § 261, the State Board may review and regroup the supervisory unions of the state in such a manner as to “afford increased efficiency or greater convenience and economy and facilitate prekindergarten through grade 12 curriculum planning and coordination as changed conditions may seem to require.” This authority preexisted Act 46 and may be exercised independently of the authority and responsibility given to the State Board by Act 46. Pursuant to this authority, at its May16, 2018 meeting, the State Board approved reassignment of the Blue Mountain Union District to the Orange East Supervisory Union, as requested by Blue Mountain. The request had been motivated by the fact that Blue Mountain otherwise would have been without any supervisory union services as of July 1, 2018 due to the departure of its superintendent and business manager.

This reassignment does not dictate a decision under Act 46, but it is significant that the addition of Blue Mountain would bring the ADM of Orange East to 1,012.08. The Newbury District’s argument – that the “current OESU districts are likely to be more open to working collaboratively to achieve economies of scale and more willing to explore programs the SU can offer more effectively and efficiently” if they remain distinct, independent districts and that retaining the current district structure is the “best” means of creating a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals – is not convincing enough to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD is the “preferred” means of doing so.

No facts have been presented that support a conclusion that merger is not “possible” or “practicable” in this instance, nor can the Agency identify any other facts that would do so.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 47 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for each district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the governance structures of the Oxbow Union High School District, the Bradford Incorporated District, and the Newbury School District into a single unified union school district that provides for the education of its PreK-12 students by operating multiple schools.

See also the discussion of the Blue Mountain Union School District at #21 of Part VI(C)(a) below for the Secretary’s consideration of whether the State Board should also require the Bradford, Newbury, and Oxbow Union Districts to merge with the Blue Mountain Union School District.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 48 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

4. The Spaulding Union High School District and its Two Member Elementary Districts (Barre City; Barre Town)

Although the deadlines have expired for most of the “voluntary mergers” contemplated by Act 46 and the earlier laws it incorporates, it is still possible for districts to explore governance unification during the period leading to the State Board’s issuance of the final statewide plan. For example, districts can consider creating:

• A unified union school district created pursuant to 16 V.S.A. chapter 11 that is eligible for tax rate reductions and other transitional assistance pursuant to Act 46, Sec. 7 (Phase 3 merger activity) • A unified union school district created pursuant to 16 V.S.A. chapter 11 that is not eligible for tax rate reductions or other transitional assistance. • An interstate school district created pursuant to state and federal law.

The Barre City and Barre Town School Districts are organized to provide for the PreK-8 education of resident students and are members of the Spaulding Union High School District for grades 9-12. Each of the three districts operates a school. The combined K-12 ADM of the three districts, the sole members of the Barre SU, is 2,130 in FY 2018.

A study committee of the Barre SU districts developed a unification proposal approved by the State Board of Education on October 18, 2016. On November 8, 2016, the voters of the Barre Town School District voted not to approve the proposal and the voters of the Barre City School District voted to approve it. Because the proposal identified both districts as “necessary,” the districts did not merge into a new unified union school district and the study committee dissolved.

The districts of the Barre SU complied with the requirements of Act 46, Sec. 9 by submitting a letter dated December 15, 2017 and signed by the chairs of the two elementary districts and the union high school district. The letter identified the districts’ intention to explore unification under Act 46, Sec. 7 (Phase 3), stating in part:

In an attempt to meet the goals of Act 46, [the districts] will form a new study committee … with the intent of … determining the advisability of merging to form an operational Supervisory District from the [districts of the] current Barre Supervisory Union by July 1, 2019. Barre Town formally voted to enter into a new § 706 study on October 4, 2017 and Barre City on November 13, 2017.38

The letter indicated that the boards had “addressed the requirements of Section 9” in the original merger proposal and that the boards “plan to revisit the analysis and articles of agreement in the new study.”

38 Under 16 V.S.A. § 706, the boards of districts vote whether to create a study committee and appoint representatives to that committee, which can be a combination of board members and non-board members. The member town districts of a union elementary or union high school district are presumed to represent the interests of the union district. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 49 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Although the study committee has not yet identified specific dates, the December 15 letter indicates that the committee intends to present a new proposal and articles to the State Board “in August, 2018 or earlier” and to the voters “by September, 2018 or earlier.”

The Barre SU districts declined to schedule a Conversation under Act 46, Sec. 10.

For more details, see the districts’ Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and the first Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

The timing of the currently-available voluntary merger options complicates the ability of the Secretary to issue the proposed plan by June 1, 2018 and – more significantly – the State Board to issue its final statewide plan by November 30, 2018. Nevertheless, the Legislature clearly contemplated that districts would continue to have the opportunity to pursue governance consolidation during the period in which the statewide plan is being developed (e.g., the Legislature enacted both the Sec. 7 merger possibilities and the Sec. 10 statewide plan deadline in the same piece of legislation), and that new unified union school districts created during this period would be eligible for tax rate reductions and other transitional assistance if they met certain criteria.

The fact that both communities voted to establish a new § 706 Study Committee represents a genuine effort toward reaching a compromise and there appears to be a strong possibility that the districts will unify.

The Secretary’s ability to comment is limited because it is impossible to predict whether the study committee will develop a final proposal and, if so, whether the voters of both “necessary” districts will approve unification. By the time the State Board is required to issue its final statewide plan, the Board will have the information it needs to make its decisions.

Accordingly, in light of this development and out of respect for the Legislature’s decision to provide the districts with this opportunity to merge voluntarily and obtain tax rate reductions, the Secretary makes no recommendation regarding the governance structure of the Barre City, Barre Town, and Spaulding Union Districts at this time so that the Agency does not insert itself into community discussions and potential votes of the electorate. The Secretary anticipates that the State Board will review and may potentially address the governance structure of these districts in its final statewide plan.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 50 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

5. The Union 32 High School District and its Five Member Elementary Districts (Berlin; Calais; East Montpelier; Middlesex; Worcester)

The Washington Central SU consists of the Berlin, Calais, East Montpelier, Middlesex, and Worcester School Districts, each of which operates an elementary school and is a member of the Union 32 High School District for grades 7-12.

The K–12 ADM in FY 2018 is as follows:

Washington Central SU – 1,350.21 Berlin (K-6) – 182.55 Calais (K-6) – 108.90 East Montpelier (K-6) – 189.00 Middlesex (K-6) – 142.60 Worcester (K-6) – 63.10 U-32 (7-12) – 664.06

The FY 2018 ADM for other districts and groups of districts in the region that similarly operate K-12, are:

Barre SU – 2,130.07 Cabot – 150.43 Montpelier-Roxbury USD – 1,099.42 Twinfield Union – 306.74

Data reflect fluctuations and a general decline in ADM throughout the Washington Central SU of an average of approximately 4% from FY 2014 through FY 2018:

• The Berlin Elementary District has fluctuated dramatically during the last five years, with an 11% decline (20 fewer students) between FY 2014 and FY 2015; a 13% increase (22 more students) between FY 2016 and FY 2017; and a 5% decline (10 fewer students) between FY 2017 and FY 2018. • The Calais Elementary District has had smaller fluctuations over the last five years, with its lowest ADM currently in FY 2018 (ADM starting at 112 students in FY 2012, followed by: 116.0; 111.35; 112.0; and 108.9) • The East Montpelier Elementary District has also had fluctuations, and although the district’s ADM has increased during the last three years (after dropping 13% between FY 2014 (197) and FY 2015 (171.45)), the FY 2018 ADM (189) is 4% lower than it was at its highest point in FY 2014 • The Middlesex Elementary District rose nearly 5% from FY 2014 (154.65) to its highest point in FY 2016 (162.2) and then declined 12% in the intervening years to a five-year low in FY 2018 (142.6) • The Worcester Elementary District also had its largest ADM in FY 2016 (70), and although its FY 2014 and FY 2018 numbers are nearly identical to each other (62.8 and 63.1), it is the only elementary district that does not have a smaller ADM in FY 2018 than in FY 2014 • The Union 32 Middle/High School District reflects the fluctuations these small districts face, rising 1% between FY 2014 (692.6) and FY 2015 (701.4) and then declining steadily

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 51 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

(by 18 students, then 15, then 8.4) to a low in FY 2018 (660), a decline of approximately 6% over the last three years

Districts’ Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The districts of the Washington Central SU jointly submitted a Section 9 Proposal recommending that the State Board authorize the districts to maintain their current structures within the same SU.

In reaching this recommendation, the districts participated in a § 706 study committee, assisted initially by a consultant and then by a two-person facilitation team. In addition to self-analysis and discussion by each district’s board, the districts held community forums in each town, arranged for an “independent, third-party researcher” to conduct a “robust” survey of the voters in all districts, and engaged in “many other activities.”

The § 706 study committee, which at its inception voted to take action only by supermajority (9 of 11 members) rather than by a simple majority, declined to endorse unification and so did not submit a merger proposal to the State Board or to the districts’ voters.

The boards report that the analysis and conversations engendered by Act 46 have dissolved barriers and changed the dynamic among the districts, which their representatives describe as having been “siloed” before the discussions. The Section 9 Proposal states that “all the boards of WCSU are unified, coordinated, systematic, and intentionally explicit in their stated commitment to proficiency-based learning and to achieving equity in the quality and variety of educational offerings” For example, the Proposal reports that over the last three years the districts have developed and adopted: a unified mission statement; a “comprehensive set of system-wide Student Learning Outcomes” that “set clear expectations and define explicit measurable targets” for academic and transferrable skills; a “Theory of Action;” and a five-year implementation plan (of which they are in year one). The districts also made a “system-wide shift to proficiency-based learning” beginning in the 2016-17 academic year, which is required to be implemented statewide for the 2020 graduating class.

The Section 9 Proposal states that all elementary schools offer prekindergarten, after-school, and summer programs on a sliding scale cost basis. It also observes that student “counts and cost drivers can be factors in determining the extent of such services or the manner in which they are offered” in the individual elementary schools. In addition, “all schools … offer in- school and extracurricular activities” and “[e]very effort is made to ensure that cost, fees, or transportation do not present barriers.”

“For the sake of brevity, [the Section 9 narrative addressed] the current state of WCSU student learning outcomes by focusing on Literacy and Math, measured only by SBAC scores.” SU- wide, students have “consistently” scored above the State average in literacy during the last two years and below the State average in Math (except for 7th grade). The districts acknowledge:

Combined 3-year scale scores show measurable differences in performance in each grade level between students who participate in the FRL program and those who do not. On average, students in the former group perform approximately two grade levels below those in the latter group, although the gap varies from grade to grade…

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 52 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

[In addition, the combined] 3-year scale scores show performance from preK-6 school to preK-6 school across the WCSU varies by approximately two grade levels … The data do not examine possible reasons or causes for the variance.

In more general terms, the Proposal states that there are “significant gaps based on socioeconomic status” at all grade levels. It speculates that there may be a “mismatch” between SBAC and local literacy assessments and that the SBAC and local math assessments may “also not [be] in alignment.” The Proposal states that the districts “need to investigate the criterion scores [used] to identify which students are in need of additional assistance” and provide more professional development for teachers to “align their scoring practices to adopted performance indicators.” The Proposal states that the achievement gaps are closing “in some schools and grade levels,” providing the East Montpelier School District as an example of where this is occurring.

The districts point to examples where they “have moved toward fully coordinated and shared resources,” although they acknowledge that they may need to overcome “structural inertia” to implement systems across schools. The districts also observe that during the last 2-5 years, the SU has “demonstrated that it is capable of achieving ever greater levels of commitment and implementation of equity-driven models and systems,” citing PLPs, PBL, multi-tiered supports, and “resource coordination” as examples. In addition, the

WCSU boards are interested in exploring the creation of a central equity fund to share the burden of providing for our most disadvantaged students no matter what school they attend. This fund could in theory also provide for indemnifying our most disadvantaged town against loss of state support (e.g., its small school grant).

The districts are somewhat unusual in that the SU Executive Committee commissioned an outside consultant to perform a two-part efficiency study, issuing reports in December 2014 and March 2015. The first, more comprehensive report, yielded 55 recommendations organized into three overarching themes: Governance and Board Structure; Operations; and Structural Opportunities. Although the boards adopted fewer than half of the recommendations and none relating to structure, they adopted recommendations that apply to the SU board, “including limitation of the executive committee to an agenda-setting role, plus a more frequent use of ‘carousel meetings’ to promote SU-wide integration.” District boards have also adopted some of the district-specific recommendations such as adopting “more policies in common,” making each board’s presence on the SU website consistent, and clarifying accountability chains. In addition, the districts have begun to use a combined budget chart, which “allows our boards to benchmark their financial performance against each other.”

Budgetary constraints limited the scope of the second efficiency study, which (1) looked at the possibility of combining school populations through joint-contracts (Doty-Rumney and Calais- East Montpelier); and (2) conducted a “limited financial review“ of a unified union district where “the structure, grade configuration, and the budgeted revenues and expenditures for the schools in Washington Central remained the same and only the supervisory union assessments were taken out” (Efficiency Study II, p. 1) Regarding this second efficiency study, the districts’

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 53 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Section 9 Proposal states that “modeling constraints [prevented] projecting any efficiencies” but that the cost savings of reconfiguring grades and combining schools were very small.39

The Section 9 Proposal concludes that “for the time being” the current structure is the best for each district. It explains that the local communities are concerned about school closure in a consolidated governance structure and that the study committee found “no surefire way to afford smaller communities a way to protect their schools and their voice in school closure decisions under a consolidated structure” (emphasis in original).

The rationale for retaining the same structure on which both the written proposal and the Conversation focused, however, is that the elementary districts currently have “[g]reatly differing levels of indebtedness.” The Section 9 Proposal asserts that these differences would cause taxes to rise in Calais and Worcester, the communities that are

least able to afford such increases. As a result, consolidation would perversely increase inequities in school finance among our five towns, not decrease them. … and does not appear to offer any promise of greater equity in educational opportunities.

The “WCSU boards are open to exploring collaboration with districts outside our SU” including “sharing an administrative umbrella.”

The Board representatives present at the Conversation summarized their proposal by stating that merger of the six districts into a single, unified district is:

• Impossible – because the differing debt levels would make merger inequitable and the two least affluent communities will experience tax increases • Impractical – because of community opposition to a single board and budget structure • Unnecessary – because the districts can “define a clear trajectory of improvements” under current structure and have identified “plans and steps” to achieve the improvements, concluding that governance change is not necessary, especially given the “impossible” and impractical” reasons above

For more details, see the districts’ Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

Act 46 acknowledges that there are regions of the State where it may be necessary for the statewide plan to “include alternative governance structures …, such as a supervisory union

39 Of the recommendations in the Special Education Task Force Report authored by A. Angney and others in 2011 and referenced by the Efficiency Studies, the representatives present at the Conversation reported that the districts have adopted only those recommendations required by statute. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 54 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

with member districts or a unified union school district with a smaller average daily membership.” Nevertheless, the Legislature limits the State Board’s authority to include SUs with multiple member districts in the statewide plan by declaring that the “State Board shall approve the creation, expansion, or continuation of a supervisory union only if the Board concludes that this alternative structure:

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

The districts state that merger is “impossible” because differing debt levels would make merger inequitable for the two least affluent communities, Worcester and Calais, both of which would experience tax increases under the districts’ modelling. Basing a decision on debt levels is short-sighted, and – given the Legislature’s identification of a UUSD as the best means to sustainably achieve the Act 46 goals, including financial ones – should not be the sole or primary reason to prevent merger where it is otherwise the best alternative. Although assumption of a portion of one district’s capital debt may result in tax increases, the districts’ modeling does not take into account any savings that could result from approaching the possibilities of merger in a creative manner. In addition, today’s district with little or no debt will tomorrow become the district that needs a new roof. In other words, long-term decision making should not be based on point-in-time circumstances. Finally, capital debt does not last forever, it is eventually paid off. Districts need to take the long view when determining what will best serve their students, particularly in small districts with steadily declining populations, increasing budgets, or unstable tax rates.

Even assuming the accuracy of the assertion, the Legislature requires the State Board to have a regional focus as it merges districts where necessary to create sustainable structures. Calais and Worcester, the two districts identified in the Section 9 Proposal, are the smallest of the five small elementary districts. All five have experienced declines and/or fluctuations in their ADM since FY2014. Experience throughout the State demonstrates that decreasing student population in a small district is not sustainable and ultimately leads to a downward spiral of increasing tax rates, reduced programming, and frequent staff turnover due to. Larger governance structures have been shown to provide the flexibility needed to mitigate annual budget and tax increases, moderate tax rate fluctuations, and allow small or struggling schools to stay open and programs to remain intact or be expanded. Furthermore, a contention that unification will raise tax rates for one or more groups of taxpayers – based on assumption of capital debt or for other causes – cannot be the sole reason to prevent merger, particularly where there is no evidence that the calculation resulting in the projected increase accounted for the potential savings that can be realized by the creative and efficient use of the unified district’s resources and flexibility.

It seems possible the concern underlying discussion of capital debt is not so much about equity as it is that the study committee found “no surefire way to afford smaller communities a way to

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 55 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

protect their schools and their voice in school closure decisions under a consolidated structure.”40 The Middlesex and East Montpelier Districts have renovated their facilities in recent years and the nearby Worcester and Calais Districts, the two districts identified as disadvantaged by assuming a portion of existing capital debt, have not. The efficiency studies commissioned by the SU Executive Board noted that, even in FY 2014 and FY2015 when ADM numbers were higher than they are today, all four schools had excess capacity. Those studies considered the possibility of moving all sixth grade students to U32 to create a 6-8 middle school, consolidating PreK-5 students from these towns, and closing buildings. It is not unreasonable to assume that if the voters of a merged district chose to consolidate building use in this way, then students might be moved to the two buildings with recent renovations.

Underlying the concern that the Study Committee found no “surefire way” to ensure that smaller communities could “protect … their voice” is the fear that a smaller district’s proportionally smaller representation on a unified board will lead to, e.g., reduced programmatic offerings in favor of lowering tax rates or at urging of communities perceived as less willing to support budgetary increases at the polls; increased taxes by voters in other towns that can more easily support tax increases; failure to perform needed or desired structural improvements to school buildings in smaller towns; and the ultimate closure of smaller, more rural elementary schools. Even assuming that the members of a unified board are incapable of learning to view all of the district’s students as “our” students rather than as students of “either my town or some other town,” this concern has less merit if the merging districts allocate members of an equal or more similar number to each town under the Hybrid Model of board representation.41

The Washington Central districts next contend that merger is “impractical” because of community opposition to merger as expressed in responses to a “robust” survey. Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” solely or primarily because of community opposition. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into this structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The law does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and

40 Emphasis in the original. 41 Although it does not play a part in the Secretary’s conclusions, it is interesting to note that if the districts had merged voluntarily under one of the legislatively-created programs, then Worcester’s small school grant funds would have continued in perpetuity, unless the school building was closed, which might have provided the building some protection from closure. Additionally, if Worcester is ineligible to receive the small school grants under the State Board’s newly developed geographical isolation or excellence criteria, then the additional tax burden that the Section 9 proposal estimates Worcester would assume due to East Montpelier’s capital debt is 55% of the amount of funds it will lose in small school grants (an estimated $46,400 in taxes versus $85,100 in small schools grant). That is prior to accounting for the increased tax credits (income sensitivity) that would arise due to a higher tax rate, lowering the additional taxes raised. Calais is different in that its estimated tax increase in the Section 9 Proposal is 2.3 times greater than its small schools grant – $97,100 versus $41,700, again, prior to accounting for increased tax credits due to a higher tax rate. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 56 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision.

Furthermore, the § 706 study committee voted at its inception to take action only by supermajority (9 of 11) rather than by a simple majority as all other districts have done since the statutes were enacted in the 1960s. A supermajority of the study committee did not endorse unification. As a result, the school boards did not prepare or submit a merger proposal and draft articles of agreement to the State Board or to the districts’ voters. The study committee constructed an unusually high bar for consideration of unification. Unification was never put to a vote and a survey response does not carry the same weight as a vote on a merger report and proposed articles agreement. Even if the survey itself is considered, it indicates a not insignificant level of support for unification, thus raising more questions than it answers42.

It is worth noting that a school board is charged with making decisions that are best for its students and its taxpayers. It is understandable that a school board endeavors to implement the will of the community. In contrast, Act 46 and longstanding statutory law require the State Board to decide what is best for the district, the region, and the State – and, given the statutory purpose underlying the State Board’s existence, that means the State Board must focus on what is best for the education of the State’s children.

42 Responses to survey question asking about the level of support for “resources shared across regional district” are Berlin: 52.3% support; Calais: 42.9% support; East Montpelier: 63.3% support; Middlesex: 47.5% support; Worcester: 58.5% support.

Quotes from the open-ended portion of the survey: “I think it is needed for efficiency too many meetings and too many redundancies – they need to share services and coordinate better to cut down on costs, but still remain concerned that local voices will be harder to hear with only one board.” “The current governance structure is outdated and top heavy.” “All students graduate from U32. They are ALL our kids. What happens at Berlin Elementary School and every other elementary school in Washington Central should matter to Middlesex residents since they all go to the same middle/high school.” Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 57 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

vote voluntarily to form a UUSD and the election of the board members, statute does not require Australian balloting. In fact, some of the UUSDs formed since Act 46 have eschewed a switch to Australian ballots and will instead continue to debate and vote on their unified budgets and other public questions “from the floor.”

Finally, the Washington Central districts assert that merger is “unnecessary” because the districts can “define a clear trajectory of improvements” under current structure and have identified “plans and steps” toward reaching their goals. The Section 9 Proposal discusses student achievement at the SU-level, including gaps between those children who are eligible for the federal Free and Reduced-Price Lunch program and those who are not. While stating that there is a great difference between these subgroups within and between each elementary school, the Proposal does not disaggregate the scores or other indicators of achievement. These conclusions fail to provide insight into where gaps exist in equity among the schools or within any one school and specifically how each district intends to address it, either alone or in collaboration with others, although there is a statement that at least one district is experiencing success in closing the gap.

In addition, although all of the elementary districts offer prekindergarten, afterschool, and summer programs, the Section 9 Proposal acknowledges that student “counts and cost drivers can be factors in determining the extent of such services or the manner in which they are offered” in the individual elementary schools, which implies that the districts are accepting the inequities as inevitable. Similarly, the proposal does not indicate in what way they are different or in which schools. This dynamic will only be exacerbated in small districts, as student counts continue to decline and tax rates increase.

The Proposal’s suggestion that the “boards are interested in exploring the creation of a central equity fund to share the burden of providing for our most disadvantaged students no matter what school they attend” provides little reassurance that the districts will actually address inequities in a sustainable manner. Given the trending decline in ADM in each of the districts, it is worth questioning whether the districts will be individually able to continue whatever programs each currently offers its own resident students, much less demonstrate a willingness to pay into a centralized equity fund. Furthermore, the structure assumes that voters in each independent district will voluntarily agree to raise their own taxes to support a fund that will ensure equity in other districts – but that those same voters would not be willing to agree to support increased taxes to support a unified budget working to support equitable opportunities for the students of the entire region.

The lack of equity within and among the Washington Central elementary districts is troubling, especially in light of the districts’ historic reluctance to operate in a unified manner even when required to do so by law. Several years ago, the districts commissioned independent efficiency studies. Although the studies explored and recommended many changes, including structural ones, the districts report that they have implemented only a few relatively minor ones, such as a move to carousel meetings, adopting more policies in common, and others that have little effect on educational opportunities or equity or on student outcomes.

The Washington Central districts’ Section 9 Proposal and their Conversation do not support the contention that merger of the six districts is in any way impossible, impractical, or unnecessary, nor can the Agency identify any other facts that would do so. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 58 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Furthermore, the Washington Central districts’ argument that “for the time being” retaining the current governance structures is the “best” means of creating a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals is not convincing enough to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD is the “preferred” means of doing so.

Not only is merger of the U-32 District and its member elementary districts both “possible” and “practicable,” but the unified district would also be of a size sufficient to support the functions of an SU, thereby creating what the Legislature has determined to be a “preferred structure.”

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for each district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the governance structures of the Union 32 High School District, the Berlin School District, the Calais School District, the East Montpelier School District, the Middlesex School District, and the Worcester School District into a single unified union school district that provides for the education of its PreK-12 students by operating multiple schools.

See also the discussion of the Twinfield Union School District at #24 of Part VI(C)(a) below.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 59 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

b. MUUSDs and NMEDs

Overview of MUUSD and NMED Structures and Issues

The Legislature enacted the first voluntary merger program in 2010 when it offered tax rate reductions and other transitional assistance to districts that created UUSDs that either had a combined ADM of 1,250 or resulted from the merger of at least four districts (the “RED” program of Phase 2).

Because of their inter-relationship, an existing UHSD and its member elementary districts can create a UUSD only if the voters in all elementary districts approve creation of the new district. In 2011, voters in two Chittenden East SU districts defeated creation of a UUSD. In 2012, upon the request of representatives of Chittenden East, the Legislature enacted an exception to the RED program by granting eligibility for tax rate reductions and other transitional assistance to a unified district approved by a majority, rather than all, of the member elementary districts of an existing union high school district, coining the term Modified Unified Union School District (“MUUSD” – typically pronounced “mud”).

A MUUSD is responsible for the PreK-12 education of students residing in those towns that approved the merger and for the secondary education of the students residing in the town(s) that did not.

A MUUSD supplants the union high school district and all elementary districts that approved unification, which dissolve when the MUUSD assumes full operations. The district or districts that did not approve unification continue to exist as independent elementary school districts (colloquially referred to as the Non-Member Elementary District or “NMED”).

An NMED is a town elementary school district that is organized and responsible for the education of its elementary school students. The town in which the NMED is located is a member of the MUUSD for whatever grades the town was a member of the original union high school district.

The relationship between the NMED and the MUUSD is no different, legally, than the relationship between the town elementary school district and the union high school district prior to creation of the MUUSD. They are separate legal entities responsible for different, distinct groups of students.

Both the MUUSD and the NMED are member districts of an SU.

Even if a MUUSD’s ADM is sufficiently large, the MUUSD cannot become its own SD (a single- district SU, which is the Legislature’s preferred structure), because the existence of the NMED requires continuation of the overarching SU structure around the two districts. As a result, it is theoretically possible that the NMED exists due to a narrow margin of votes in a very small school district that defeated unification – and yet those few votes preclude elimination of the SU administrative structure and the SU assessments over which voters have no direct control. Therefore, the NMED prohibits creation of the Legislature’s “preferred structure,” inhibits realization for all schools of any savings that would result from elimination of the SU, and creates a barrier to transparency and accountability especially as they relate to SU budgets.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 60 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Two Final Observations

• MUUSDs created in the 1970s: Although the Legislature did not formally acknowledge the existence of MUUSDs until granting them eligibility for tax rate reductions and other transitional assistance in its 2012 legislation, several school districts have existed for decades that are structurally similar to an MUUSD. For example, in the North Country Union High School District, of the 11 elementary districts that are also members of the union high school district for grades 9-12, only five are also members for grades 7-8. Four of the other six districts operate PreK-8 and the remaining two districts pay tuition for grades 7-8, although one will join the union high school district for grades 7-8 in FY 2019.

It is not clear whether the State Board has independent authority to create a school district with this “modified” structure in its statewide plan.

• Authority to expand membership in a unified district: Act 46 prohibits the State Board’s statewide plan from requiring the merger of, among others, any unified district eligible for tax rate reductions under one of the three voluntary phases. Nothing precludes the State Board from requesting that the exempt unified district consider enlarging its membership to include another district. In fact, Act 49 includes transitional funds for an exempt district that agrees to the State Board’s request.43

The question then arises: who in a UUSD has authority to approve adding a new member to the union if the State Board requests it to do so? The voters or the unified board?

In most situations, the answer is clear: Only a majority of the voters of the entire exempt UUSD can vote to approve the addition of a new member if requested by the State Board. This conclusion is based on several provisions of law, e.g., (1) the warning for the original merger vote must include the potential members of a UUSD and only the voters can amend any item that was included explicitly in that warning – including addition of a new member (e.g., 16 V.S.A. §§ 706f and 706n); and (2) voters in a UUSD must vote whether to approve the addition of a new member regardless of whether the request is initiated by the district seeking admission or the UUSD itself, 16 V.S.A. § 721.

The answer is less clear when the State Board requests an MUUSD to expand to include the NMED as a full PreK-12 member.

• On the one hand, the UUSD Board may have authority to approve the request because the NMED is already a member of the MUUSD for secondary grades, so the Board’s approval would not change the members of the unified district, although it would expand the grades for which the NMED is a member.

In addition, when the voters of the potentially merging districts originally approved merger, they voted on a warning that included the district that

43 Act 49, Sec. 8. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 61 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

ultimately became the NMED and so, arguably, have already approved inclusion of that district in the unified district. • Possibly countering those arguments, however, is the fact that each of the articles of agreement stated that if the NMED voted before a date certain to join the MUUSD as a full member, then the MUUSD voters were presumed to have approved the addition for purposes of 16 V.S.A. § 721. This leaves unanswered whether this pre-approval provision, which explicitly addresses NMED-initiated action, has any significance in connection with a State Board request for the MUUSD to accept the NMED and, if yes, would thus require approval by the MUUSD voters.

If the State Board requests one or more MUUSDs to accept the NMED as a full PreK-12 member, then the MUUSD should seek the advice of its legal counsel regarding whether a majority of the MUUSD board can vote to approve full PreK-12 membership of the NMED or whether, in an abundance of caution, the question should be presented to the MUUSD voters.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 62 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

6. The Barnard Elementary School District (NMED)

The Barnard Elementary School District is the sole NMED in the newly created Windsor Central MUUSD. The MUUSD assumes full responsibility on July 1, 2018 to provide for the PreK-12 education of students residing in the towns of Bridgewater, Killington, Plymouth, Pomfret, Reading, and Woodstock and for the grade 7-12 education of students residing in Barnard. The Barnard District remains an independent town district organized to provide for the PreK-6 education of its resident students.

The Barnard District has a K-6 ADM of 62.00 in FY 2018. The MUUSD has a K-12/7-12 ADM of 753.84 and the Pittsfield School District44 (K-12 tuitioning) has an ADM of 56.30 in the same fiscal year, for a total of 872.14 in the SU.

The Barnard District’s K-6 student population has fluctuated dramatically over the last five fiscal years, although its highest ADM is in the current fiscal year. The two largest changes (decrease of 8.10 students in FY 2016 – FY 2017 and an increase of 11.10 students in FY 2017 – FY 2018) represent changes of 13.7% and 21.8% respectively.

The Barnard voters rejected a proposal to create a union school district on March 7, 2017 as follows:

103 Yes 155 No 10 Blank or Spoiled

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Barnard District proposes to remain a single-town elementary district within the Windsor Central SU.

In written responses45 (“the Responses”) to the topics that the Agency provided all districts for planning purposes in advance of the Section 10 Conversations, the Barnard District describes in detail the ways in which its Prekindergarten Program, After School Program, Place-Based Learning Initiative, and other programs “offer[] substantial learning and social opportunities[, remove] economic barriers[, and in some instances are] especially helpful for children with learning differences and learning challenges.” The Barnard District also outlines new initiatives it is pursuing in concert with the superintendent, including “learning hubs” and expanded foreign language opportunities.

The Barnard District is understandably proud of its prekindergarten program, particularly as a strategy by which it is working to enhance equity. The program:

offers 21 hours to 3 year-olds and 35 hours to 4-year-olds at no cost to families. Our 4-Star preschool program leads the SU’s commitment to early education by funding Unified Arts coursework to these students, such as

44 The Pittsfield School District wishes to remain a member district of the Windsor Central SU and the MUUSD has voted in support of that request. See #16 of Part VI(B) below. 45 Barnard’s written responses are copied in full in its Snapshot at Appendix F. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 63 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

library, art, music, and PE. Positive outcomes have been steady pupil count; improved early reading/literacy achievement; stronger math, social science, and science knowledge; greater social/emotional skills; and greater participation in the wider school community. Our program has been supported by our taxpayers for ten years while our districts’ per pupil spending has remained low to average for the State.

The Section 9 Proposal and the Responses discuss many elements of the Barnard District’s current operations and plans for the future. They also lay out many interrelated concerns regarding full PreK-12 membership. For example, the Barnard District believes that the MUUSD’s model of board representation disadvantages residents in the smaller towns (each of the six smaller towns is apportioned two members each and the one larger town has six members). In addition, it states that at “a small school, flexibility and creativity are paramount to administering the budget in an efficient way and still achieving the quality and breadth of student opportunities…” and an “independent, 3-member [board] … is currently the best way to protect the level of efficacy required.”

The Barnard District’s Proposal, the Responses to the common topics, and the Conversation itself, however, crystalize around two overriding concerns: (1) the ability of Barnard to maintain its current prekindergarten program and (2) the potential closure of some grades in the Barnard elementary school.

First, the Barnard District is particularly concerned that full PreK-12 membership in the unified district will undermine its ability to maintain its current program:

Barnard Academy’s Preschool Program leads the commitment to Equity in Early Education within our supervisory union, and Board independence is required at this time to sustain it. Our full-time public preschool program will be in jeopardy in a merger with WCMUUSD.

The Barnard District asserts that it is “geographically isolated,” with a high elevation and “seasonally inhospitable” travel routes and that this “underscores the importance of maintaining reliable, high quality early education within [the] community.”

Second, the Barnard District is also concerned that the unified district will reduce the grades offered in Barnard. During the original merger discussions, the § 706 Study Committee considered restructuring Barnard’s elementary school as a PreK-2 and requiring students in grades 3-6 to enroll in another school operated by the unified district. Ultimately, the MUUSD’s voter-approved articles direct the new unified board to:

develop a plan for sustainable campus and classroom configurations starting in July 1, 2018. The Study Committee recommends, as a starting place for these deliberations, the restructuring of the Barnard and Reading schools into PK-4 primary schools …. (MUUSD Article 15)

The Barnard District asserts that requiring full PreK-12 merger as envisioned by the Study Committee will “undercut[] a school and a community that is thriving.”

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 64 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

We argue that our plan will create the smallest number of districts practicable within our region at this time because … the [MUUSD’s] Articles of Agreement … undermine our district’s and the WCSU’s ability to best meet the goals of Act 46.

Barnard’s Responses state that merger “is ‘possible,’ but there is no evidence that it would lead to better student outcomes, increased equity, lower costs, increases in transparency or accountability, or lower tax rates.” The Responses also explain why the Barnard District believes that merger is not “practicable”

Our electorate voted down a merger with WCSU towns because the merger terms were likely lead [sic] to centralizing students to more central school and closing a thriving community school, which we believe would undermine the equity, academic excellence, and sustainability goals of Act 46. Before and after the vote, we sought to amend three Articles of Agreement of the merger plan (those related to Board composition, protections for school closure, and school restructuring) towards terms we felt were equitable to our town’s citizens. Merger committee members, and then representatives on the not-yet-ratified WCMUUSD Board did not wish to pursue the conversation. Imbalances of power between merging communities require a structural solution that give representatives of smaller towns a real voice in school decisions, and that balance the real inequities in political and financial resources. As representatives of the Barnard School District, we continue to work towards just such a structural solution across our SU, in order to secure the best opportunities for our kids. Until such a solution is reached, we believe it is impracticable to merge with the MUUSD in light of the goals of Act 46.

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage; and the Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 65 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

The Barnard District asserts that its voters disapproved the merger proposal on a two-to-one basis “because the merger terms were likely lead [sic] to centralizing students to more central school and closing a thriving community school, which we believe would undermine the equity, academic excellence, and sustainability goals of Act 46.” Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” solely because a community has expressed a preference to maintain its current governance structure and decision-making authority. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into the UUSD structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The law does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision.

It is also worth noting that a school board is charged with making decisions that are best for its students and its taxpayers. It is understandable if a school board endeavors to implement the will of the community. In contrast, Act 46 and longstanding statutory law require the State Board to decide what is best for the district, the region, and the State – and, given the statutory purpose underlying the State Board’s existence, that means the State Board must focus on what is best for the education of the State’s children.

The Barnard District also declares that for “a small school, flexibility and creativity are paramount to administering the budget in an efficient way and still achieving the quality and breadth of student opportunities…” and that an “independent, 3-member [board] … is currently the best way to protect the level of efficacy required.” To put this in the words of the Act 46 goals, the district is contending that a small, local board is the best ways to ensure responsiveness, transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility and that a centralized board, unified budget, and Australian balloting are not. It is understandable that community members would mourn transition from local decision-making and a school-centric budget, which is amended and voted on “from the floor,” to a multi-school budget developed by a unified board and decided by Australian ballot. Given the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD with centralized decision-making is the best way to achieve all the goals of Act 46, including transparency, accountability, and fiscal efficiency, the shift to a unified board and Australian ballots is not a reason to preclude the State Board from requiring merger.46

46 Other than the initial vote voluntarily to form a UUSD and the election of the board members, statute does not require Australian balloting. In fact, some of the UUSDs formed since Act 46 have eschewed a Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 66 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The Barnard District argues that the MUUSD’s model of board representation, where each of the six smaller towns is apportioned two members each and the one larger town has six members, disadvantages smaller towns. Even assuming that the members of a unified board are incapable of learning to view all of the district’s students as “our” students rather than as students of “either my town or some other town,” the district’s assertion is not dispositive. If, as Barnard contends, this structure causes an “imbalance of power” that requires a “structural solution that give representatives of smaller towns a real voice in school decisions, and that balance the real inequities in political and financial resources,” then – whatever weaknesses there may or may not have been with Barnard’s representation on the Study Committee47 – Barnard now has passionate spokespeople who have pledged to continue working with the MUUSD to effectuate the changes. The fact that one group of voters has not yet been able to convince other voters to amend existing articles of agreement is not, as Barnard asserts, in and of itself a reason to delay Barnard’s full PreK-12 membership in the unified district until the voters seeking change obtain their desired result. In light of the fact that the combined board membership of the six small towns is double that of the one large town, it is arguable that Barnard citizens would have more success obtaining amendments on behalf of small towns if they work with the five other small towns as a sixth full PreK-12 member of the unified district.

The Barnard District claims that it is “geographically isolated,” with a high elevation and “seasonally inhospitable” travel routes. Although much of its discussion regarding isolation concerns the soon-to-be-issued small school grants metrics, the district states that “Barnard’s geographic isolation underscores the importance of maintaining reliable, high quality early education within our community.”

The ability to maintain its current full-time public prekindergarten program is one of Barnard’s two overarching concerns. Certainly its program is commendable, undertaken both to increase equity and with an eye to reducing future education costs for its resident students. Even as a single-town district that operates a prekindergarten program, however, nothing in statute prevents a Barnard family from requiring the district to pay up to ten hours of tuition to a different public or private prekindergarten program – perhaps one that is nearer to a parent’s workplace – even if there is space available in the Barnard program. In a merged district, however, no payment would need to be made to a program located in one of the other buildings operated by the unified district.

Barnard claims that the region is in need of prekindergarten options and the MUUSD is working towards developing programs in its member towns. The Barnard District is concerned that the MUUSD’s plans for expansion will be for less-than full-time programs in these other locations and, if Barnard were a full PreK-12 member, the unified district

switch to Australian ballots and will instead continue to debate and vote on their unified budgets and other public questions “from the floor.” 47 The Section 9 Proposal asserts that Barnard’s interests were not well-represented on the Study Committee, and ultimately in the Articles of Agreement, because the Barnard District had three different representatives on the Committee, missed five meetings “during a crucial four-month decision-making period,” the Study Committee representatives did not engage the Barnard community, and decisions were made based upon misinformation, including adoption of the Town-by-Town Model of board proportionality rather than the Hybrid Model. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 67 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

would not support the continuation of a full-time program in Barnard. First, there is nothing that would legally preclude a unified district from operating a full-time prekindergarten program in one location and part-time programs in others. Each school within a unified district does not have to be exactly the same in order for there to be equitable opportunities, especially if the unified district is working to increase programming in areas where it is not fully available. In addition, the program located in Barnard could serve as a pilot for the expansion of public prekindergarten programs throughout the unified district. To the extent that full-time prekindergarten is not available in other towns, Barnard could become the hub of early education for the unified district, or at least for one section of the district, particularly if the unified district provided transportation. In addition, to the extent that it is available, the increased PreK opportunities will benefit Barnard residents as well as families throughout the region.

The Barnard District’s second major concern about full PreK-12 membership is that the unified district will choose to stop operating some grades currently offered at Barnard’s elementary school. As explained above, during the original merger discussions, the study committee considered restructuring Barnard’s elementary school as a PreK-2 and requiring students in grades 3-6 to enroll in another school operated by the unified district. Ultimately, the MUUSD’s voter-approved Article 15 directs the new unified board to:

Clearly this concept is a work in progress and any potential grade restructuring is not settled. Again, as with its objection to the model of board representation, the fact that one group of voters has not yet been able to convince other voters to amend existing articles of agreement is not, as Barnard asserts, in and of itself a reason to delay Barnard’s full PreK-12 membership in the unified district until the voters seeking change obtain their desired result. In addition, also as with the board representation issue, Barnard’s ability to obtain the result it seeks is likely to be greater if it is a full PreK-12 member of the unified district than if it attempts to negotiate “from the outside.”

It is important to remember that the Barnard Elementary District is a very small district with an ADM that fluctuates dramatically and that, for a unified district, the MUUSD is very small as well. It is important that communities take advantage of the flexibility that a unified structure offers for the benefit of all children in the region.

The Barnard District acknowledges that merger “is ‘possible,’ but there is no evidence that it would lead to better student outcomes, increased equity, lower costs, increases in transparency or accountability, or lower tax rates” and that it would damage a school and community that are thriving. Even assuming that these contentions are true, it cannot be said that the merger would have no benefit for the region. But for the existence of the Barnard Elementary District, there would be no need for the complex accounting mechanisms necessary to support an interrelated PreK-12/7-12 district and a PreK-6 district. If the State Board redraws SU boundaries so that the Pittsfield District is no Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 68 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

longer a member of the SU, then a fully unified Windsor Central UUSD could, potentially, be its own single-district SU (although it would be a small one). If the State Board made that change, then there would be no need for the separate SU structure or for SU assessments that the voters have no direct ability to approve or reject. In addition, the school located in Barnard could become one in which other students in the region enroll through intradistrict elementary school choice or with which other schools could more easily share point-in-time programming. The ability to access Barnard’s staff, unique programming, and other resources would be simplified, and the unified district’s workforce might become even more stable by converting part-time staff to full-time employees. Thus, the addition of Barnard as a full PreK-12 member of the unified district has the potential to benefit the students and taxpayers in the other member towns of the district.

It is also not clear that merger would have no benefit for the students and taxpayers of Barnard and improve the school’s chances of continuing to operate and offer vibrant programming opportunities. The Barnard District’s K-6 ADM has fluctuated dramatically during the last five fiscal years, decreasing in one year by 13.7% (8 students) and increasing by 21.8% (11 students) in the next. Given the State Board’s current draft metrics for small school grant eligibility, it is questionable whether the district will continue to receive the ~$85,000 annually in statewide education funds to support continuation of its programs. Larger governance structures have been shown to provide the flexibility needed to mitigate annual budget and tax increases, moderate tax rate fluctuations caused by changes in ADM, and allow small or struggling schools to stay open and good programs to remain intact or be expanded.

No facts have been presented that support a conclusion that merger is not “possible” or “practicable” in this instance, nor can the Agency identify any other facts that would do so.

In addition, the Barnard Board’s argument that maintaining its current structure is the “best” means for Barnard to create a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals is not convincing enough to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD is the “preferred” means of doing so.

Absent compelling evidence to the contrary in this particular instance, the Secretary defers to the Legislature’s determination that a unified district is the structure most likely to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner -- even in regions where, as here, it will be necessary for the statewide plan to “include alternative governance structures …, such as a supervisory union with member districts or a unified union school district with a smaller average daily membership.”

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for both the district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the Barnard Elementary School District and the Windsor Central Modified Unified Union School District into a single UUSD by requesting the MUUSD to accept the Barnard District as a full PreK-12 member.

This proposal generated a particularly significant level of discussion among Agency staff. It was a difficult decision because of unification’s potential effects on the district’s

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 69 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

prekindergarten program. Ultimately, the statewide plan must take the long term view of what is best for all children in the region. It is the Secretary’s hope that the unified district will consider using the Barnard program as the hub of its prekindergarten opportunities or as a model for expansion throughout the unified district.

The Secretary trusts that the community’s’ concern for the well-being of all their children will impel them eventually to embrace the opportunities of a unified structure and work together to improve educational opportunities and equity for all students in the region.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 70 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

7. The Cambridge Elementary School District (NMED)

The Cambridge Elementary School District is the sole NMED in the newly created Lamoille North MUUSD. The MUUSD assumed full responsibility on July 1, 2017 to provide for the PreK-12 education of students residing in the towns of Belvidere, Eden, Hyde Park, Johnson, and Waterville, and for the grade 7-12 education of students residing in Cambridge. The Cambridge District remains an independent town district organized to provide for the PreK-6 education of its resident students.

The Cambridge District has a K-6 ADM of 296.85 in FY 2018. The MUUSD has a K-12/7-12 ADM of 1,321.26 in the same fiscal year, for a total of 1,618.11 in the SU. But for the existence of the Cambridge District, the SU superstructure could dissolve and the unified district – due both to its structure and its size – would be large enough to be its own SD (i.e., a single-district SU).

The Cambridge District’s student population in K-6 has declined steadily in each of the last five fiscal years, from a high of 341.85 in FY 2014 to its current low of 296.84, a drop of 13% percent. From FY 2017 to FY 2018, the Cambridge K-6 enrollment decreased by 11 while the K-6 enrollment of the Lamoille North MUUSD increased by 28.

The Cambridge voters rejected the proposal to create a UUSD when the Lamoille North districts voted in April 2016 (128 Yes; 164 No).

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

At the Cambridge District’s Conversation on February 8, 2018, the Board representatives stated that the Cambridge school has an array of high quality programs. At the time of the merger vote – and even today – there is fear that a larger unified board would dilute or remove the programs from the school in order to provide more opportunities in other elementary school buildings or to lower the unified district’s budget. The representatives also recognized that the MUUSD is currently expanding opportunities – e.g., sharing language instruction – and that unification makes it easier to align curriculum and programs so that all students can benefit from high quality programming.

The Cambridge District representatives noted that savings, reduced-expenditures, and carry- forward has insulated taxpayers in the MUUSD from upward pressure on tax rates. Cambridge has a low tax rate in comparison to the rest of the region. They stated that not only would the 8 cent tax rate reduction afforded through Act 46 have translated into only a 1.5 cent reduction48 for taxpayers living in Cambridge, but even the savings actually realized by the MUUSD would have provided little benefit to Cambridge taxpayers.

The Cambridge District has determined that many of the concerns that led its residents to reject merger can be addressed either by discussions with the MUUSD board, while other concerns can be addressed only if the MUUSD voters approve amendments to the articles of agreement. The Cambridge and MUUSD boards are discussing potential changes to the articles of agreement to address the Cambridge voters’ areas of concern.

48 AOE Note: There would have been a 2.4 cent reduction in FY 2018. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 71 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage; and the Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

The Cambridge District acknowledges that the merged structure has insulated MUUSD taxpayers from upward pressure on tax rates but asserts that merger would likely have little positive effect on tax rates for Cambridge residents.

The Cambridge District has been experiencing a steady, significant decline in its student population. Experience throughout the State demonstrates that decreasing student population in a small district is not sustainable and ultimately leads to a downward spiral of increasing tax rates, reduced programming, and frequent staff turnover. Larger governance structures have been shown to provide the flexibility needed to mitigate annual budget and tax increases, moderate tax rate fluctuations, and allow small or struggling schools to stay open and programs to remain intact or be expanded. In addition, if the Cambridge District and the MUUSD merged, then the school located in Cambridge could become one in which other students could enroll through intradistrict elementary school choice. The ability to share Cambridge’s staff and other resources would be simplified.

Even assuming the accuracy of the assertion that merger would not positively affect tax rates in Cambridge, the Legislature requires the State Board to have a regional focus as it merges districts where necessary to create sustainable structures.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 72 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

But for the existence of the Cambridge Elementary District, there would be no need for a separate SU structure, nor would there be SU assessments that the voters have no direct ability to approve or reject or the complex accounting mechanisms necessary to support an interrelated PreK-12/5-12 district and a PreK-4 district. The fully unified district would also be of a size sufficient to support the functions of an SU, thereby creating what the Legislature has determined to be a “preferred structure.”

The addition of the Cambridge District as a full PreK-12 member of the unified district therefore has the potential to benefit the students and taxpayers of Cambridge as well as the students and taxpayers in the other member towns.

The Cambridge District and the MUUSD boards are working to address the lingering concerns of Cambridge residents.

The Cambridge District does not assert that it is not “possible” or “practicable” to assume full PreK-12 membership in the unified district, nor can the Agency identify any facts that would support such a claim. In addition, the unified district would be of a size sufficient to support the functions of an SU, thereby creating what the Legislature has determined to be a “preferred structure.”

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for both the district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the Cambridge Elementary School District and the Lamoille North Modified Unified Union School District into a single unified union school district by requesting the MUUSD to accept the Cambridge District as a full PreK- 12 member.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 73 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

8. The Huntington Elementary School District (NMED)

The Huntington Elementary School District is the sole NMED in the Mount Mansfield MUUSD. The MUUSD assumed full responsibility on July 1, 2015 to provide for the PreK-12 education of students residing in Bolton, Jericho, Richmond, Underhill, and Buel’s Gore, and for the grade 5- 12 education of students residing in Huntington. The HESD remains an independent town district organized to provide for the PreK-4 education of its resident students.

The Huntington District has a K-4 ADM of 100.00 in FY 2018. The MUUSD has a K-12/5-12 ADM of 2,244.59 in the same fiscal year, for a total of 2,348.59 in the SU. But for the existence of the Huntington District, the SU superstructure could dissolve and the unified district – due both to its structure and its size – would be large enough to be its own SD (i.e., a single-district SU).

The Huntington District’s K-4 ADM has declined by 24.2% over the last five fiscal years. Over the same time, the K-4 ADM of the MUUSD increased by 6.2%.

Between 2011 and 2018, the Huntington voters rejected two proposals to create a UUSD and another two ballot items to join the existing MUUSD as a full PreK-12 member.

Despite these repeated rejections of merger, Huntington taxpayers benefitted from tax rate reductions in connection with the grades 5-12 budget in FY 2016 through FY 2019 due to Huntington’s membership in the MUUSD for those grades (reductions of $ 0.08, 0.06, 0.04, and 0.02).49

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Huntington District did not submit a written Section 9 proposal.

At the Huntington District’s Conversation on April 27, 2018, school board representatives and other community members stated that it is important to maintain a town-based elementary school in Huntington so that, e.g., the youngest children do not have long bus rides, parent volunteers have easy access to the school, and the school can continue to be used as a way to welcome young families into the community at large.

The Huntington District has had stable multi-age classrooms for many years, having chosen this structure as a matter of educational policy and not as a means to manage fluctuating class sizes. The district hires part-time teachers as necessary. For example, it employs a 0.4 foreign language teacher, who is hired for additional hours elsewhere.

Regarding student assessments, the Huntington Board’s Chair reported that the district’s students perform at the median and sometimes above it.

The participants in the Conversation stressed that the community loves the school building and has “gone above and beyond” to maintain and improve it. In fact, much of the April 27 Conversation centered on the fairly recent addition of energy-efficient systems to the building and the concern that the larger UUSD community would not have supported the project. The

49 The Legislature exempted Huntington from Act 49, Sec. 22, which prohibits an NMED from benefitting from the tax rate reductions for which its MUUSD is eligible. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 74 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Huntington District fears that if it becomes a PreK-12 member of the unified district, then any problem with or desired improvement to the Huntington building would not be a priority of the unified district for many years. As the Board Chair stated, Huntington would no longer control its own destiny.

The Huntington representatives also expressed concern that full membership would not be good for the town as a whole, because gathering to discuss issues is good for the community and it is less likely that citizens would travel a long distance to attend school board meetings. In addition, while the MUUSD relies upon a policy-governance model, the Huntington District operates according to what it terms “participatory governance” – that is, local citizens raise concerns at board meetings, where they are discussed in full. The Huntington District representatives believe that this approach is more flexible in addressing issues as they arise and that it encourages community engagement.

The Huntington District sees the appeal of merger, but does not believe that PreK-4 membership will benefit Huntington. It already relies upon the SU for efficiencies, such as collective bargaining of its contracts. In addition, the Huntington District believes that it is too far distant from other schools to benefit from intradistrict sharing and intradistrict school choice being implemented in the elementary schools of the MUUSD.

The Huntington representatives reported that, for purposes of employment, health care, recreation, etc., the community is involved with many communities in the region other than Jericho and Underhill.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …” Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 75 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The Huntington Board discussed both the importance of retaining local decision-making and also the local community’s desire to retain the current model of “participatory governance” and the ability to “control its own destiny.” The Board also reported the community’s desire to maintain a local elementary school building for its youngest students, both to avoid long bus rides and also to maintain and encourage parental involvement. In addition to these two concerns, the Huntington Board focused primarily on pride in its school building and concern that the full unified district would not prioritize that building’s structural needs.

The FY 2018 ADM for the Huntington District is 100 for K-4, with more than one classroom for its multi-age units. These multi-age classrooms have been in place for many years and are the result of educational policy, not as a way to manage fluctuating student populations. If, as the Huntington District contends, Huntington is too remote from the other elementary school buildings to benefit from intradistrict sharing and school choice, then that distance plus the school’s relatively robust ADM would minimize any likelihood that the school will be closed. As a result, even if merged, a young child will be able to be educated in Huntington and avoid long bus rides unless the child’s family wishes to take advantage of intradistrict elementary school choice. In addition, given this unlikelihood that the school would be closed, parental volunteerism and using the school to embrace new young families into the community would similarly be unaffected.

Inherent in the desire to maintain local decision-making authority and a “participatory governance” model is the premise that these are the best ways to ensure responsiveness, transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility and that a centralized board, unified budget, and Australian balloting are not. It is understandable that community members would mourn transition from local decision-making and a school-centric budget, which is amended and voted on “from the floor,” to a multi-school budget developed by a unified board and decided by Australian ballot. Given the Legislature’s presumption that the “preferred structure” with centralized decision-making is the best way to achieve all the goals of Act 46, including transparency, accountability, and fiscal efficiency, the shift to a unified board and to Australian ballots is not a reason to preclude the State Board from requiring merger.

In the other four communities, the MUUSD is transforming existing parental fundraising groups into community entities that provide information, listen to local concerns, identify the priorities of the local residents, and give information and advice to the MUUSD Board. Therefore, even though Huntington citizens’ access to the decision-making body would be shared with other residents of the UUSD and although they may need to travel further to attend school board meetings, Huntington citizens would not be without a local ear or voice. Huntington’s participation in the creation and implementation of these structures could be critical to their ability to address its concerns regarding the loss or dilution of voter engagement.

The prioritization of repairs or improvements to a school building is not a concern of the statewide plan – except to the extent that those repairs and improvements might be performed more efficiently and for less cost as part of a unified system.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 76 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The Board noted that the community has consistently voted against proposals to join the unified district as a full PreK-12 member. Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” because a community wishes to maintain its current governance structure and decision-making authority. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into this structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The law does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision.

The Huntington District contends that PreK-4 merger would provide no benefits to Huntington students and taxpayers. Even assuming that this contention is true, it cannot be said that the merger would have no benefit for the region. But for the existence of the Huntington Elementary District, there would be no need for a separate SU structure, nor would there be SU assessments that the voters have no direct ability to approve or reject or the complex accounting mechanisms necessary to support an interrelated PreK-12/5-12 district and a PreK-4 district. In addition, the school located in Huntington could become one in which other students in the region enroll through intradistrict elementary school choice. The ability to share Huntington’s staff and other resources would be simplified, and the MUUSD’s workforce might become even more stable by converting part-time MUUSD staff to full-time employees. Thus, the addition of Huntington as a full PreK-12 member of the unified district has the potential to benefit the students and taxpayers in the other member towns of the district.

Although the Huntington District did not indicate that staff turnover is an issue in the school, it did mention that it hires some teachers – e.g., for foreign language instruction – through part- time contracts. Experience throughout the State indicates that teachers with one or even several part-time contracts tend to leave a school if another district offers full-time employment and benefits. A district with more than one elementary school is not only more likely than a small, single-town district to offer a full-time contract for work within multiple buildings, but is less likely to reduce or eliminate the position if student numbers fluctuate in any one building. While hiring staff on a partial FTE basis may be all that is available in some regions of the state – especially where districts cannot merge unless the voters agree to change the current operating/tuitioning structures – it is an inherently unstable one.

Finally, unlike taxpayers in the other NMEDs, the Huntington taxpayers have already benefitted from merger by receiving tax rate reductions for four years in connection with the grades 5-12 portion of the budget. On the other hand, pursuant to the MUUSD’s Articles of Agreement, the SU assesses the Huntington District for SU costs that arise solely because HESD has chosen to maintain its independent status. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 77 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The Huntington District does not assert that it is not “possible” or “practicable” to assume full PreK-12 membership in the unified district, nor can the Agency identify any facts that would support such a claim. In addition, the fully unified district would be of a size sufficient to support the functions of an SU, thereby creating what the Legislature has determined to be a “preferred structure.”

The Huntington District’s argument that maintaining its current structure is the “best” means for Huntington to create a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals is not convincing enough to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD is the “preferred” means of doing so.

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for both the district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the Huntington Elementary School District and the Mount Mansfield Modified Unified Union School District into a single UUSD by requesting the MUUSD to accept the Huntington District as a full PreK-12 member.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 78 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

9. The Orwell Elementary School District (NMED)

The Orwell Elementary School District is the sole NMED in the Slate Valley MUUSD. The MUUSD assumes full responsibility on July 1, 2018 to provide for the PreK-12 education of students residing in Benson, Castleton, Fair Haven, Hubbardton, and West Haven, and for the grade 9-12 education of students residing in Orwell. The Orwell District remains an independent town district organized to provide for the PreK-8 education of its resident students.

The Orwell District has a K-8 ADM of 121.50 in FY 2018. The MUUSD has a K-12/9-12 ADM of 1,106.42 in the same fiscal year, for a total of 1,227.92 in the SU. But for the existence of the Orwell Elementary District, the SU superstructure could dissolve and the unified district – due both to its structure and its size – would be large enough to be its own Supervisory District (an “SD” – i.e., a single-district SU).

The Orwell District’s student population in K-8 has fluctuated over the last five fiscal years. The two largest changes, a decrease of 5.75 students FY 2014 – FY 2015 and an increase of 7.60 students in FY 2015 – FY 2016, represent changes of -6.0% and 8.8% respectively, although the overall trend has been upward since FY 2014.

Between April 2016 and March 2017, Orwell voters rejected creation of a UUSD on three occasions:

Proposal #1 (without an MUUSD option) 121 Yes / 211 No 166 Yes / 204 No (on reconsideration) Proposal #2 (with MUUSD option) 137 Yes / 219 No

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

Although the board members in office at the time of the votes approved the merger proposals, the current Orwell District Board members have not reached consensus on the best way forward and did not submit a written Section 9 Proposal from the entire board.

At the Orwell District’s Conversation on March 20, 2018, the school board representatives were skeptical that full PreK-12 membership would lead to better options for Orwell students or taxpayers. They stated that the Orwell District “takes good care” of its students who struggle. The board representatives acknowledged that they are more likely to receive criticism that they do not meet the needs of higher-achieving students. These students are not always as well prepared for the high school curriculum as are other students in the SU and need to work hard to “catch up” with their peers once they enter 9th grade. The Orwell District is working with the SU’s curriculum coordinator to address this issue.

The Orwell District is concerned that full PreK-12 merger will make it less convenient for parents and other taxpayers to participate in school activities and make decisions regarding the school’s future. Specifically, full merger would remove Orwell taxpayer’s direct ability to “change, approve or disapprove the budget” at town meeting.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 79 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The Orwell District has historically had strong, positive, collaborative relationships with other elementary districts in the SU, partially evidenced by their sharing of a teacher with Benson. The board representatives expressed some concern that if the Orwell District remains an independent elementary school district, then it might engender “bad feelings” that negatively affect its relationships with the towns that approved full membership in the MUUSD.

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot at Appendix F common data points at Appendix G; and the Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

At the March 20 Conversation, some representatives and community members argued against merger because it would remove the Orwell taxpayers’ direct ability to “change, approve or disapprove the budget” at Town Meeting.50 The Agency notes that the Orwell District currently pays a substantial SU assessment that cannot be amended by the Orwell electorate when it considers the budget. Inherent in the desire to maintain local decision-making authority is the premise that this is the best way to ensure responsiveness, transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility and that a centralized board, unified budget, and Australian balloting are not. It is understandable that community members would mourn transition from local decision-making and a school-centric budget, which is amended and voted on “from the floor,” to a multi-school budget developed by a unified board and decided

50 The Agency notes that the Orwell District currently pays a substantial SU assessment which cannot be amended by the Orwell electorate when it considers the budget. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 80 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

by Australian ballot. Given the Legislature’s presumption that the “preferred structure” with centralized decision-making is the best way to achieve all the goals of Act 46, including transparency, accountability, and fiscal efficiency, the shift to a unified board and Australian ballots is not a reason to preclude the State Board from requiring merger.

The MUUSD’s voter-approved articles require the unified board to develop structures “to support and encourage public participation.” Orwell’s participation in the creation and implementation of these structures could be critical to the structures’’ ability to address Orwell’s concerns regarding the loss or dilution of voter engagement.

Unlike many other districts presenting proposals under Sec. 9, the Orwell District did not express fear that a unified district would close the Orwell school building or that young children will experience excessively long bus rides. The MUUSD’s voter-approved articles of agreement contain some of the most stringent provisions regarding building closure and re-use of any of the State’s new unified districts. No K-8 building can be closed during the first four years. In all subsequent years, closure requires a 75% vote of the unified board and approval by the voters of the town in which the building is located. Similarly, use of a building for an educational purpose other than direct instruction involves a 75% vote of the unified board. The unified district operates under the “Hybrid” model of board representation, and each town receives three seats on the board regardless of the relative size of the town’s population.

The next nearest elementary school building is approximately 8 miles (9 minutes) from the Orwell District building. Even if the unified district eventually closed the Orwell building or reconfigured grades between the Benson and Orwell buildings (neither of which has been suggested, to the best of the Agency’s knowledge), full PreK-12 membership would likely not cause long bus rides or have a significant effect on the level of parental volunteers.

During the March 20 Conversation, the board representatives and other community members did not provide examples of the benefits that full PreK-12 membership would make available to Orwell students and taxpayers. At very least, perhaps unification would provide additional resources to help Orwell students be as prepared as their peers in other towns for the more academically challenging classes offered at the high school. Even if full membership would create no benefits for Orwell, it cannot be said that the merger would have no benefit for the region. But for the existence of the Orwell Elementary District, there would be no need for a separate SU structure, nor would there be SU assessments that voters have no direct ability to approve or reject or the complex accounting mechanisms necessary to support an interrelated PreK-12/5-12 district and a PreK-4 district. In addition, the school located in Orwell could become one in which other students in the region enroll through intradistrict elementary school choice. The ability to share Orwell’s staff and other resources would be simplified, and the MUUSD’s workforce might become even more stable by converting part-time MUUSD staff to full-time employees. Thus, the addition of the Orwell District as a full PreK-12 member of the unified district has the potential to benefit the students and taxpayers in the other member towns of the district.

Some Board representatives and members of the public noted that the community has consistently voted against proposals to join the unified district. Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” because a community wishes to maintain its current governance structure and decision-making authority. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 81 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into this structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The law does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision.

Regarding the concern that “bad feelings” might negatively affect collaboration with other districts if the Orwell District remains a single-town district: on a practical level, even if there is no animosity, the ease with which collaboration can occur in a unified district might cause the MUUSSD to favor intradistrict collaboration among its elementary schools rather than the more cumbersome alliance with an independent Orwell District.

The Orwell District does not assert that it is not “possible or practicable” to assume full PreK- 12 membership in the unified district, nor can the Agency identify any facts that would support such a claim. In addition, the unified district would be of a size sufficient to support the functions of an SU, thereby creating what the Legislature has determined to be a “preferred structure.”

No argument presented that maintaining its current structure is the “best” means for Orwell to create a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals is convincing enough to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD is the “preferred” means of doing so.

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for both the district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the Orwell Elementary School District and the Slate Valley Modified Unified Union School District into a single UUSD by requesting the MUUSD to accept the Orwell District as a full PreK-12 member.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 82 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

10. The Windham Elementary School District (NMED)

The Windham Elementary School District is the sole NMED in the West River MUUSD, located in the Windham Central SU. The MUUSD assumes full responsibility on July 1, 2019 to provide for the PreK-12 education of students residing in Brookline, Jamaica, Newfane, and Townshend, and for the grade 7-12 education of students residing in Windham. The Windham District remains an independent town district organized to provide for the PreK-6 education of its resident students.

The Windham District has a K-6 ADM of 15 student in FY 2018. The MUUSD has a K-12/7-12 ADM of 452.91 in the same fiscal year. The SU, which comprises five districts (the Windham Elementary District, the MUUSD, the River Valleys USD, the Marlboro School District, and the Stratton School District), has a total ADM of 868.76.

The Windham District’s K-6 student population has fluctuated over the last five fiscal years: 14, 20, 16.87, 14, and 15 in FY 2014 through FY 2018, respectively. Due to small enrollment numbers, these fluctuations have a significant impact on the tax rate from year to year. A larger student base provides tax rate stability, all else being constant.

The Section 9 Proposal, however, estimates that the ADM will more than double in the next five years when it expects that an additional 18-20 children will enroll.

The Windham voters rejected creation of a UUSD on March 7, 2017 as follows: 66 Yes 74 No 1 Blank or Spoiled

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Windham District wishes to remain a single-town elementary school district in the Windham Central SU. A survey conducted after the voters rejected the merger proposal indicated that the community’s top three priorities are: maintaining high quality, preserving local decision-making; and continuing to educate the youngest students close to home.

The Section. 9 Proposal explains that the many, varied educational opportunities offered at the schools are due to “close relationship between local School Board members and the larger community, emphasizing the need to maintain our local School Board.” Many, such as after- school ukulele lessons, are provided free of charge. In addition, “in, at least, two instances, children have come to WES with a special ed. label and graduated without it.” There is little staff turnover at the school and there has not been a vacancy on the school board for “35 years or so.” It is impossible to report SBAC or other assessment data due to the Windham District’s small size, although the district reports that aggregated data show a need for improvement in math and a high level of proficiency in language arts. The Windham District did not identify any benefits in a unified governance system.

Much of the Proposal and the April 10 Conversation focused on reasons that the community should be considered geographically isolated, including explanations regarding altitude, steep roads, and often perilous driving conditions. The Windham District believes it is likely that full PreK-12 membership in the unified district could require parents and other Windham Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 83 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

community members to travel great distances on bad roads in inclement weather to participate in school board meetings, describing that possibility as “not being convenient for folks.” The district is also concerned that the Windham community’s voice would be lost on a large, unified board.

While the Windham District focuses in part on these types of participation concerns, the district seems to be particularly fearful that the Windham Elementary School will close if the district assumes full membership in the unified district. At the Conversation, the statement was made that the Windham Elementary School has a “target on [its] back.” The Windham District believes that the MUUSD is considering closing a school and, although the general, anecdotal understanding is that the discussions are focused on another elementary school in the SU, the Windham District is concerned that unification will lead to closure of the Windham Elementary School instead or as well.

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and the Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage. The Windham District provided paper copies of its Section 9 Proposal for the Secretary and all State Board Members. As it did not submit an electronic copy of proposal, contact the district to review a paper copy.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

In the Section 9 Proposal and during the Conversation, the Windham Board noted that the community voted against the proposal to join the unified district and that the majority of respondents to a post-vote survey indicated a strong preference for preserving the current Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 84 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

local decision-making structure. Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” because a community wishes to maintain its current governance structure and decision-making authority. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into the UUSD structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The law does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision.

It is also worth noting that a school board is charged with making decisions that are best for its students and its taxpayers. It is understandable if a school board endeavors to implement the will of the community.51 In contrast, Act 46 and longstanding statutory law require the State Board to decide what is best for the district, the region, and the State – and, given the statutory purpose underlying the State Board’s existence, that means the State Board must focus on what is best for the education of the State’s children.

In addition to survey results indicating a community preference for local decision-making, the Windham District’s Section 9 Proposal and Conversation also expressed concern that the local voice of such a small town would be lost on a large unified board. Inherent in the desire to maintain local decision-making authority and fear of losing “voice” is the premise that a small, local board is the best ways to ensure responsiveness, transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility and that a centralized board, unified budget, and Australian balloting are not. It is understandable that community members would mourn transition from local decision-making and a school-centric budget, which is amended and voted on “from the floor,” to a multi-school budget developed by a unified board and decided by Australian ballot. Given the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD with centralized decision-making is the best way to achieve all the goals of Act 46, including transparency, accountability, and fiscal efficiency, the shift to a unified board and Australian ballots is not a reason to preclude the State Board from requiring merger. In addition, given the extremely small size of the Windham District, it is interesting to note that even under the predominantly Town-by-Town Proportionality Model adopted by the West River MUUSD, the number of seats allocated to each town are not remarkably disparate (two towns with 1 member each, two towns with 2 members each, one town with 3 members, plus 2 totally at large members).

Much of the Windham District’s argument against full PreK-12 merger is based upon its assertion of geographic isolation due to both distance and treacherous driving conditions. The Windham District worries that these factors will prevent citizens from attending unified board meetings and parents from participating in district-wide events located in other school buildings. The geographic concerns also factor heavily in connection with the community’s fear that full PreK-12 membership will result in closure of the Windham Elementary School.

51 It is worth noting, however, that there were very few votes separating the favorable and unfavorable ballots. In addition, although the statement was made here and in other districts that anecdotal post-vote conversations revealed that individuals who had approved the merger proposal did so because they hadn’t understood the consequences of their vote, there is nothing to suggest that votes of disapproval weren’t similarly based upon misunderstanding or misinformation. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 85 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Specifically, the Windham District maintains that it would not be safe to transport small children to other locations if the UUSD were to close its school.

Although the Legislature indicated that, in enacting Act 46, it was not its intention to close small schools, neither did it premise merger on keeping every school within the new district open beyond the first four years. Nevertheless, there are many reasons that closure of the Windham Elementary School seems unlikely at this point. If travel between the Windham Elementary School and the nearest elementary school is as treacherous as the Windham District contends, then it is difficult to imagine that a unified board would consider closing the school.52 Alternatively, if the drive is not deemed to be too treacherous – or is not treacherous for some months of the year – then, given the district’s conviction that its school offers extraordinary opportunities not available elsewhere, it seems likely that Windham will become a destination for other elementary school children, either through the unified district’s full elementary school choice program or on a field-trip or other point-in-time basis.

It is also significant that the MUUSD’s voter-approved articles of agreement contain some of the most stringent provisions regarding building closure in the State, permitting closure of a school at any point in the future only if approved by the voters of the town in which the school is located. Because the original merger warning explicitly referenced this provision, the school closure protection language can be amended only by a favorable vote of the entire electorate and cannot be amended or repealed by vote of the unified board. In addition, the sense that Windham is being “targeted” for school closure seems to emanate primarily from a comment made nearly a decade ago by then-Commissioner Vilaseca. Finally, reported discussions regarding potential school closure have been focused on a building other than the one in Windham.

The Windham District also claims that the NewBrook Elementary School’s capital debt far exceeds the Windham District’s outstanding debt and is another barrier to merger. Basing a decision on debt levels is short-sighted, and – given the Legislature’s identification of a UUSD as the best means to sustainably achieve the Act 46 goals – should not be the sole or primary reason to prevent merger where it is otherwise the best alternative. Although assumption of a portion of one district’s capital debt may result in tax increases under the districts’ modeling, the increases may be mitigated by savings that could result from approaching the possibilities of merger in a creative manner. In addition, today’s district with little or no debt will tomorrow become the district that needs a new roof. In other words, long-term decision making should not be based on point-in-time circumstances. Finally, capital debt does not last forever, it is eventually paid off. Districts need to take the long view when determining

52 Although there is no need for the Secretary to dispute the contention of geographic isolation and treacherous driving conditions in order to reach her conclusions, it should be noted that the community regularly drive out of Windham in order to access employment, shopping, health care, and other services; parents currently transport their young children to Weston, Londonderry, and Newfane as there are currently are no programs in Windham; and students in grades 7-12 travel by bus to attend school in Townshend. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 86 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

what will best serve their students, particularly in small districts with steadily declining populations, increasing budgets, or unstable tax rates.53

Student assessments cannot be used to gauge quality in this tiny district. Not only is it impossible to report results, must less disaggregate them by poverty or special needs, but it is also impossible to rely upon any generalized statistics when a statement that, e.g., 66% of the 3rd grade students meet State standards translates into 2 of the 3 students in that grade over a three-year period performed at that level.

The Windham District contends that PreK-4 merger would provide no benefits to Windham students and taxpayers, and might even threaten programmatic offerings at the school or raise taxes. Even assuming that this contention is true, it cannot be said that the merger would have no benefit for the region. But for the existence of the Windham Elementary District, there would be no need for the complex accounting mechanisms necessary to support an interrelated PreK-12/7-12 district and a PreK-6 district. In addition, the school located in Windham could become one in which other students in the region enroll through intradistrict elementary school choice or with which other schools could more easily share point-in-time programming. The ability to access Windham’s staff, unique programming, and other resources would be simplified, and the unified district’s workforce might become even more stable by converting part-time staff to full-time employees. Thus, the addition of Windham as a full PreK-12 member of the unified district has the potential to benefit the students and taxpayers in the other member towns of the district.

It is also not clear that merger has no potential to benefit the students and taxpayers of Windham and improve the school’s chances of continuing to operate and offer vibrant programming opportunities. The Windham District’s K-6 ADM has fluctuated during the last five fiscal years, hovering primarily in the mid-teens except for a spike to 20 students in FY 2015. Even if an additional 18-20 students enroll in the coming years as the Windham District projects – growing from 15 students to a projected 35 students – the Windham District would operate the 4th smallest K-6 school in the State (it is currently the smallest) and would be the 8th smallest district54 in the state (it is currently the 2nd smallest). Given the State Board’s current draft metrics for small school grant eligibility, it is questionable whether the district will continue to receive the ~$40,600 annually in statewide education funds to support continuation of its programs. Larger governance structures have been shown to provide the flexibility needed to reduce budget and tax increases, even out tax rate fluctuations, and allow small or struggling schools to stay open and programs to remain intact or be expanded.

No facts have been presented that support a conclusion that merger is not “possible” or “practicable” in this instance, nor can the Agency identify any other facts that would do so.

In addition, the Windham Board’s argument that maintaining its current structure is the “best” means for Windham to create a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46

53 The Windham District also cites the Leland and Gray Union High School District’s existing debt, but the Windham District already shares responsibility for its repayment because it is a member of the union high school district. 54 Including operating districts and tuitioning districts and all grade configurations, K-12. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 87 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Goals is not convincing enough to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD is the “preferred” means of doing so.

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for both the district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the Windham Elementary School District and the West River Modified Unified Union School District into a single UUSD by requesting the MUUSD to accept the Windham District as a full PreK-12 member.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 88 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

c. USDs with Un-Like Members

There are several existing union school districts in the State that, unlike the five discussed in Part VI(A)(a) above, have at least one member district that has an operating/tuitioning pattern that differs from that of the other member(s).

Under current statute, only the voters of a school district can choose whether to educate resident students by operating a school or paying tuition, and only the voters can decide to change the current pattern. As a result – for purposes of this Part VI regarding governance merger of school districts – the State Board does not have the authority to require a union school district and its un-like member districts to merge into a single unified union school district.55

Where it is impossible to create a “preferred structure,” the Legislature directs the State Board to include other structures in its statewide plan, “such as” multi-district SUs and UUSDs with smaller-than-optimal ADM numbers. Although not explicitly mentioned, the use of “such as” and the reference to multi-district SUs authorizes the State Board to merge the “like” member districts of the union school district into a union school district of their own if such a merger is necessary to create a sustainable structure capable of meeting or exceeding the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46.

For example, if Union High School District A has five member elementary districts (Member Districts 1-4 that operate schools for PreK-6 and Member 5 that pays tuition for those grades), then the State Board has the authority to merge some or all of Member Districts 1-4 into a union elementary school district. If the State Board were to require such a merger, then six districts would be decreased to three and the new union elementary school district could operate all four elementary schools. The new union elementary school district would be able to offer elementary school choice among the schools, could share staff and other resources among the school buildings, might obtain relief from fluctuating tax rates due to a larger total ADM, and could take advantage of other opportunities inherent in the more flexible structure.

As mentioned above in the introduction to the NMEDs in Part VI(A)(b), it is also possible that the State Board has one other option. Although the Legislature did not formally acknowledge the existence of MUUSDs until granting them eligibility for tax rate reductions and other assistance in its 2012 legislation, union school districts have existed for decades that are structurally similar to an MUUSD – among them the North Country Union High School District, one of the union school districts under consideration in this Part VI(A)(c). It is not clear, however, whether the State Board has independent authority to create a school district with a “modified” structure in its statewide plan by, using the example from above, (1) merging District A and District 1-4 into a Modified Unified Union School District that provided for the PreK-12 education of students in Towns 1-4 and the 7-12 education of the students in Town 5 and (2) maintaining District 5 as a stand-alone elementary school district that paid tuition for its students in grades PreK-6.

55 Note, however, that nothing precludes the State Board from adjusting SU boundaries around these districts, as long as the union school district and all of its member districts are within the same SU. See Part VII for a discussion of SU boundaries. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 89 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Both a union elementary school district and a modified unified union elementary school district retain an overarching SU structure and are both more complex than a UUSD, especially one that is large enough to serve as its own single-district SU. Nevertheless, the Act 46 requires the State Board to merge districts to the extent necessary, possible, and practicable to create more sustainable structures. Formation of a UESD or MUUSD may be the most sustainable structure possible in some regions of the state, and one that could potentially lead to creation of a UUSD at some point in the future.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 90 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

11. The Bellows Falls Union High School District and its Four Member Districts (Athens, Grafton, Rockingham, and Westminster)

The Windham Northeast SU consists of the Bellows Fall Union High School District and its four member elementary districts: Athens, Grafton, and Westminster (which are organized to operate K-6 and pay tuition for grades 7-8); and Rockingham (which is organized to operate K- 8). The Athens and Grafton School Districts have entered into a contract to operate a K-6 school jointly for their resident elementary students. The joint contract school is governed by a separate board composed of the members of both town school boards. Westminster operates two elementary schools: one offering K-4 and the other offering K-6. Rockingham operates two K-4 schools and one 5-8 school for its resident students.

The K–12 ADM in FY 2018 is as follows:

Windham Northeast SU – 1,151.29 K-6 (operate) 7-8 (o/t) 9-12 (union; operate) Athens (K-6 joint) 36.90 13 (tuition) 11 Grafton (K-6 joint) 36.15 15 (tuition) 31 Rockingham 373.69 96 (operate) 231.69 Westminster 183.05 49.2 (tuition) 74.66 [total in Bellows Falls Union 348.35]

Data reflect the following56:

• The Athens District’s K-6 ADM increased steadily between FY 2014 and FY 2017, and then dropped 23% in FY 2018 to return to FY 2014 levels. • The Grafton District’s K-6 ADM remained fairly constant FY 2014-FY 2017, before declining by 18% in FY 2018. • The Rockingham District’s K-6 ADM declined by 5% between FY 2014 and FY 2015 and another 2.8% in FY 2017, before rising 3% in FY 2018 to reach FY 2015/FY 2016 levels. • The Westminster District’s K-6 ADM has shown no discernable trend in the last five years, but has instead fluctuated FY 2014 – FY 2018, currently resting at 2.7% higher than in FY 2014. • The 9-12 ADM of the Bellows Falls Union High School District declined 5.4% between FY 2014 and FY 2018.

The Athens and Grafton school districts jointly operate a school for the elementary grades and separately pay tuition for their 7th and 8th graders. During the Conversation, the Athens and Grafton representatives stated they had formed a committee to study a union school district that would operate grades K-6 and tuition grades 7 and 8.

Athens and Grafton tuition the vast majority of their 7th and 8th grade students to surrounding public school districts, including Bellow Falls Middle School in Rockingham. Westminster tuitions 60% of its 7th and 8th grade students to surrounding public school districts, with 36 out of 39 students attending Bellow Falls Middle School in Rockingham in FY2017.

56 This discussion is reviewing K-6 ADM, rather than K-8, both because these are the grades that all four elementary districts operate and also because the three districts that pay tuition for grades 7-8 have no ability to control their budgets for those grades. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 91 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The four elementary district boards formed a § 706 study committee and presented the committee’s report and proposed articles of agreement to the voters on March 7, 2017. The voters did not approve the proposal, which would have required Athens, Grafton, and Westminster to stop tuitioning students in grades 7-8.

Athens – 69 Yes / 14 No Grafton – 81 Yes / 156 No / 12 Blank or Spoiled Rockingham – 283 Yes / 191 No / 46 Blank or Spoiled Westminster – 155 Yes / 436 No / 15 Blank or Spoiled

Districts’ Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Windham Northeast SU boards submitted a joint Section 9 Proposal, recommending that the State Board retain the districts’ current independent governance structures and SU boundaries.

The Section 9 Proposal states that students throughout the SU are at or above State SBAC averages in “33 of 41 benchmarks, a marked improvement over the prior year where 24 of the 41 were attained.” In addition, each district has adopted a continuous improvement plan and there is SU-wide professional development supporting implementation of a standards-based curriculum and instructional programs in math and writing, budgeted to continue in FY 2019. Going forward, the school boards “will create an Out-of-School Program Task Force to consider the viability of establishing equitable before and after school programs, and summer programs.”

The Proposal points out that “WNESU outperforms State averages in the area of student to staff ratios, evidence that the current governance structure is achieving economies by staffing its schools wisely.” The districts are instituting in-house food service in FY 2019 in all schools and already engage in “bulk purchasing in a number of areas” and some sharing of staff. The districts believe that additional staff sharing opportunities “may emerge in the future, particularly in the areas of data management, art, music, PE, and after-school programs,” and they intend to pursue additional opportunities to achieve economies of scale. Boards will use the “’Goal-Setting Activities/Actions Checklist’ to improve collaboration and the sharing of goals.”

The WNESU board has committed to a full review of the recommendations included in the Integrated Field Review Report issued in December 2017.

The Athens and Grafton Districts, which currently have a contractual arrangement to operate an elementary school jointly, are exploring the potential creation of a union elementary school district. The joint committee that prepared Section 9 Proposal is not making a recommendation on the merits of a potential merger.

The Proposal states, however, that the merger of Westminster with either Athens or Grafton or with a merged Athens-Grafton District is “not feasible or desirable” for several reasons: Travel is geographically challenging between schools with a commute of “at least 25 minutes on curvy secondary roads in good weather.” In addition, there are differences in debt and tax rates. Finally, the Proposal notes that the towns voted overwhelmingly against merger. The Westminster School Board adopted goals based on follow-up discussions with voters, e.g., the Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 92 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

importance of town meetings, 7-8 grade tuitioning, and community connections. “Taken together these goals recognize the relationship between healthy communities, healthy democratic institutions, and well-educated children.”

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

As discussed more fully in the introduction to this Part VI(A)(c), the State Board does not have the authority to require the Bellows Falls Union High School District and its four member elementary school districts to merge into a single unified union school district because three of the member districts pay tuition for grades 7-8 and the fourth member operates a school for those grades. If the voters of the four districts are unwilling to adopt the same method to educate students from all four towns in those two grades (either by paying tuition for students from all four towns for grades 7-8 or by enrolling all in one or more publicly operated middle schools), then the Legislature has not granted the State Board authority to require such a change.

The State Board could, however, require the three “like” elementary school districts (Athens, Grafton, and Westminster) to merge into a union elementary district.

The Section 9 Proposal alleges that differing levels of capital debt are a barrier to merger of Athens, Grafton, and Westminster. Basing a decision on debt levels is short-sighted,

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 93 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

and – given the Legislature’s identification of a UUSD as the best means to sustainably achieve the Act 46 goals – should not be the sole or primary reason to prevent merger where it is otherwise the best alternative. Although assumption of a portion of one district’s capital debt may result in tax increases under the districts’ modeling, the increases may be mitigated by savings that could result from approaching the possibilities of merger in a creative manner. In addition, today’s district with little or no debt will tomorrow become the district that needs a new roof. In other words, long-term decision making should not be based on point-in-time circumstances. Finally, capital debt does not last forever, it is eventually paid off. Districts need to take the long view when determining what will best serve their students, particularly in small districts with steadily declining populations, increasing budgets, or unstable tax rates.

The Section 9 Proposal asserts that differing current tax rates pose a barrier to merger because it would negatively impact one or more of the potentially merging districts. Even assuming the accuracy of the assertion, the Legislature requires the State Board to have a regional focus as it merges districts where necessary to create sustainable structures. The Athens and Grafton Districts had fluctuating or steady ADM numbers in FY 2014 – FY 2017, before the ADM declined precipitously in both districts in FY 2018. Both districts are far smaller than the Westminster District. Experience throughout the State demonstrates that decreasing student population in a small district is not sustainable and ultimately leads to a downward spiral of increasing tax rates, reduced programming, and frequent staff turnover (which the Section 9 Proposal states is already an issue). Larger governance structures have been shown to provide the flexibility needed to mitigate annual budget and tax increases, moderate tax rate fluctuations, and allow small or struggling schools to stay open and programs to remain intact or be expanded. Furthermore, a contention that unification will raise tax rates for one or more groups of taxpayers cannot be the sole reason to prevent merger, particularly where there is no evidence that the calculation resulting in the projected increase accounted for the potential savings that can be realized by the creative and efficient use of the unified district’s resources and flexibility.

The Section 9 Proposal states that merger among the three “like” districts is neither “feasible nor desirable” because the voters did not approve the merger proposal. First, it is important to note that, if approved, the merger proposal would have resulted in a unified structure that operated grades 7-8. Therefore a negative vote could as easily have been a vote in favor of continuing to pay tuition for those grades as it was a rejection of the concept of merger itself. More importantly, as discussed in more detail above, regarding many of the previous proposals, community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 94 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

purpose underlying the State Board’s existence, that means the State Board must focus on what is best for the education of the State’s children.

The Section 9 Proposal states that goals adopted in connection with post-vote discussions with voters identified, among other things, the importance of town meetings to ensure “healthy communities, healthy democratic institutions, and well-educated children.” Inherent in the desire to maintain decision-making at the local board level and approve district budgets at Town Meeting is the premise that they are the best ways to ensure responsiveness, transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility and that a centralized board, unified budget, and Australian balloting are not. It is understandable that community members would mourn transition from a school-centric budget, which often is amended and voted on “from the floor,” to a multi-school budget developed by a unified board and decided by Australian ballot. Given the Legislature’s presumption that the “preferred structure” with centralized decision-making is the best way to achieve all the goals of Act 46, including transparency and accountability, the shift to a unified board and Australian ballots is not a reason to preclude the State Board from requiring merger. In addition, it is important to note that, other than the initial vote voluntarily to form a UUSD and the election of the board members, statute does not require Australian balloting. In fact, some of the UUSDs formed since Act 46 have eschewed a switch to Australian ballots and will instead continue to debate and vote on their unified budgets and other public questions “from the floor.”

Although it appears that the flexibility created by merging all five districts within the Windham Northeast SU is the best way to achieve a sustainable structure in the region – and would be particularly beneficial to the Athens and Grafton Districts – the local voters have chosen not to change their structures in a way that would enable this to occur.

A merger of the Athens, Grafton, and Westminster Elementary Districts would be “possible” and “practicable,” simplify the existing structures by replacing four boards with one, and facilitate resource sharing and elementary school choice among the three schools. Given the small size of Athens and Grafton, combining the ADMs of the Athens, Grafton, and Westminster Elementary Districts would likely provide some relief from tax rate fluctuations for Athens and Grafton but have little impact on Westminster.

The Windham Northeast Section 9 Proposal states that Athens and Grafton School Districts are exploring the possibility of merger. If approved, the voters would replace two districts and three boards with one of each. Although it may make sense to simplify the current multilayered structure so it truly can operate as a single unit, given the very small sizes of both districts, it will be interesting to consider whether there are any other benefits to creation of the unified district. This following decision was ultimately made with the expectation that Athens and Grafton will continue to pursue creation of a union elementary school district. All three districts are strongly encouraged to explore the opportunities of a three-town union elementary district with Westminster, as being the entity most likely to be sustainable in the region if none of the Windham Northeast districts is willing to change its operating/tuitioning structure for grades 7-8.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 95 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time because it would not advance the goals of Act 46, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board merge the Athens, Grafton, and Westminster Districts in the statewide plan. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Note, however, that even if the State Board declines to merge the governance structure of these districts, nothing precludes the Board from redrawing SU boundaries in a way that causes all of the Windham Northeast districts to become a member of a larger SU.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 96 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

12. The Hazen Union High School District AND the Lakeview Union Elementary School District and All Member Districts (Greensboro; Hardwick; Stannard; Woodbury)

The Orleans Southwest SU includes two existing union school districts: the Hazen Union High School District and the Lakeview Union Elementary School District. The Hardwick and Woodbury Elementary Districts, both of which operate elementary schools, are members of Hazen Union for grades 7-12. The third member of Hazen Union for grades 7-12, Greensboro, is also a member of the Lakeview Union Elementary School District, for PreK-6. Stannard, the other member of Lakeview Union for PreK-6, pays tuition for its students in grades 7-12.

In addition to these six intertwined districts, the Orleans Southwest SU includes the Craftsbury School District (PreK-12 operating) and the Wolcott School District (PreK-6 operating; 7-12 tuitioning).

The K-12 ADM for FY 2018 is as follows:

Orleans Southwest SU – 1,003.18 Hardwick (K-6 o) – 217.84 Stannard (7-12 t) – 12.25 Woodbury (K-6 o) – 48.74 Hazen Union (7-12 o) – 285.21 [Greensboro 50.03] [Hardwick 199.77] [Woodbury 35.41] Lakeview Union (K-6 o) – 61 [Greensboro 43] [Stannard 18] Craftsbury (K-12 o) – 136.25 Wolcott (K-6 o / 7-12 t) – 241.89 The districts report the following enrollment trends:

• SU-wide: “mild decline in enrollments in the last 10 years of about 5%” • Hazen UHSD “has been fairly steady in the last 10 years, but with a roughly 10% drop in the last 3 years” • Craftsbury increased about 20% in the last 4 years (not including PreK) • Hardwick “mostly steady enrollments, and is currently about 5% down from its 10 year peak” • Lakeview “steady the last 7 years and is up about 15% from 10 years ago” • Woodbury has same ADM as 10 years ago, and up 40% from lowest point

AOE data reveal the same trends. The decline in student counts and increases in expenditures have had a significant impact on tax rates in all districts but Craftsbury.

Districts’ Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Orleans Southwest districts submitted a joint Section 9 Proposal. Although the two union school districts’ inter-relationship affects the structural ability of the Craftsbury and Wolcott

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 97 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Districts to merge with any other district in the SU, the following discussion focuses on the two union districts and their members. The Craftsbury and Wolcott Districts are discussed in Part VI(C) below, in subsections (a) and (b) respectively.

The districts propose to remain as one union elementary school district; one union middle/high school district; and six single-town districts (two PreK-12; two PreK-6; one 7-12; one “ghost”57) all within same SU.

During their Conversation, the districts stated that as a result of Act 46 conversations, an increase in the number of children who have experienced trauma, and state laws regarding universal access to prekindergarten, they are now working collaboratively in ways they have not done in the past. “Everything that you would expect to happen under Act 46 is happening or is beginning to happen.”

In 2017, the SU Leadership Team developed a new strategic plan and identified areas for improving quality, student performance, and equity. Possibilities for future action include, e.g., having one lead, SU-level coordinator for Library/Media services with team of support staff at each school; centralizing AP classes for Hazen Union and Craftsbury students and offering them on a yearly rotation between the two schools; offering language classes at all elementary schools on a quarterly or semester basis and share the language teachers among schools as they currently do for music, art, and PE.

The districts plan to: “conduct a ‘needs assessment’ for each school focused on improved implementation of curriculum, formative assessments, embedded technology, Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and career pathways;” work to develop “proficiency-based instructional and assessment practices;” and develop “staff expertise in modelling and teaching culturally competent and social emotional behaviors” During the Conversation, the districts indicated they are meeting with local health and mental health professionals to determine ways to intervene earlier with families. The districts can foresee opportunities for centralization in the future, such as in food services and facilities management.

For more details, see the districts’ Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

With one exception, the two union school districts and their member districts are intertwined in a manner that precludes merger of any district in the Orleans Southwest with another OSW district unless the voters in at least one district vote to change the district’s operating/tuitioning structure.

Although it would be structurally possible for the State Board to require the Hardwick and Woodbury Schools Districts to merge to create a union elementary school district, it is not clear

57 Greensboro is a member of two union school districts, one for elementary grades and the other for secondary grades. When a unified union school district (PreK-12) is formed, the underlying town districts automatically dissolve by statute. The same is not true for creation of a union elementary or union high school district, so the underlying Greensboro School District still exists, regardless of whether it is active. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 98 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

whether there is sufficient educational or fiscal benefit to do so while the other, intertwined relationships continue to exist.

The Secretary believes that the Orleans Southwest SU districts would be better able to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency – and the districts’ small schools would more likely become or remain viable – if they had access to the flexibility inherent in a larger, unified structure.

Unification can occur in this SU, however, only if the voters of one or more districts are willing to compromise regarding the grades for which they operate schools and those for which they pay tuition. Absent the voters’ willingness to do so, the Hazen Union and Lakeview Union Districts and their member districts appear to be moving forward in a collaborative manner to the greatest extent that their current structure permits.

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time because it would not advance the goals of Act 46, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board merge the Hardwick Elementary District and the Woodbury Elementary District in the statewide plan. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Note, however, that even if the State Board declines to merge the governance structure of these districts, nothing precludes the Board from redrawing SU boundaries in a way that causes the districts that are the subject of this #12 to become members of a different SU.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 99 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

13. The Lake Region Union High School District and its Seven Member Districts (Albany; Barton; Brownington; Glover; Irasburg; Orleans; Westmore)

Although the deadlines have expired for most of the “voluntary mergers” contemplated by Act 46 and its incorporated laws, it is still possible for districts to explore governance unification during the period leading to the State Board’s issuance of the final statewide plan. For example, districts can consider creating:

• A unified union school district that is eligible for tax rate reductions and other transitional assistance pursuant to Act 46, Sec. 7 • A unified union school district created pursuant to 16 V.S.A. chapter 11 that is not eligible for tax rate reductions or other transitional assistance. • An interstate school district created pursuant to state and federal law.

The Orleans Central SU consists of seven town school districts organized to provide for the education of resident students in PreK-8, six of which operate a school for K-8 and one that pays tuition for K-8. The SU also includes one union high school district, the Lakeview Region UHSD, of which all town seven districts are members. The districts jointly operate a full day, prekindergarten program located in two school buildings that are available five days per week.

A study committee of the Orleans Central SU districts developed a unification proposal approved by the State Board of Education on April 19, 2016. On June 7, 2016, the voters of all but one district voted not to approve the proposal. Because the proposal identified all districts as “necessary,” the districts did not merge into a new unified union school district and the study committee dissolved.

In December 2017 and January 2018, the districts submitted letters signed by the chair of each school board informing the Secretary and State Board that all boards voted to form a new § 706 committee “to pursue a preferred structure in regards to Act 46 and Act 49.” The districts complied with the three requirements of Act 46, Sec. 9 by submitting these letters, by the work of the earlier study committee, and by the work expected of the new study committee. During the Section 10 Conversation on February 23, 2018, the boards’ representatives indicated a belief that the rapid timeframe of the earlier proposal, together with a vote warned for July, contributed to very low voter turnout58 and the proposal’s ultimate failure. As a result, the newly formed committee purposefully developed an extended timeline with many months available for community meetings and a vote on the general election day in November. The study committee sought community feedback to the revised proposal and articles during the Spring of 2018 and will present a new proposal and articles to the State Board at its June 8, 2018 meeting. The committee intends to hold additional community meetings throughout the summer and autumn, and plans to put the new proposal before the voters on November 6, 2018.

If the voters do not approve creation of a unified union school district, it would be possible to merge the six elementary school districts that operate schools into a single union elementary school district with a combined ADM, in FY 2018 numbers, of 647 for K-8. This merger would reduce the SU’s current eight districts, and their respective boards, to three districts: one union

58 Glover (37 yes / 74 no) was the only district in which more than 100 votes were cast. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 100 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

high school district that operates a school (330 ADM; grades 9-12); one union elementary school district that operates multiple schools (647 ADM; K-8); and one PreK-8 district that pays tuition for it resident students (26 ADM; K-8).

For more details, see the districts’ Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage; and the first Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage. The second Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement will be available through the State Board’s website, in connection with its June 8 agenda, soon.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

The Secretary’s ability to comment is limited because it is impossible to predict whether the State Board will approve the study committee’s final proposal and, if so, whether the voters of all “necessary” districts will approve unification. By the time the State Board is required to issue its final statewide plan, the Board will have the information it needs to make its decisions. If the State Board issues its plan before the November 30 deadline and before the scheduled merger vote, then it may want to reserve the opportunity to amend the statewide plan before the legal deadline for purposes of including any decision it might make regarding these districts.

Accordingly, in light of this development and out of respect for the Legislature’s decision to provide the districts with this opportunity to merge voluntarily and obtain tax rate reductions, the Secretary makes no recommendation regarding the governance structure of the Lake Region Union High School District and the Albany, Barton, Brownington, Glover, Irasburg, Orleans, and Westmore Districts at this time so that the Agency does not insert itself into community discussions and potential votes of the electorate. The Secretary anticipates that the State Board will review and may potentially address the governance structure of these districts in its final statewide plan.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 101 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

14. The Mount Anthony Union High School District and its Five Member Districts (Bennington; North Bennington; Pownal, Shaftsbury; Woodford)

The Southwest Vermont SU includes the Mount Anthony Union High School District and its five member districts: the Bennington, Pownal, Shaftsbury, and Woodford Elementary School District, each of which operates a school; and the North Bennington ID, which pays tuition for PreK-6. North Bennington ID includes Village of N Bennington and “a section of the Town of Shaftsbury commonly referred to as the Shaftsbury ID District. The unorganized town of Glastenbury is assigned to the SU for administrative services in those years in which it has resident school-aged children. The Bennington 6th grade students attend class at the Mt. Anthony Union Middle School which is part of the Mt. Anthony Union School District.

The K-12 ADM for FY 2018 is as follows:

Southwest Vermont SU = 2,803 K-6 7-12 (union) Bennington 903.43 822.90 N Bennington 135 (tuition) 88.27 Pownal 219.65 08.70 Shaftsbury 205 186.7 Woodford 21.35 22 [MAUHSD total (7-12) 1,319]

Over the last five years, data reflect that the K-6 ADM for the Bennington District has fluctuated somewhat, but remained relatively constant. The ADM for North Bennington, Pownal, and Shaftsbury remained constant until FY 2018 when it rose 9.5% (11.7 more students) for North Bennington and dipped 10.5% in Pownal (25.8 fewer students) and 15% in Shaftsbury (37 fewer students). Woodford’s ADM had the largest percentage fluctuations, rising 42% (7.35 students) between FY 2014 and FY 2015, then declining by 20% (5 students) between FY 2016 and FY 2017, and climbing 6.7% (1.35 students) in FY 2018 – for a net five-year gain of 3.7 students, or 20%. Mount Anthony’s ADM began to drop in FY 2016, resulting in a net five-year decline of 109 students, or 7% of its ADM from FY 2014 through FY 2018.

The five elementary school districts formed a study committee pursuant to 16 V.S.A. § 706 in the autumn of 2015 on their own behalf and representing the Mount Anthony Union High School District. The study committee disbanded in August 2016, in part to allow North Bennington to leave the study process and pursue other options, including withdrawal from the Union High School District pursuant to the process outlined in 16 V.S.A. § 721a. To date, there has been no movement on the part of North Bennington to withdraw from the union high school district. The school districts continued to have informal conversations. In June 2017, the Bennington, Pownal, Shaftsbury, and Woodford school boards appointed members to a new study committee. The study committee proposed creation of a unified district, providing the alternative of a modified unified union school district if the voters in at least three of the districts approved unification. The State Board approved the proposed merger plan at its September 2017 meeting and the boards of the four districts presented the proposal to their voters on November 7, 2017. The Board of the North Bennington ID, which had been named as an advisable party, chose not to present the question to its voters. The results of the warned votes were as follows:

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 102 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

• Bennington – 965 Yes / 338 No • Pownal – 210 Yes / 214 No (no reconsideration vote) • Shaftsbury – 322 Yes / 176 No • Woodford – 36 Yes / 38 No (38 Yes / 58 No on reconsideration) • (North Bennington – school board did not warn the vote) Districts’ Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

Each of the five elementary districts submitted its Section 9 Proposal independently. The Bennington, Shaftsbury, and Woodford School Boards each propose the same thing, however, and chose to participate in a joint Conversation. The proposals are discussed in three groups below: Bennington-Shaftsbury-Woodford; North Bennington; and Pownal.

Bennington, Shaftsbury, and Woodford School Districts

The Bennington, Shaftsbury, and Woodford Boards propose that the State Board require the Mount Anthony Union School District and its member elementary districts to form a unified union school district as contemplated by the study committee’s proposal presented to the voters in November.

At the districts’ joint Conversation, the Board representatives discussed Woodford’s very small size – noting both that it can serve as an incubator for programs before expanding them to the other elementary schools and that the school’s future would be more stable as part of a larger structure. The representatives speculated that the merger vote failed both times (first by two votes and then, on reconsideration, by four) because Woodford voters feared that taxes would rise if the district unified, particularly due to the dilution of federal forest impact aid. It was noted that the Woodford taxpayers would experience less dilution if the State Board required creation of a union elementary school district than if the districts formed a UUSD.

The representatives stated because a portion of the Town of Shaftsbury lies within the North Bennington ID, some Shaftsbury residents were not allowed to vote on merger. They also indicated that the Shaftsbury school building had capacity to enroll the additional students if all Shaftsbury students were within the Shaftsbury School District, or if the voters of the North Bennington ID chose to become part of an operational district at some point in the future.

The boards of the three districts observed that it made sense to model a unified board’s structure on the Hybrid Model – a structure the union high school has used successfully for many years. The Bennington Board Members noted that their voters approved merger by a three-to-one margin, even though this hybrid model results in a smaller “voice” for Bennington residents on the unified board.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 103 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

North Bennington Incorporated District

In its Section 9 Proposal, the North Bennington School Board proposes for the district to withdraw from the Mount Anthony Union High School District and become a PreK-12 nonoperating district. It then proposes that the new PreK-12 district would join the Battenkill Valley SU as a third district: Arlington (PreK-12 operating); Sandgate (PreK-12 tuitioning); and North Bennington (PreK-12 tuitioning). In addition, it supports the Arlington District’s original request for “a five-year extension as a newly configured SU.”

The North Bennington Board Members explain the reasoning behind its Section 9 Proposal as follows:

[The plan to withdraw from the MAUHSD and become a single-town PreK-12 tuitioning district] is unique because it provides a sustainable way to give vast opportunities to our students and allows other districts to move forward to clean things up in the area.

If we were out of the [union high school district] and moved out of the SU then it would simplify matters for the other districts [in the Southwest VT SU].

One or two students currently enroll in the Arlington High School under the statewide public high school choice program. The North Bennington Board anticipates that if it became a PreK- 12 tuitioning district, the majority of North Bennington students would continue to enroll in the Mount Anthony Union High School with a few enrolling in Arlington, but that the new structure would provide students with publicly funded tuition dollars that would allow students to enroll in independent schools as well (the district anticipates students would enroll in the Burr and Burton Academy).

The North Bennington Board has no current plans to warn a vote to initiate withdrawal from the Union High School. It believes that the other MAUHSD members will not consent to the withdrawal. Board members have spoken with their legislative representatives but do not believe that any are planning to pursue an exemption, similar to the one given to Vernon, which would permit North Bennington unilaterally to withdraw from the union district. The North Bennington Board is hopeful that the Agency or State Board is able to do something to “help clean things up.”

Pownal School District

The Pownal School Board’s Section 9 Proposal urges the State Board to create a Modified Unified Union School District, with Pownal and North Bennington retaining their single-town elementary school district status (NMEDs). Federal forest impact aid has provided minimal assistance in lowering the tax rate and the School Board has managed ratios when necessary by, for example, combining two classes and operating with one fewer teacher.

Given the fact that the savings [expected in the original merger proposal] would be minimal, at best, [the Pownal Board] maintains that our current alternative structure works for the State of Vermont and the residents of our district. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 104 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

During the April 5 Conversation, the Board Members acknowledged that another option would be to create a union elementary district by merging the four districts that operate elementary schools. The Members expressed concern that one board could adequately assume responsibility for the PreK-12 education of students living in several towns, both because elementary and secondary issues are distinct and because one board would not have sufficient time to address all issues, PreK-12. The Board Members appeared to appreciate that although merger is not there first choice, a union elementary school district would enable the elementary schools to have their own school board.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

As discussed more fully in the introduction to this Part VI(A)(c), the State Board does not have the authority to require the Mount Anthony Union High School District and all five of its member elementary school districts to merge into a single unified union school district because four of the member districts operate elementary schools and the fifth member pays tuition PreK-6. If the voters of the five districts are unwilling to adopt the same method to educate students from all five towns (either by operating schools in which all elementary students enroll or by paying tuition for all elementary students), then the Legislature has not granted the State Board authority to require such a change.

The State Board could, however, require the four “like” elementary school districts (Bennington, Pownal, Shaftsbury, and Woodford) to merge into a union elementary district.

Before turning to that discussion, however, it is important to address several requests made by the districts in connection with their Section 9 Proposals. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 105 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

First, the Bennington Board’s proposal explicitly asks the State Board to merge the districts in the manner proposed by the study committee and to grant the newly merged district the same tax rate reductions it would have received if the voters had approved creation of a UUSD/MUUSD in November. As stated above, the State Board has no authority to require a full PreK-12 merger of all districts in the Southwest VT SU. In addition, the Legislature has not authorized the State Board, the Agency, or any other entity or individual to grant tax rate reductions or other transitional assistance to the districts the State Board requires to merge in its statewide plan. It is therefore impossible for the State Board to grant the Bennington Board’s request for tax rate reductions, even if the Board requires merger of districts in this SU.59

Second, the North Bennington ID expresses a desire to become a PreK-12 tuitioning district. It has no plans to warn a vote on the issue under 16 V.S.A. § 721a, because it does not believe that other four elementary districts will approve withdrawal, nor has it pursued an exemption from the statute that would allow it to withdraw unilaterally. Instead, the Board expressed a hope that the State Board or the Agency would “help clean things up.” Many decades ago, the Legislature enacted a process by which a member district can initiate withdrawal from an existing union school district. In at least one instance, the Legislature provided a specific district with the unilateral authority to withdraw. The Legislature has never granted any authority to the State Board or the Secretary/Agency to effectuate a district’s withdrawal from a union school district through any other process. Therefore, there is nothing that the State Board or Agency can do to “help clean things up” in connection with North Bennington’s membership in the Mount Anthony Union High School District (i.e., remove North Bennington from the union high school district).

Finally, the North Bennington Section 9 Proposal suggests that the district become a PreK-12 tuitioning district and that the State Board redraw SU boundaries so that the North Bennington District is a third member district of the Battenkill Valley SU. As stated above, the State Board and Agency has no authority to extract the North Bennington ID from its membership in the union high school district. Until the district effectuates the withdrawal, the State Board has no authority to cause the district to be a member of the Battenkill Valley SU. Structurally, nothing precludes redrawing SU boundaries so that the Arlington and Sandgate Districts were members of the Southwest VT SU, but that would not be responsive to the rationale underlying North Bennington’s Section 9 Proposal and is also not the subject of this Part VI regarding governance merger.

In accordance with the study committee’s report and proposed articles of agreement, the Secretary believes that the Southwest Vermont SU districts would be better able to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency – and the districts’ small schools would more likely become or remain viable – if they had access to the flexibility inherent in a larger, unified structure. Full PreK-12 unification can occur in this SU, however, only if the voters of one or more districts are willing to compromise regarding the grades for

59 Act 49 of 2017, however, authorizes the State to award transitional funds to exempt districts that – at the request of the State Board – agree to include a previously unmerged district as a new member of the UUSD. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 106 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

which they operate schools and those for which they pay tuition. Absent the voters’ willingness to do so, then the State Board has three potential options:

• leave the four “like” elementary district as four independent single-town districts • merge the four “like” town elementary districts into a union elementary district • potentially consider creation of a modified unified union school district

A merger of the Bennington, Pownal, Shaftsbury, and Woodford Elementary Districts into a union elementary school district is both “possible” and “practicable.” It would simplify the existing structures by replacing four boards with one, and facilitate resource sharing and elementary school choice among the districts’ schools. A union elementary school district of these four towns would be large enough to take advantage of increased scale and provide some relief from tax rate fluctuations. This merger would reduce the SU’s current six districts, and their respective boards, to three districts: one union high school district that operates a school (1,319ADM; grades 7-12); one four-town union elementary school district that operates multiple schools (1,349 ADM; K-6); and one PreK-6 district that pays tuition for it resident students (135 ADM; K-6).

Absent compelling evidence to the contrary in this particular instance, the Secretary defers to the Legislature’s determination that a unified district is the structure most likely to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner – even in regions where, as here, it will be necessary for the statewide plan to “include alternative governance structures …, such as a supervisory union with member districts or a unified union school district with a smaller average daily membership.”

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for each district individually and for the region – is for the State Board to merge the governance structures of the Bennington Incorporated District, the Pownal Elementary District, the Shaftsbury Elementary District, and the Woodford Elementary District into a single union elementary school district that provides for the education of its PreK-6 students by operating multiple schools.

Final note: More than one Section 9 Proposal requested that the State Board merge the districts as proposed in the study committee’s report. If the Board wishes to explore creation of a MUUSD in this instance, then the following may be of some use in its deliberations.

The second Southwest Vermont SU Study Committee consisted of appointees of the four elementary districts that operate schools representing their own interests and, per statute, the interests of the Mount Anthony Union High School District. The study committee proposed creation of a UUSD, or alternatively a MUUSD, naming the nonoperating North Bennington ID as an “advisable” district as permitted by statute. The State Board approved the proposal to create a UUSD/MUUSD, finding both structures to be “in the best interests of the State, the students, and the school districts” pursuant to 16 V.S.A. § 706c(b). The voters of each of the four operating districts approved the proposal or very narrowly defeated it. As an “advisable” district, the North Bennington Board exercised its right not to put the question to its voters. The Boards of three districts ask the State Board to merge the districts as requested in the study committee’s proposal and the fourth acknowledges that a union elementary school district might be the best way to meet the Act 46 goals in a sustainable manner. Although the Legislature did not formally acknowledge MUUSDs except in connection with the Phase Two

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 107 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

voluntary merger program enacted in 2012, the State Board has approved MUUSD-like union school districts in the past – for example, the North Country Union High School District, discussed next as proposal # 15.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 108 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

15. North Country Union High School District and its Member Districts (Brighton; Charleston; Derby; Holland; Jay; Lowell; Morgan; Newport City; Newport Town; Troy; Westfield) and the Coventry School District

The North Country SU consists of the North Country Union High School District (“NCUHSD”), its 11 member districts, and the single-town PreK-12 district of Coventry. The unorganized town of Ferdinand is assigned to the SU for administrative and other services for the years in which school-aged children reside there. The supervisory union covers 520 square miles. Travel time between the two most distant schools is approximately one hour.

Structurally, the NCUHSD resembles a modified unified union school district. Of the 11 members of the union high school district:

• Five are members of the NCUHSD for grades 7-12 (Derby; Holland; Jay; Morgan; Newport City) • Four operate schools for grades 7-8 as independent, single-town school districts and are members of the NCUHSD for grades 9-12 (Brighton; Charleston; Lowell; Troy) • Two pay tuition for grades 7-8 as independent, single-town school districts and are members of the NCUHSD for grades 9-12 (Newport Town; Westfield)60

This intricately entwined structure is further complicated by the elementary grades, where one of the 11 town elementary districts (Morgan) pays tuition for PreK-6, while the others operate schools for those grades.

The following table explains the districts’ current operating/tuitioning structures:

K-6 7-8 9-12 Operate Tuition Operate Union Tuition Union Tuition Brighton X X X Charleston X X X Coventry61 X X X Derby X X X Holland X X X Jay JOINT X X Lowell X X X Morgan X X X Newport City X X X Newport Town X X X Troy X X X Westfield JOINT X (X) X (Ferdinand) (X) (X) (X)

60 In March, the Westfield voters approved expanding NCUHSD membership to include grades 7-8 as of July 1, 2019. 61 The Coventry District, which is not a member of the North Country Union High School, is addressed in Part VI(C)(b). Ferdinand is an unorganized town, not a school district, and is not discussed. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 109 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The districts’ K-12 ADMs in FY 2018 are as follows:

North Country SU – 2,374.35 Brighton – 76.29 Charleston – 127.82 Coventry – 169 Derby – 128.45 Holland – 85.62 Jay – 92.96 Lowell – 128.45 Morgan – 63.40 Newport City – 548.98 Newport Town – 187.36 Troy – 212.96 Westfield – 52.75 North Country Union – 196.26 (7-8) and 686.93 (9-12)

At the elementary level, Brighton, Newport City, and Newport Town have FY 2018 ADM counts within +/- 3.5% of their FY 2014 counts. Over the same period, Coventry and Derby grew by 11.7% and 9.8% respectively, while the other seven elementary districts have seen decreases averaging 19%, with a low of almost 9% and a high of 42%. The union high school has seen a decrease of 12% between FY 2014 and FY 2018.

Districts’ Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The boards of the 13 North Country SU districts submitted a joint proposal. The following discussion focuses on the NCUHSD and its 11 members. The Coventry School District, which is a single-town districts responsible for the PreK-12 education of its resident students, is addressed in Part VI(C)(b) below.

North Country’s Section 9 Proposal explains in detail the steps that it has taken and is continuing to take regarding educational opportunities and equity. For example, after the NCSU Leadership Team recommended the NCSU Commitments and Design for Learning for SU approval in September 2015; the districts convened a Learning Design Council “(comprised of a wide range of stakeholders, including parents and students) to assess the implementation … and to make recommendations on the next iteration for board approval next September;” and the districts are in the second year of working with Great Schools Partnership of Portland, ME through which they have “established cross-curricular standards/‘Transferable Skills’ that are K-12.” In addition, the districts will continue “defining content proficiencies” and will define “clear learning progressions” and are in the “second year of having a ‘Pathways Coordinator to support a wide range of on-line, self-designed academic study, early college and external learning opportunities.” The districts would like to “expand to include community based learning and service learning opportunities at all schools.”

The Section 9 Proposal states: “Our data demonstrates that there are mixed outcomes for students, that includes an achievement gap for students from poverty and those on” IEPs, acknowledging that the “achievement gaps [are] between sub-groups, between schools and to some extent between” SU and other SUs and districts outside the SU. North Country notes that

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 110 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

the gaps are influenced by many variables including “school culture, quality of staff, quality of instruction or design of learning, fidelity of curriculum or program implementation, and in some cases access to services.”

Districts are attempting to take advantage of scale by, e.g., having the SU employ common staff and assesses out the cost to the schools based on time (e.g., P.E. teacher). Noting that “working class and poor parents generally are not engaged, nor do they participate at the same level as their more educated and wealthy neighbors,” the districts acknowledge that they “need to establish a more inclusive and more participatory process for authentic engagement of all members of our school-community.”

The North Country districts assert that town-level budgets are more transparent than a centralized budget. They “believe strongly that a multi-district supervisory union is the best option for maintaining access and trust with our communities.”

To operate in a fiscally responsible manner, the districts will continue to “monitor staffing ratios and adjust accordingly,” maintain an “ongoing assessment of transportation services,” and “maximize grant funds and consider additional funding sources.”

The Section 9 Proposal states that a centralized governance structure does not make sense when the State expects personalization at the student levels. It points to the districts’ own experience that a decentralized PreK system is better than their earlier, centralized model. In summary, the North Country districts state that “we believe for our community members to remain fully vested and committed we must maintain the local democratic decision-making process that determines the direction of our schools.”

For more details, see the districts’ Snapshot at Appendix F and common data points at Appendix G. The North Country SU did not submit an electronic version of its Section 9 Proposal; contact the SU to review a paper copy.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 111 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

As discussed more fully in the introduction to this Part VI(A)(c), the State Board does not have the authority to require the North Country Union High School District and its many member school districts to merge into a single unified union school district. Not only do the member districts have a variety of operating and tuitioning structures but they are members of the union school district for different grades. If the voters of the districts are unwilling to adopt the same method to educate students from all towns in each grade (either by operating schools or by paying tuition for the grade), then the Legislature has not granted the State Board authority to require such a change.

The State Board could, however, require “like” elementary school districts to merge into one or more union elementary district.

The extreme complexity of the districts’ structures makes the value of merger questionable. For example, theoretically the State Board could merge the five elementary districts that operate K-8 into one union school district for those grades or the (soon-to-be) five elementary districts that are members of the NCUHSD for 7-8 into one union school district for grades K-6. But the distance between the districts and the region’s general reluctance to collaboration and resistance to centralization, even when required by statute, raise questions regarding whether any new structure would actually take advantage of the flexibility to achieve educational and fiscal improvement.

On the other hand, the law requires the statewide plan to merge districts where “possible” and “practicable.” In addition, Act 46 notes that an SU with multiple member districts is most likely to be able to meet the goals in a sustainable manner when the SU has the smallest number of member districts practicable. There has been no movement toward merger and few instances of districts sharing resources. Perhaps merger will help the very small districts in the North Country SU to find opportunities to work together for the good of all the children in the region. Although merger of the North County Union High School and its 11 member districts is not possible because of the variety of operating/tuitioning structures, the State Board could make some targeted mergers with those districts where it is possible.

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for each district individually and for the region – is for the State Board to merge the governance structures of the following pairs of districts into three union elementary school districts, each of which would provide for the education of its resident children as follows:

1. The Brighton School District and the Charleston School District – to be a union elementary school district responsible for the PreK-8 education of its students 2. The Derby School District and the Holland School District – to be a union elementary school district responsible for the PreK-6 education of its students 3. The Jay School District and the Westfield School District – to be a union elementary school district responsible for the PreK-6 education of its students. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 112 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

B. Single-Town Districts that Pay Tuition for All Resident Students, PreK-12 (“Nonoperating Districts”)

General Analysis of Nonoperating Districts and Merger

Each student living in a PreK-12 nonoperating district enrolls in the school s/he selects and, in the case of an independent school, that will accept the student. A nonoperating district has no ability to increase educational opportunities or improve equity except to the extent that it provides transportation to the schools in which its students enroll or its voters vote to pay full tuition to one or more approved independent schools. As a result, merger of nonoperating districts will not positively affect opportunities or equity unless the new unified district chooses to pursue one or both of these actions. In addition, at least one nonoperating district has expressed concern that merger would cause cessation of these practices, resulting in diminished opportunities and equity. (Act 46, Goals #1 and #2)

Nonoperating districts pay tuition to the public and approved independent schools in which their resident students enroll. Therefore, unlike a district that operates a school, a nonoperating district has no ability to institute efficiencies, increase ratios, achieve district-level economies of scale, or otherwise control its budget – except, perhaps, if voters that previously authorized their school board to pay full tuition to an independent school rescind that authority. In addition, increasing opportunities by paying full tuition increases costs and decreases affordability. Any efficiencies realized at the SU level – as a result of it being responsible for one unified district rather than two or more individual nonoperating districts – would be minimal, and might even result in the need for additional personnel.62 Merger of nonoperating districts will not increase efficiencies or reduce budgets. Similarly, merger would not increase transparency or accountability for a single-town entity that exists primarily to make tuition payments. In addition, unless other SU board members were willing to request the State Board to waive the default provisions of 16 V.S.A. § 266, a merged nonoperating district (just as any merged district) would have fewer appointed representatives on an SU Board than the sum of each district’s representation prior to merger. (Goals #3 and #4)

Merger of nonoperating districts, however, can affect tax rates for residents of some or all of the member towns. For example, the nonoperating districts that created the NEK Choice District determined that unification would ameliorate tax rate fluctuations caused by unexpected tuition increases by spreading the effects over a larger student population, as tax rates are dependent on spending per pupil. In contrast, some nonoperating school boards that submitted a Section 9 Proposal posited that their tax rates would likely increase upon merger – e.g., if the voters of the unified district authorized the unified board to pay the full amount of tuition. (Goal #5)

There seems to be little reason to merge nonoperating districts that do not want to be merged, although merging could add stability to tax rates. A unified governance system usually would not improve a nonoperating district’s ability to increase opportunities, equity, efficiency, transparency, or accountability. It would not decrease educational costs. There would be little or no decrease in central office administration costs. Costs might rise marginally for some town residents if their current district pays the statutory rate and the unified district voters authorize

62 See discussion of the Pittsfield School District and the Stratton School District. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 113 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

payment of the full rate charged by an independent school to which statutes don’t already require payment in full. In general, the only potential benefit of merging nonoperating districts is to minimize fluctuation in tax rates. If the boards of unmerged nonoperating districts do not see this as a benefit or there is no clear evidence that merger will result in tax benefits in a particular region, then there appears to be no statewide, regional, or local reason for the State Board to require the districts to unify.

Overview of All Current Nonoperating Districts in Vermont

Prior to enactment of Act 46, there were a total of 21 districts organized to provide for education by paying tuition for all PreK-12 students. Of this number:

• Ten districts in the Caledonia North, Essex-Caledonia, and Essex North SUs unified into a single unified union school district responsible for the education of all Pre K-12 students by paying tuition. This new district, named “the NEK Choice District.” will be fully operational on July 1, 2018 and will become a member district within the Essex North SU at that time. The district is eligible for tax rate reductions and other transitional assistance under the “RED” provisions of Act 153 (2010). • Three districts, Baltimore, Plymouth, and St. George, chose to give up their tuitioning status and approved mergers where they became members of a PreK-12 operating UUSD. • Two districts in the White River Valley SU formed the Granville Hancock Unified School District. The new district will be fully operational on July 1, 2018 and is eligible for tax rate reductions and other transitional assistance under the Side-by-Side provisions of Act 156 (2012). • One district, the Ira School District, obtained early assurance under the “2-by-2-by-1” program of Act 49 (2017) that the State Board’s final statewide plan would not require the Ira District to merge with another nonoperating district.

Each of the five remaining nonoperating districts have submitted Section 9 Proposals. Four requested that they remain as single town districts and the fifth acknowledged potential financial benefit in unification.63

In addition to the discussion of each of the five districts below, see each district’s respective Snapshot and baseline data at Appendix F and links to the Section 9 Proposals at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

63 Whether each of the five nonoperating districts should remain within its current SU is discussed in Part VII of this document. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 114 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

16. The Pittsfield School District

The Pittsfield School District is the sole nonoperating district in the Windsor Central SU. The recently created Granville-Hancock Unified School District (GHUSD), located in the White River SU, is the only nonoperating district within reasonable proximity to Pittsfield. The PSD had a K-12 ADM of 56.30 in FY 2018.

In FY 2017, the most recent year for which there is data, a large majority of the district’s students enrolled in schools located in the Windsor Central SU, although that has not historically been the case.

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Pittsfield District states that its current full-tuitioning model is the best way to provide substantial equity in the quality and variety of educational opportunities and to lead students to achieve or exceed the State’s educational quality standards (Goals #1 and #2). It believes that transparency and accountability are best served by maintaining its single-town governance structure (Goal #4). Finally, the proposal asserts that the Pittsfield District has “experienced a reduction in tax rates and increased efficiencies since joining the WCSU and maintaining choice” and that this “will also provide Pittsfield with additional flexibility to manage [its] students’ educational expenditure and access.” (Goals #3 and #5)

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot data at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

The Pittsfield District provides no support for its contention that its tax rates dropped as a result of joining the Windsor Central SU. In fact, as explained in more detail in the Agency’s recommendation that accompanied the Pittsfield District’s “3-by-1” proposal to the State Board (which the Board did not approve), the district’s tax rate decrease appears to have no relationship to its recent move to the Windsor Central SU. Rather, the Pittsfield District experienced both a drop in expenditures and an increase in offsetting revenues from FY 2017 to FY 2018 that resulted in reducing the rate from $1.8917 to $1.2882 in those years. In addition, recently enacted laws that exempt fully- tuitioning districts from adverse tax consequences associated with the excess spending threshold have benefited the Pittsfield District.64

A nonoperating district is able to realize financial benefits of any significance only by spreading the effects of unexpected tuition increases over a larger student population – i.e., by merging its governance with other nonoperating districts, as tax rates are dependent on spending per pupil. The Granville Hancock Unified School District (“GHUSD”) is the only district in the region with a governance structure that is identical to the Pittsfield District. The State Board could require the Pittsfield District to merge with the GHUSD, however, only if the voters of the GHUSD accepted the additional

64 16 V.S.A. §4001(6)(B)(vii). Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 115 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

town as a member. There is no indication that the GHUSD is willing to accept the Pittsfield District as a member – or that there would be significant tax benefits to either district from doing so. In addition, the Pittsfield District asks to remain a member of the Windsor Central SU, where a majority of its students currently attend school and the Windsor Central SU supports the request.

As nonoperating districts that pay the statutory tuition rate and do not provide transportation, there is no evidence that merger of the Pittsfield School District with the Granville-Hancock UUSD (if it agreed to merger) would improve educational opportunities or equity for students in the region. In addition, the Pittsfield School District does not anticipate that such a merger would result in stabilization of tax rates.

For these reasons – and because the Pittsfield School District does not wish to change its nonoperating structure – the Agency does not believe that merger into a unified district will affect whether it is a sustainable structure capable of meeting the goals of Act 46.

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time because it would not advance the goals of Act 46, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board request the Granville-Hancock UUSD to merge with the Pittsfield School District as part of the Board’s statewide plan. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Note, however, that even if the State Board declines to attempt to merge the governance structure of this district, nothing precludes the Board from redrawing SU boundaries in a way that causes either or both of the districts to become a member of a different SU.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 116 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

17. The Sandgate School District

The Sandgate School District is a nonoperating district in the Battenkill Valley SU. The Arlington School District, which operates schools for all grades, is the only other member district in the SU. There are three other nonoperating districts in the region: The Winhall School District, which is in the Bennington Rutland SU; the Stratton School District, which is in the Windham Central SU; and the Searsburg School District, which is in the Windham Southwest SU.

The Sandgate District has a K-12 ADM of 64.9 in FY 2018. “Just over half of the Sandgate students attend Arlington schools and geographically they are by far the closest option.” Sandgate students not enrolled in Arlington schools historically attend approved independent schools located in the Bennington-Rutland SU.

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Sandgate District entered into a § 706 Study Committee with the Winhall and Stratton Districts in June 2017. The Study Committee ultimately disbanded because the members concluded that although the districts were all nonoperating, they had “little else in common.” In addition, “Stratton and Sandgate both appropriated their tuition monies to students different than Winhall.” The Sandgate District was – and continues to be – concerned that a merger with the Winhall School District would increase taxes for Sandgate residents. This apprehension arises because the voters in both the Stratton and Winhall districts have voted to pay more than the statutory rate to some or all independent schools.65 Ultimately, all “study committee members felt overwhelmingly their constituents would vote down the proposal.”

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

If the Sandgate District became part of a merged district that paid higher than the statutory rate to some or all independent schools (as Winhall and Stratton currently do), its students might have access to a wider variety of schools. Sandgate students may not be able to take advantage of the availability of larger publicly-funded tuition payments, however, unless transportation was also made available. In addition, merger would likely cause Sandgate’s tax rates to increase significantly because Winhall has many more students and Winhall’s students historically take advantage of the higher tuition payments.

As a nonoperating district that pays the statutory tuition rate and does not provide transportation, it is questionable whether merger would result in increased opportunities for Sandgate students, while there is a likelihood that merger would result in tax increases for some citizens rather than help to stabilize their tax rates.

65 This concern assumes that the voters of a potential three-town unified district would similarly vote to pay tuition in an amount that exceeds the statutory rate. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 117 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

For these reasons – and because the Sandgate School District does not wish to change its nonoperating structure – the Agency does not believe that merger into a unified district will positively affect whether it is a sustainable structure capable of meeting the goals of Act 46.

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time because it would not advance the goals of Act 46, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board merge the Sandgate School District with one or more of the other nonoperating districts in the region in the statewide plan. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Note, however, that even if the State Board declines to merge the governance structure of this district, nothing precludes the Board from redrawing SU boundaries in a way that causes it to become a member of a different SU.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 118 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

18. The Searsburg School District

The Searsburg School District is a nonoperating district in the Windham Southwest SU. The newly created Southern Valley UUSD (Halifax and Readsboro) and Twin Valley UUSD (Whitingham and Wilmington) and the Stamford School District66 are the three other member districts of the SU. The nonoperating districts of Stratton and Winhall lie directly north of the Searsburg District, in the Windham Central and Bennington-Rutland SUs.

The Searsburg District has a K-12 ADM of 18.4 in FY 2018.

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Searsburg District is geographically segregated into three communities, with most residents focused toward the east (e.g., Wilmington and Brattleboro), a few residents focused to the south (primarily North Adams, MA), and a few to the west (e.g., Bennington, Manchester, Woodford).

The district’s extremely small size would suggest that merger might ameliorate tax rate fluctuations.

The Searsburg District Board has engaged in multiple discussions and studies groups with other districts in and outside the region, however, and concludes in its Section 9 Report “that there is no benefit to our students or taxpayers through any possible merger at this time.”

The Searsburg District also considered merger with the districts that created the Southern Valley UUSD, which operate elementary schools, but is concerned about the safety of transporting students to the Halifax or Readsboro elementary schools during the winter.

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

If the Searsburg District became part of a merged district that paid higher than the statutory rate to some or all independent schools (as Winhall and Stratton currently do), its students might have access to a wider variety of schools. The isolation and geography of the Searsburg District would suggest that few students would be able to take advantage of the availability of larger publicly-funded tuition payments, however, especially if transportation was not also made available. In addition, merger would likely cause Searsburg’s tax rates to increase significantly because Winhall has many more students and Winhall’s students historically take advantage of the higher tuition payments.

As a nonoperating district that pays the statutory tuition rate and does not provide transportation, it is questionable to what extent merger would result in increased opportunities for Searsburg students, while there is some likelihood that merger would result in tax increases for Searsburg citizens rather than help to stabilize their tax rates.

66 The Stamford School District is discussed as # 32 in Part VI(C)(a) below. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 119 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

For these reasons – and because the Searsburg School District does not wish to change its nonoperating structure – the Agency does not believe that merger into a unified district will positively affect whether it is a sustainable structure capable of meeting the goals of Act 46.

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time because it would not advance the goals of Act 46, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board merge the Searsburg School District with one or more of the other nonoperating districts in the region in the statewide plan. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 120 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

19. The Stratton School District

The Stratton School District is a nonoperating district in the Windham Central SU. The SU also includes two newly created unified union school districts (one of which is an MUUSD) that will be operational in July 2019, one PreK-6 district that is a member of the MUUSD for grades 7-12, and one district that operates a school through grade 8 and pays tuition for grades 9-12.

Although the Stratton District’s ADM is historically in the mid-30s, it is paying tuition for 47 students, K-12, in FY 2018. Its students enroll almost exclusively in independent schools located in the region.

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Stratton District has “a history of paying the full announced tuition for any area [independent] school that agrees to enroll any Stratton resident choosing to attend that school.” In addition, the district provides transportation, “to the greatest extent possible for students to attend [the] open enrollment schools”

During the summer of 2017, the Stratton District engaged in a § 706 study committee with the Sandgate and Winhall Districts. The Committee ultimately disbanded. The Stratton District was – and is – concerned that merger with these two districts would raise the tax rate for Stratton residents (based upon modelling by the study committee’s consultant) while potentially decreasing opportunities and equity for Stratton students (because the Sandgate and Winhall districts do not currently have the same tuition paying policies and do not provide the same level of transportation.

The Stratton Board acknowledges that a merger of the Sandgate, Stratton, and Winhall districts would “consolidate the functions” related to a nonoperating district from three SUs to one SU, but states that it “is not clear that the merged structure maximizes operational efficiencies.” In fact, the Board anticipates that the “workload for special education, transportation, and preschool services [in a merged Sandgate-Stratton-Winhall district] would be increased to the point of requiring increased personnel …. None of the three superintendents involved … saw an effective and efficient way to provide services to a merged district.”

The Stratton District’s Section 9 Proposal included actions that its board intends to take in connection with the five educational and fiscal goals of Act 46, including “continu[ing] to look for ways to assist families in choosing educational opportunities that meet the needs and academic interests of their children [and informing] and supporting families and they navigate” the increasingly available opportunities for “less traditional students.”

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 121 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

The Stratton School Board has legitimate concerns that merger with the Winhall and/or Sandgate School Districts might minimize current opportunities and equity and that merger with the much larger Winhall might increase its tax rates.

Because the Stratton School District does not wish to change its nonoperating structure, the Agency does not believe that merger into a unified district will improve its ability to be a sustainable structure capable of meeting the goals of Act 46.

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time because it would not advance the goals of Act 46, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board merge the Stratton School District with another nonoperating district in the region in the statewide plan. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 122 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

20. The Winhall School District

The Winhall School District is a nonoperating district in the Bennington-Rutland SU. The SU also includes two newly created unified union school districts that will be operational in July 2018.

The Winhall District has a K-12 ADM of 180 in FY 2018. A large majority of the district’s students, in both elementary and secondary school, enroll in the region’s independent schools. In FY 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, the ratio of public school enrollment to independent school enrollment was 1:4 (elementary) and 1:10 (secondary).

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

For many years, the Winhall District has paid tuition in an amount exceeding the statutory rate, up to the amount charged by the Burr and Burton Academy. The voters have recently begun to question the effect this has on their tax rates and have discussed beginning to pay tuition in the statutory amount. The District and the Academy reached a one-year arrangement to ease the pressures on the tax payers.

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

The Winhall District is a nonoperating district with a history of paying tuition in an amount that exceeds the statutory rate to the independent schools in which its students enroll and providing some level of transportation to those schools. Merger is therefore unlikely to increase the equity or variety of educational opportunities available to its students. The district’s spending per pupil is higher than other nonoperating districts in the region, but because its ADM is also much larger than theirs, Winhall is unlikely to experience significant tax benefits from merger.

Although the Winhall District has expressed an interest in merging with another nonoperating district, its request is outweighed both by the negligible benefit merger would provide to Winhall and also by the very strong likelihood that it could negatively affect the districts with which it might merge, as explained in connection with the preceding three proposals.

Because the Winhall School District does not wish to change its nonoperating structure, the Agency does not believe that merger into a unified district will improve its ability to be a sustainable structure capable of meeting the goals of Act 46.

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time because it would not advance the goals of Act 46, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board merge the Winhall School District with another nonoperating district in the region in the statewide plan. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 123 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 124 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

C. Town Districts Responsible for PreK-12 and Union Districts Not Exempt from Merger

Each of the final group of districts is a single district responsible for the PreK-12 education of its resident students. In some instances, the district consists of one town, while others are multi- town union districts that were created many years ago.

The districts discussed in this Part VI(C) are divided into two categories:

• Districts for which merger is “possible” but for which the State Board will want to explore whether creation of a unified union school district is “practicable” and whether retaining the current structure is the “best” way to achieve the Act 46 goals are under the subheading “Districts for Which Merger is “Possible” … BUT is Merger Also “Practicable”? And/or is Retaining the Same Structure “Best”?

• Districts which for merger is “impossible,” impracticable,” or both due to geography and the operating/tuitioning structure of neighboring districts are under the subheading “Districts for Which Merger is Either NOT “Possible” or NOT “Practicable” or Both”

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage; and, where appropriate, the Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 125 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

a. Districts for Which Merger is “Possible” … BUT is Merger Also “Practicable”? And/or is Retaining the Same Structure “Best”?

21. The Blue Mountain Union School District (Towns of Groton, Ryegate, and Wells River)

The Blue Mountain Union School District encompasses three towns – Groton, Ryegate, and Wells River – and provides for the PreK-12 education of its resident students by operating a school offering those grades. Although the voters approved its formation in 1964, Blue Mountain did not become fully operational until 1970 because of lengthy court actions.

The Blue Mountain District currently operates as a Supervisory District, its own single-district SU. At its May 2018 meeting, the State Board of Education voted to adjust SU boundaries pursuant to 16 V.S.A. § 261, making Blue Mountain a member district of the Orange East SU.

The district’s K-12 ADM in FY 2018 is 380.25. Its ADM has fluctuated by approximately 2% in each of the last five year, reaching a high point in FY 2018 that is just shy of 2% higher than its FY 2014 ADM.

The FY 2018 ADM for the entire Orange East SU is as follows:

Orange East SU (with Blue Mountain) – 1,737.5 Newbury (K-6) – 137 Bradford ID (K-6) – 221 Oxbow Union High (7-12) – 273.83 Blue Mountain Union (three towns; K-12 o) – 380.25 Waits River Valley Union – 332.42 Thetford (K-6 o / 7-12 designating) – 394

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Blue Mountain District proposes to retain its current governance structure. Its Section 9 Proposal, submitted several months prior to the State Board’s SU boundary decision in May, stated that it would prefer to remain a single-district SU.

After engaging in exploratory conversations with the districts of the Orange East SU in late 2015, the Blue Mountain District participated as a member of a § 706 study committee with the Bradford and Newbury Districts. The study committee disbanded in April 2017, after a year of conversation, for a number of reasons. For example, based upon the committee’s projections, the tax rate in Bradford would increase if the districts unified. “In order to control those costs it would require the closing of a school in the [unified] district or a change in the grades that schools operated.” The Section 9 Proposal reports that a majority of the study committee members did not support school closure or grade re-configuration. Blue Mountain’s opposition to a merger proposal that would result in closing its school or changing the grades for which it operates rests primarily on the distance Blue Mountain students already travel between home and school, which in some instances exceeds one hour. “Additional bus time for students who would live up to 30 miles away from Oxbow High School was deemed to be inappropriate … and would limit their participation in extracurricular activities.” The Section 9 Proposal pointed Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 126 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

out that the Spaulding Union High School building is closer to some Groton students than is the Oxbow Union School. In addition, the “feasibility of a continued interstate bussing agreement” with SAU23 in New Hampshire, which currently saves the Blue Mountain District $77,000 annually, was not certain in a unified district. Finally, the Blue Mountain members of the § 706 study committee determined that unification would result in “minimal educational opportunity increases” especially in light of the current public high school choice program.

The Section 9 Proposal states that “as a result of these school closure conversations the BMU Board … made the decision that if BMU did not operate a high school at BMU, they would hold community votes to become” a PreK-8 operating / 9-12 tuitioning district, reasoning that if high school grades are no longer offered at the Blue Mountain campus, then “more opportunities would be available for high school students via school choice than merger.”

The Blue Mountain Board reached out to the Danville School District, which was then in the midst of its own § 706 study committee conversations with the Cabot School District and the Twinfield Union School District. After the voters in those three districts failed to approve the proposed merger, the Blue Mountain and Danville Boards entered into a series of facilitated conversations. Ultimately, the Danville School Board determined that it preferred to explore opportunities with the St. Johnsbury Academy (“SJA”) and SJA “made it clear to Danville that those relationships would not extend to students at Blue Mountain.” However, “Danville and BMU are both interested in working together to find ways to offer more opportunities for students through a series of contractual relationships.”

The Section 9 Proposal states that the Blue Mountain District is meeting the Act 46 goal of excellence and equity of opportunity. “By having articulated curriculum, vertically aligned grades …, with established benchmarks, we are ensuring that all students have equitable access to curriculum.” Blue Mountain administers several local assessments across grade levels as well as the SBAC and Science NECAP. The data from these assessments are used to determine Tier II interventions. Blue Mountain has removed prerequisites so that students can enroll in dual enrollment classes even if no college credits are earned. The district is in preliminary discussion with River Bend Career and Technical Center about offering programs on the Blue Mountain grounds.

By partnering with River Bend we would have access to over $100,000 in innovation and other grant funding, as well as access to transportation through the tech center. We could use current staff to run the program, current transportation routes, and would likely see an increase in tuition revenue from school choice students in the region.”

The Section 9 Proposal notes:

One noted area of need in the region is a quality special education / alternative placement program for students in the elementary and middle grades. BMU is interested in partnering with Danville to create a regional center to better serve students.”

Blue Mountain asserts that it “has made an investment in curriculum and instruction and has created the conditions for [the achievement] gap to begin to lessen… Preliminary data from this

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 127 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

academic year shows that we are seeing an improvement.” In addition, the Blue Mountain Board notes that this district is one of the first districts to participate in EQS review, through which it “received high marks,” and is using its continuous improvement plan to address areas in need of improvement.

The Blue Mountain Board is continuing, and hopes to expand, its current collaboration with SAU 23 in Haverhill, NH. The two districts have entered into an interstate transportation agreement with shared bus routes and a jointly negotiated contract. In addition, Blue Mountain and SAU 23 students can take courses at either campus, “schedules permitting,” and the two districts share foreign language staff. Although discussions regarding closing the NH high school and operating joint high school on the Blue Mountain campus are currently on hold, the NH district is considering is closing high school and paying tuition for its students, which “could have a positive impact on BMU’s enrollment.” The Blue Mountain District is seeking other opportunities for regional collaboration by, e.g., developing a memorandum of understanding with Little Rivers, a “local federally qualified health center … [to provide] a school social worker, mental health counselor, and a home/school coordinator in exchange for office space.” It is also exploring the possibilities of providing special education programming on a regional basis.

The Section 9 Proposal observes (when it was submitted) that the Blue Mountain District is already an SD and posits that becoming one member of a multi-district SU “would add unneeded levels of bureaucracy to an already streamlined structure.” The Blue Mountain Board states that the “current operating structure is financially efficient when compared to other merger options,” declaring that there would be no financial savings if it became part of the Caledonia Central SU and that “merging with OESU would increase taxes.”

In contrast, the Section 9 Proposal asserts, collaboration with SAU23 in NH saves money.

The Section 9 Proposal notes that Blue Mountain will have no debt at the end of FY 2019. It indicates that increases in per pupil spending have been small in recent years and projects that “per pupil spending will decrease in 2019 as a result of growing population.”

The Section 9 Proposal states that the creation of the Blue Mountain Union School District approximately 40 years ago “resulted in the closure of five local schools, the elimination of high school choice in Ryegate, and the dissolution of three school districts. Blue Mountain feels that it has already met the spirit of the law for school consolidation.” In addition, “over 70% of students and community members” want Blue Mountain to remain a PreK-12 operating district within its own single-district SU.

For more details, see the Snapshot at Appendix F and common data points at Appendix G. The Blue Mountain District did not submit an electronic version of its Section 9 Proposal; contact the district to review a paper copy.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

Under Act 46, a UUSD that is large enough to be its own SD is the “preferred structure” for education governance in Vermont. That is, the Legislature has deemed a unified district to be

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 128 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

the structure most likely to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner.

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …

Using FY 2018 figures, the merger of the Bradford, Newbury, and Oxbow Districts would result in a combined ADM of 631.83, too small to operate as its own SU but arguably large enough to function as a single unified district. If the State Board were to require these districts also to merge with Blue Mountain, then the resulting unified district would have an ADM, in FY 2018 numbers, of 1,012.

Blue Mountain’s Section 9 Proposal states that “over 70% of students and community members” want Blue Mountain to remain a PreK-12 operating district within its own single-district SU. Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” because of community opposition, however. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into this structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The Legislature does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision.

Inherent in the desire to remain in its current structure is the premise that maintaining decision- making at a more local level is the best way to ensure responsiveness, transparency,

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 129 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

accountability, and fiscal responsibility and that a centralized board, and larger, unified budget are not. It is understandable that community members would mourn transition from a school- centric budget to a multi-school budget, especially where many community members can remember that same transition made 40 years before. Given the Legislature’s presumption that the “preferred structure” with centralized decision-making is the best way to achieve all the goals of Act 46, including transparency, accountability and fiscal efficiency, the shift to decision- making by a larger unified board is not a reason to preclude the State Board from requiring merger.

The Newbury District’s Proposal suggests that if Blue Mountain remained a distinct district that became a member of the Orange East SU, then it would be easier to facilitate sharing of programs and staff between the two high schools and perhaps among the elementary schools as well. Although small districts have employed this approach throughout the State for many years, it is important to note that there are weaknesses to this arrangement that do not exist in a unified district. For example, small districts sometimes share staff by arranging for each district to employ the same individual for a fractional position, all of which would hopefully total 1.0 FTE. While this is sometimes a successful arrangement, districts often report either that highly valued employees leave for a single full-time position with full benefits in a larger, often unified, district or that the candidates interested in cobbling together employment through a series of part-time contracts are less well qualified. Alternatively, some small districts share staff by authorizing the SU to hire teachers and other professionals. In such an arrangement, the respective cost of each SU-level employee would be allocated to the districts in which the employee works. The local board would thus have a diminished personnel-related role in relation to the SU’s employee and the voters would have no ability to control or reject the costs the SU allocates to the local budget – which could negatively affect their ability to fully fund the programs in their own elementary school. While these approaches may be all that are available in some regions of the state – especially where districts cannot merge unless the voters agree to change the current operating/tuitioning structures – it not always the best one in regions where merger is possible. Even so, it is worth noting that although small, neither the Blue Mountain District nor a merged Bradford-Newbury-Oxbow district are as small as the, usually elementary, districts where this approach has been shown to be less sustainable.

It is notable that the Newbury and Blue Mountain Districts have an existing relationship, including a current program of limited elementary school choice between the two districts. Although this is a reasonable option for districts where merger is not possible or practicable, a program of limited multi-district choice is not as effective as the broader and more accessible ability to support elementary school choice in a unified district.

In addition, The Blue Mountain District has a demonstrated history of creative thinking and collaboration with other districts both within and outside the State.

There are credible arguments supporting Blue Mountain’s contention that maintaining its current structure, albeit as a member district of the Orange East SU, is the “best” means – at this point in time – of creating a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals. The Blue Mountain District has a long history of collaboration with other districts in the region. The Bradford, Newbury, and Oxbow Districts, by their own admission, do not work well together and have experienced “long-term, systemic challenges within the OESU governance structure.” The State Board has voted to adjust SU boundaries so that the Blue Mountain District is a Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 130 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

member district of the Orange East SU. If the State Board chooses to merge the Bradford, Newbury, and Oxbow Districts (see the discussion at #3 above), then the districts will be working both towards creation of a new UUSD while simultaneously creating a new SU.

On the one hand, it can be argued that the existing districts – individually and collectively, boards and townspeople – need time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision before taking the next step of merging the governance structures of Blue Mountain and the Bradford, Newbury, and Oxbow Districts into a single, unified district. It can also be argued that it will be overwhelming to add another layer to the significant work that lies ahead in creating the B-N-O unified district and adding Blue Mountain as a new member in the SU.

On the other hand, the districts have some history of some collaboration and were seriously discussing merger for a very long time. Rather than see this as too many things happening at once, the districts can use this as an opportunity to enable Bradford, Newbury, Oxbow, and Blue Mountain to change the old dynamics and create something entirely new that works for all of them.

It is both “possible” and “practicable” for the State Board to require merger of the Blue Mountain, Bradford, Newbury, and Oxbow Districts – particularly since governance merger does not necessarily translate into closure of the Blue Mountain High School grades. In addition, the B-B-N-O unified district would also be of a size sufficient to support the functions of an SU, thereby creating what the Legislature has determined to be a “preferred structure.”

Blue Mountain’s arguments that retaining its current structure is the “best” means of creating a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals are not strong enough, individually or jointly, to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a larger, unified structure is the “preferred” means of doing so – even in regions where might be necessary to include an alternative governance structure “such as” a multi-district SU.

Absent compelling evidence to the contrary in this particular instance, the Secretary defers to the Legislature’s determination that unified districts are the structures most likely to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner.

This was a particularly difficult decision, but the Secretary trusts that the communities’ concern for the well-being of all their children will impel them eventually to embrace the opportunities of a unified structure and work together to improve educational opportunities and equity for all students in the region.

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for each district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the governance structures of the Blue Mountain Union District, the Bradford School District,, the Newbury School District, and the Oxbow Union High School District into a single unified union school district that provides for the education of its PreK-12 students by operating multiple schools.

See also the discussion of the Oxbow Union High School District and its member elementary districts at #3 of Part VI(A)(a) above and the discussion of the Waits River Valley Union School District at #33 of Part VI(C)(a) below.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 131 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

22. The Cabot School District

23. The Danville School District

24. The Twinfield Union School District (Towns of Marshfield and Plainfield)

The three PreK-12 operating districts of Cabot, Danville, and Twinfield developed and presented a merger proposal to their respective voters in 2017. The Cabot and Danville voters did not approve the proposed merger and the boards of each of the three districts subsequently prepared independent proposals that they submitted in compliance with Act 46, Sec. 9. Although each proposal is discussed separately below and the Secretary’s proposal for each district is not necessarily entwined, it is simplest and least confusing to discuss them together.

The Cabot School District, one of two districts in the Washington Northeast SU, is a single-town school district that provides for the education of its resident PreK-12 students by operating a school through grade 12. Cabot’s K-12 ADM in FY 2018 is 150.42. AOE data reveal that the district’s ADM declined by nearly 8% (13 fewer students) between FY 2014 and FY 2018, or an average of approximately 2% annually.

The Twinfield Union School District is the other member district of the Washington Northeast SU. It was created by the towns of Marshfield and Plainfield and provides for the education of its resident PreK-12 students by operating a school through grade 12. Twinfield’s K-12 ADM in FY 2018 is 306.75. The district’s ADM declined by 19% (73 fewer students) between FY 2014 and FY 2018.

The Danville School District is a single-town, PreK-12 district in the Caledonia Central SU that operates a school through grade 12. Danville’s K-12 ADM in FY 2018 is 287. The district’s ADM has fluctuated during each of the last five fiscal years, reaching a high of 301 in FY 2016 before dropping by 6.6% to a low of 281 in FY 2017. It currently has five fewer students than in FY 2014, a decrease of 1.7%.

The other districts in the Caledonia Central SU, the newly created Caledonia Cooperative School District (PreK-8 operating / 9-12 tuitioning)67 and the Peacham School District (PreK-6 operating / 7-12 tuitioning) have FY 2018 ADMs for K-12 of 570 and 91 respectively.

The combined ADM for the two Washington Northeast SU districts is just over 457, K-12. The combined ADM for the three Caledonia Central districts is 948, K-12.

The Cabot, Danville, and Twinfield districts created a § 706 study committee after passage of Act 46. The three districts’ boards presented the committee’s report and proposed articles of agreement to the voters on June 20, 2017, naming each district as “necessary.” The voters did not approve the proposal in each of the necessary districts:

Cabot – 163 Yes; 356 No; 1 Blank/Spoiled Danville – 112 Yes; 239 No Twinfield – 160 Yes; 103 No

67 Encompassing the towns of Barnet, Walden, and Waterford; operational on July 1, 2018. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 132 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Districts’ Sec. 9 Analyses and Proposals

The Cabot, Danville, and Twinfield Districts’ proposals are outlined separately below.

For more details, see each district’s Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; a link to each school board’s Section 9 Proposal at School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage; and the C-D-T Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage.

The Cabot School District

The Board of the Cabot School District proposes that the district remain a single-town district that operates all grades, K-12. It proposes a number of steps to meet the goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner, such as:

• Making “targeted enhancements” to the high school curriculum such as: “reintroducing design/technology curricular opportunities and hiring a faculty member to support such a position;” “develop[ing] assessment measures and building strategic relationships with employers and partners to develop a career ready workforce;” and “returning the social studies and language arts positions to full time equivalent or adding adjunct educators to offer specialized classes” in FY 2019 – FY 2020. Targeted enhancements would also include “hiring or identifying a current faculty member to oversee the expansion administration of experiential learning opportunities,” which the Section 9 Proposal stated that the proposed FY 2019 budget would support, potentially turning a part-time position into a full-time one. In FY 2023 and after, “as enrollment allows,” the district will look to “expanding the high school foreign language program to include an additional language” and adding “foreign languages to elementary grades.” • Working with “Advantage Cabot,” a private non-profit entity that “has developed an independent boarding program targeting out-of-state high school students who will attend Cabot School and be housed with local host families. Advantage Cabot is collaborating with the Board and administration to develop and deliver enrichment programs, academic and extracurricular, available to all high school students attending Cabot School.” The nonprofit group has a goal of recruiting two students to enroll in the Cabot school in FY 2019, adding four more per year until reach 20 students in FY 2025, and reaching a maximum of 32 additional students by FY 2029. Advantage Cabot estimates that tuition from the program will add $350,000 to the district’s budget in FY 2023. • Emphasizing CTE and early college. • Continuing to offer “a predictable number of [public high] school choice slots.”

The Cabot School District, “in cooperation with the Town … and other community based entities,” intends to explore “multiple paths to improve our infrastructure for the long term” including, e.g., the possibility “of budgeting in a single year, up to $150,000 for critical repairs, most notably to the gymnasium and its facilities;” a review of funding opportunities from nonprofit entities; and an exploration of joint funding/bonding initiatives with the Town.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 133 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Cabot voters did not approve the 2017 proposal to create a unified union school district with the Danville and Twinfield Districts, which would have ceased operating high school grades at the Cabot School. Cabot’s rejection of the merger proposal was based on concerns that:

• Cabot’s “diluted power” on a unified school board “would not ensure the adequate resourcing or prioritization of the Cabot School’s remaining PreK-8 program” • The articles of agreement “could be rewritten to hasten restructuring or the eventual closure of the Cabot School” • Closure of the Cabot high school would provide limited, intradistrict school choice and not all the opportunities of a tuitioning district • Closure of the Cabot High School would lead to a “potential loss of property value”

The Section 9 Proposal states that “Danville has been a natural and logical partner to explore options. Geography and a similar educational culture have been repeatedly recognized as strong starting points for scenarios encompassing merger or collaboration.” The Board affirms that in “the absence of legal and financial challenges associated with cross-supervisory union collaboration, we believe Danville would be a logical partner to form a close and cooperative relationship.”

The Board speculates that in a two-district merger of Cabot and Danville, Cabot “would retain approximately 40% of voting power on a consolidated board – likely enough representation to mitigate concerns of involuntary restructuring of grades, although based upon the 706b process we believe closure of Cabot high school would be predicate to a proposed merger.” It identifies barriers to include: the two districts would not be large enough to be considered a “preferred structure;” there is a “disparity between Cabot’s present per pupil expenditures and debt load [and] Danville’s current financial situation and absence of debt;” and the “anticipated costs of renovating the Cabot school campus.”

The Cabot School Board supports becoming a member of a larger SU “to enable the effective sharing of administrative costs among a greater number of communities.” It identifies Washington Central SU as a possible option. Both the WCSU and the Cabot School District are in the same CTE region and contract with same mental health services. In addition, U32 and three of the WCSU’s elementary schools are within 20 miles from the Cabot School. The Board stated that membership in the WCSU would give more exposure to project-based learning opportunities in Cabot and might result in more WCSU students taking advantage of the public high school choice program to enroll in the Cabot High School.

The Cabot Board is less interested in moving the district into the Barre SU because the schools are less proximate (30-35 min drive) and “the supervisory union has not previously been responsible for education of students outside of the Barre City-Barre Town community.” Nevertheless, the Board considers both SUs as possibilities .because they “anchored by comparatively large high schools versus Hazen Union, Danville, or Twinfield.” The Cabot

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 134 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Board is “not convinced that ‘bigger is better,’ however, [it recognizes] that a larger program necessarily entails more areas to focus cooperative or collaborative efforts.”

The Danville School District

The Danville School District proposes to remain a single-town district that operates all grades, PreK-12, and to retain its membership within the Caledonia Central SU. It cites the proposed closure of the Cabot High School and Cabot’s “education spending per equalized pupil and the cost of renovating their core facilities – [as] clear obstacle[s] to any merger for the citizens and taxpayers of Danville.”

The Section 9 Proposal states that:

efforts over the past three years to communicate the quality of its educational programs to local families [has increased numbers of tuitioning students,] stabilizing and improving Danville’s financial picture, ensuring the breadth of Danville’s academic and co-curricular offerings, and enriching the diversity of student life at the high school.

In addition, the Proposal reports that the districts within the Caledonia Central SU have a history of cooperation, citing as examples SU-level instructional coordinators, maintenance services, and food service employees. The Proposal intends for the districts to begin “a more robust process of ongoing strategic, board-level discussions across our SU” and take actions such as a joint school climate survey and coordinated professional development opportunities.

By rejecting the C-D-T merger proposal, the Danville community “sent three key messages” regarding the importance of:

1. Maintaining and strengthening the quality of our school programs – in particular the vibrancy of our high school. 2. Ensuring the long-term financial stability and sustainability of our school’s core operations. 3. Pursuing educational partnerships with our neighbors, where possible and practicable, that lead to greater educational opportunity for our students.

In pursuit of these goals, the Danville Board proposes “continuing to access the unique cultural and entrepreneurial resources available in Caledonia county – schools, businesses, non-profits – in direct support of our educational programs” and “expanding our existing school/community partnerships – as in our newly established cooperative agreement with St. Johnsbury Academy” that will begin in the 2018-2019 school year. The Danville Board will “look to partner with other organizations wherever practicable as evidenced by our exploratory conversations with [the Blue Mountain Union School District] over establishing a regional alternative program” for students with special needs. The Board notes that Blue Mountain’s “overall enrollment [is] comparable … and [it has a] similar educational philosophy” and the districts recognize “potential areas for establishing some regional cooperative agreements.” Although the Danville District welcomes exploring regional agreements “to enhance its core programs, particularly for

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 135 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

students in need of alternative placements, [it] contemplates no additional merger discussions at this time.”

The Section 9 Proposal points to the importance of maintaining a strong public high school in the region:

Danville High School is the last reasonably accessible public high school left in Caledonia/Essex Counties! Therefore, should cost pressures lead Danville to close its high school, serious questions would arise as to where regional high school students could actually attend school without inordinately long bus rides and increased transportation costs. … Succeeding in [increasing the number of tuitioned students] will benefit not only the students of Danville, but students across the region who need and deserve a quality educational program to attend. We believe that our AGS proposal is key to the success of this effort.” The Twinfield Union School District

The Twinfield USD “is not proposing that [it] should simply be ‘left alone’ to operate as it is now.” Although it is opposed to closure of its high school, the Section 9 Proposal asserts that merger with one or more other districts and/or reassignment to a larger SU would be in the best interests of the Twinfield District. The Proposal considers several possibilities including reassignment to the Washington Central SU as a stand-alone district with the possibility of eventual merger with those districts and merger with or reassignment to the Barre SU. Although Twinfield contemplates the potential for entering into regional partnerships, and perhaps eventual merger, with the Cabot or Danville School Districts, the Section 9 Proposal requests that the State Board refrain from merging the Twinfield District with either or both at this time because the financial impacts would be different than they were when the districts originally proposed merger.

The Section 9 Proposal notes that the “current enrollment in the high school of 112 students … presents a challenge in terms of offering the fullest possible range of high school programming opportunities.” Nevertheless, it notes that Twinfield “currently provides a rich educational opportunity” including the high school’s personalized “Renaissance” program; an “80-acre environmentally diverse campus;” PLPs starting in the 7th grade; early college; integrated curriculum opportunities such as the 8th Grade Survival Unit and the grade 9-10 Synapse program; and a high percentage of enrollment in the Central Vermont Career Center. An intervention program in the elementary grades examines current performance data and provides intervention blocks four times weekly both for students who struggle academically and for those who can benefit from enrichment activities. The Section 9 Proposal states that the Twinfield District is “a pioneer in understanding, defining, and implementing Proficiency- based Graduation Requirements,” noting that in FY 2018, its 12th graders will graduate with proficiency based diploma and transcripts. Looking to the future, the Twinfield and Barre boards are discussing creation of a satellite campus at Twinfield for “eco-studies,” either as an “extension to or replacement of” an existing program at the regional career-technical education center.

The Section 9 Proposal observes that as one member of a two-district SU, it assumes responsibility for approximately two-thirds of the SU’s operational costs. This proportional Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 136 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

share – and perhaps the total financial responsibility – would decrease if it were a member of a larger SU.

In summary, the Section 9 Proposal states that the district is:

open to appropriate partnerships with other schools that improve educational opportunities … while maintaining and continuing to build upon the school’s hard work … to bring the school up to Agency-directed 21st century learning standards – PBGR, Act 77, Trauma-Informed school environment, etc. – overlooked or ignored by potential partners.

The Board asks that the Agency and State Board “be mindful of how much this small school has accomplished on its own as they think about placement and partnership opportunities.”

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal – the Cabot, Danville, and Twinfield Districts

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

The voters of both the Cabot and Danville Districts rejected the study committee’s merger vote by greater than 2-to-1 margins. Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” because of community opposition, however. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into this structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The law does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 137 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

On a related topic, both the Danville and Cabot Boards cited the closure of the Cabot High School grades as a reason that their voters disapproved the study committee’s proposed merger plan, including concern that closure of those grades would result in a “potential loss of property value.” It is important to remember that even if the State Board requires two or three of the districts to merge their governance structures, they will not be unifying under the terms of the original study committee proposal and nothing in the statewide plan will require termination or reconfiguration of grades offered or closure of school buildings.

The Section 9 Proposals of both Cabot and Danville state that retaining their single-town district structures is the best way for them to be sustainable entities capable of meeting the goals of Act 46. In addition, the Cabot Board cites its citizens’ “diluted power” on a unified school board as a reason that its voters rejected creation of the proposed Cabot-Danville-Twinfield UUSD. Underlying these statements is, at least in part, the premise that maintaining decision-making at the local board level and approving district budgets at Town Meeting are the best ways to ensure responsiveness, transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility and that a centralized board, unified budget, and Australian balloting are not. It is understandable that community members would mourn transition from a school-centric budget, which often is amended and voted on “from the floor,” to a multi-school budget developed by a unified board and decided by Australian ballot. Given the Legislature’s presumption that the “preferred structure” with centralized decision-making is the best way to achieve all the goals of Act 46, including transparency and accountability, the shift to a unified board and Australian ballots is not a reason to preclude the State Board from requiring merger.

When referring to Cabot’s “diluted power” in the proposed unified C-D-T school district (that would have closed Cabot’s high school grades), the Cabot Board indicated that its community members were concerned that a unified board “would not ensure the adequate resourcing or prioritization of the Cabot School’s remaining PreK-8 program” and that the articles of agreement “could be rewritten to hasten restructuring or the eventual closure of the remaining grades offered to be in the Cabot School.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 138 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Throughout all phases of the Act 46 process, small districts have repeated variations of the concern that their voice would not be heard on a unified board leading to: reduced programmatic offerings in favor of lowering tax rates or at urging of communities perceived as less willing to support budgetary increases at the polls; increased taxes by voters in other towns that can more easily support tax increases; failure to perform needed or desired structural improvements to school buildings in smaller towns; and the ultimate closure of smaller, more rural elementary schools. Even assuming that the members of a unified board are incapable of learning to view all of the district’s students as “our” students rather than as students of “either my town or some other town,” this concern has little merit if the merging districts allocate members of an equal or more similar number to each town under the Hybrid Model of board representation.

The Cabot School Board hopes to enter into partnerships with other districts to share programs and resources, for example “part-time equivalent instructional interventionists.” For many years, small districts throughout the State have endeavored to increase programmatic offerings and create a more stable workforce of full-time staff by sharing teachers and other professionals. This is sometimes accomplished by two or more districts hiring the same individual for a fractional position, all of which would total 1.0 FTE. Although it is at times a successful strategy, more often districts report either that highly valued employees leave for a single full- time position with full benefits in a larger, often unified, district or that the candidates interested in cobbling together employment through a series of part-time contracts are less well qualified. While this approach may be all that is available in some regions of the state – especially where districts cannot merge unless the voters agree to change the current operating/tuitioning structures – it is an inherently unstable one.

At times, staff sharing is accomplished through the SU office, which hires the shared professional as a full-time employee. In such an arrangement, the respective cost of each SU- level employee would be allocated to the districts in which the employee works. The local school board would thus have a diminished personnel-related role in relation to the SU’s employee and the voters would have no ability to control or reject the costs the SU allocates to the local budget to cover the employee’s salary and benefits – which could negatively affect the local district’s ability to fully fund the programs in its own school(s).

Danville cites Cabot’s “education spending per equalized pupil and the cost of renovating their core facilities” as reasons that Danville voters rejected merger. Cabot similarly acknowledges the disparity between “Cabot’s present per pupil expenditures and debt load [and] Danville’s current financial situation and absence of debt;” and the “anticipated costs of renovating the Cabot school campus.” The contention that unification will raise tax rates for one or more groups of taxpayers cannot be relied upon to prevent merger, particularly where there is no evidence that the calculation resulting in the projected increase accounted for the potential savings that can be realized by the creative and efficient use of the unified district’s resources and flexibility. In addition, even assuming that merger would increase the cost per pupil and tax rates in Danville without also expanding equity, increasing opportunities, and improving outcomes, the Legislature requires the State Board to have a regional focus as it merges districts where necessary to create sustainable structures.

Cabot’s ADM is trending downward. Danville’s ADM has fluctuated over the last few years and although its FY 2018 numbers are higher than those in FY 2017, they are still 1.7% lower Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 139 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

than in FY 2014. In addition, although Danville is hopeful that its marketing campaign will continue to increase enrollment by tuitioning students, the Board was unable to indicate whether any such trending increases was accompanied by an increase in the numbers of students who are more expensive to educate. In any event, the Cabot and Danville Districts are both extremely small, particularly for districts that operate a high school, with an average FY 2018 ADM of 11.5 and 22 students respectively per grade level.

Danville’s Section 9 Proposal passionately asserted the importance of maintaining strong public high school education in the region. Experience throughout the State demonstrates that decreasing student population in a small district is not sustainable and ultimately leads to a downward spiral of increasing tax rates, reduced programming, and frequent staff turnover due to, e.g., part-time positions and low salaries, especially where there are other full-time and/or better compensated options in the region. Larger governance structures have been shown to provide the flexibility needed to mitigate annual budget and tax increases, moderate tax rate fluctuations, and allow small or struggling schools to stay open and programs to remain intact or be expanded.

Finally, although assumption of a portion of one district’s capital debt or sharing responsibility for a district’s building that is in need of repair may result in tax increases, the increases may be mitigated by savings that could result from approaching the possibilities of merger in a creative manner. In addition, today’s district without debt or an immediate need for renovation will tomorrow become the district that needs a new roof. In other words, long-term decision making should not be based on point-in-time circumstances. Finally, capital debt does not last forever, it is eventually paid off. Districts need to take the long view when determining what will best serve their students and all students in the region, particularly in small districts with fluctuating or declining populations, increasing budgets, or unstable tax rates.

Each of the three districts approached the Act 46-required self-analysis in an earnest manner, and identified weaknesses and steps to alleviate them. Many of the more specific action items listed, specifically in Cabot’s Section 9 Proposal, however, are approaches that have been employed for many years in other districts, are elements of unified union school districts, or more significantly, are standard elements of sound district operation and represent the very baseline of educational opportunities, especially at the high school level. In addition, the Cabot voters’ failure to approve a budget is an indication that the district will not even be able to take these modest steps forward towards better opportunities for its students. While these approaches may eventually lead to improvement, they do not result in creation of a sustainable structure capable of meeting or exceeding the Act 46 goals.

The Cabot Board’s plan to work with “Advantage Cabot” shows creative, out-of-the box problem solving and is an interesting option to explore. Even if the nonprofit group pursues and implements its plans to the highest level, however, it remains an entity that is distinct from the school district itself and provides no assurance of sustainability for student numbers or funding sources. Ultimately, whether a district pursues contractual arrangements with other entities does not affect decisions related to governance.

Danville’s Section 9 Proposal convincingly asserts the crucial need to maintain a strong public high school in the region, stating that the “Danville High School is the last reasonably accessible public high school left in Caledonia/Essex Counties!” It goes on to argue that if “cost pressures Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 140 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

lead Danville to close its high school, serious questions would arise as to where regional high school students could actually attend school without inordinately long bus rides and increased transportation costs.” Neither the Cabot nor the Danville Section 9 Proposal, however, demonstrates that remaining as two independent, single-town districts is the “best” means of creating a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 goals. Rather, given both district’s small size, the inherent flexibility of a unified district – if embraced – is the most likely way to enable the communities to be viable, particularly at the high school level.

Cabot notes that due to geography and a similar educational culture, Danville has been a natural and logical partner with which to explore options. In addition, the Cabot Board speculates that in a two-district merger of Cabot and Danville, Cabot “would retain approximately 40% of voting power on a consolidated board – likely enough representation to mitigate concerns of involuntary restructuring of grades.” One of the primary barriers that the Cabot Board raises to a two-district merger – that it would not be large enough to be a “preferred structure” – is significant only when considering whether to merge voluntarily in a way that would make the new unified district eligible for tax rate reductions. It is not a barrier to merger under the statewide plan because the Legislature acknowledged that there would be the need in some regions for alternative governance structures, “such as a supervisory union with member districts or a unified union school district with a smaller average daily membership.”

A unified union school district formed by the Cabot and Danville School Districts would have a K-12 ADM, in FY 2018 numbers, of 437. The unified district would still be relatively small, but the additional scale and flexibility would enhance the district’s sustainability. If the new unified union school district were to be a member of the Caledonia Central SU, then the SU’s ADM would rise from its current 948 to 1,098. If Twinfield were also included, the unified district would have an ADM of nearly 745, an increase of approximately 70%, and the SU’s ADM would grow to 1,404.

Twinfield‘s Board believes that merger with one or more districts and/or reassignment to a larger SU will be in the best long-term interests of the district. It requests, however, that the State Board refrain from merging it with Cabot, Danville, or both districts, claiming that the financial impacts will differ from those under the study committee’s merger proposal. Without exploring the accuracy of this assertion or considering whether it would be a valid reason on which to base a decision, the Secretary believes that other issues – of geography, affinity, creativity, and shared vision – as well as the needs of other districts in the Central Vermont region, weigh against the State Board requiring Twinfield to merge with the Cabot and Danville Districts. Given the uncertainty surrounding other districts and SUs with which Twinfield might be associated, however, the Secretary does not have sufficient information to make a proposal at this time. By the time the State Board is required to issue its final statewide plan, the Board will have the information it needs to make its decisions.

Merger of the Cabot and Danville Districts is both “possible” and “practicable.”

The Cabot and Danville Districts’ arguments that retaining their current structures are the “best” means of creating a sustainable structures capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals are not strong enough, individually or jointly, to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a larger, unified structure is the “preferred” means of doing so – even in regions where it is necessary to Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 141 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

include an alternative governance structure, “such as” a multi-district SU or a UUSD with a less than optimal ADM.

A decision either to merge the Twinfield District with one or more other districts and/or to move it into a larger SU would result in the net loss of one SU (Washington Northeast) as well as increased scale for both the Caledonia Central SU and also the SU or SD of which Twinfield becomes a member.

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for each district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to:

• Merge the governance structures of the Cabot School District and the Danville School District into a single unified union school district that provides for the education of its PreK-12 students by operating multiple school, and redraw SU boundaries so that the new UUSD becomes a member district of the Caledonia Central SU.

• Merge the Twinfield Union School District with one or more other districts and/or move it to a larger SU when uncertainties in the region are resolved and the State Board has sufficient information to make a decision, taking into consideration that districts otherwise exempted from merger under the statewide plan are subject to SU boundary changes both under the statewide plan and, separately, pursuant to 16 V.S.A. § 261.

See also the discussion of the Spaulding Union High School District and its member elementary districts and the Union 32 High School District and its member elementary districts at #4 and #5 respectively of Part VI(A)(a) above.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 142 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

25. The Craftsbury School District

The Craftsbury School District is organized to provide for the education of its resident students by operating a school for all grades, K-12. The district is a member of the Orleans Southwest SU, which also includes a single-town PreK-12 district that operates a school through grade 6 and pays tuition for grades 7-12 (Wolcott, discussed below in Part VI(C)(b); a pre-existing union high school district; a pre-existing union elementary school district; two single-town districts that operate elementary schools; one single town district that pays tuition for grades 7-12; and one “ghost” district that is a member of both union school districts.68

The K-12 ADM for FY 2018 is as follows for the Orleans Southwest districts:

Orleans Southwest SU – 1,003.18 Craftsbury (K-12 o) – 136.25

Hardwick (K-6 o) – 217.84 Stannard (7-12 t) – 12.25 Woodbury (K-6 o) – 48.74 Hazen Union (7-12 o) – 285.21 [Greensboro 50.03] [Hardwick 199.77] [Woodbury 35.41)] Lakeview Union (K-6 o) – 61 [Greensboro 43)] [Stannard 18] Wolcott (K-6 o / 7-12 t) – 241.89 The districts report that there was “mild decline in enrollments in the last 10 years of about 5%” SU-wide, but that Craftsbury’s K-12 enrollments increased by about 20% in the last 4 years. When looking at K-12 ADM instead of enrollment, data reveal there has been a very slight decrease of 0.8%, from which it’s possible to infer that the Craftsbury resident student population has been steady but that the school is enrolling more tuitioning students. District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Craftsbury School District submitted a Section 9 Proposal jointly with the other districts in the Orleans Southwest SU. In it, the districts propose to remain as six single-town districts (two PreK-12; two PreK-6; one 7-12; one “ghost”); one union elementary school district; and one union middle/high school district in same SU.

As mentioned above in Part VI(A)(c) at #12, the districts stated that as a result of Act 46 conversations, as well as an increase in the number of children who have experienced trauma and state laws regarding universal access to prekindergarten, they are working collaboratively now in ways they have not done in the past. “Everything that you would expect to happen under Act 46 is happening or is beginning to happen.”

68 See #12 in Part VI(A)(c) for a more complete description of the interconnected nature of most of the districts in this SU. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 143 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

See #12 in Part VI(A)(c) above for a summary of the Proposal’s contents.

For more details, see the Orleans Southwest SU districts’ Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the districts’ joint Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

In general, the Secretary defers to the Legislature’s presumption that the Craftsbury School District would be better able to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency – and the district’s small school would more likely remain viable and its tiny high school would be capable of providing more opportunities – if it had access to the flexibility inherent in a larger, unified structure.

Unless the voters in one or more districts are willing to alter their current operating and tuitioning structure, however, the entwined relationship of the two existing union school districts in the Orleans Southwest SU makes it structurally impossible for the Craftsbury District to merge with either union district and/or their member town districts.

The uncertain outcome of the Orleans Central SU districts’ pending merger proposal, together with the “un-like” nature of the Lake Region UHSD’s member elementary districts, leaves the Secretary with insufficient information to analyze the possibility, practicality, and benefits of merger with these districts directly to the north of Craftsbury District.

Looking to the west, it is unclear whether the Lamoille North MUUSD, which is exempt from State Board-required merger under the statewide plan, would be willing to accept Craftsbury as

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 144 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

a member and the Secretary has not analyzed the value of such a merger or the advisability of asking the MUUSD to do so.

Although there might be value in exploring the advisability of merging the Craftsbury School District with the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union School District, the Secretary has not analyzed the value of such a merger for the reasons explained in #26 below.

By the time the State Board is required to issue its final statewide plan, the Board will have any additional information it needs to make its decisions.

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board merge the Craftsbury School District with another district or group of districts in the region in the statewide plan. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 145 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

26. The Elmore-Morristown UUSD and the Stowe School District

In 2015, the voters of Elmore and Morristown voted to create the Elmore-Morristown UUSD (“EMUU”), which provides for the education of its resident students by operating schools for K- 12. The Stowe School District is a single-town districts that also operates all grades. The two districts are the sole members of the Lamoille South SU.

In FY 2018, the Kindergarten ADM of the EMUU is 776.51. The Stowe District has a similar ADM of 704.43, for an SU total of 1,480.94. The districts’ joint Section 9 Proposal notes that the county’s population is projected to grow by 3.6%. Agency data reveal that while the Stowe K-12 ADM has increased by 23.4 students from FY 2014 to FY 2018, both Elmore and Morristown have shown decreases in that same period of 4.1 and 30.3 students, respectively. Elmore’s ADM numbers jumped in FY 2015 but have been steadily declining since then, while Morristown’s students were relatively stable until a decrease of 25 ADM students occurred from FY 2017 to FY 2018.

Districts’ Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The districts have conducted five distinct studies over the last nine years in which they explored the potential for creating unified structures. One of those studies led to creation of the EMUU.

The EMUU and Stowe Districts submitted a joint Section 9 Proposal asking that both districts retain their current, distinct status.

The districts report that their teachers, students, and boards work well together. The Boards assert, however, that it is crucial to move slowly to engage the broader communities, which they describe as socioeconomically and culturally distinct, as they move toward a shared purpose and identity. The boards believe they are beginning to bridge those distinctions and that unification may occur naturally in the future.

The Section 9 Proposal acknowledges that the two districts are operating parallel systems but points also to the ways in which they currently work together, or are beginning to do so. For example, nine years of self-reflection and conversations have resulted in targeted instructional improvement plans; a unified system of educator recruitment, training, and support; a master agreement with competitive salaries for the districts’ teachers; and the restructured use of school and administrative space. The districts use an SU-wide model for food service administration, health services administration, and IT services. EMUU and Stowe parents are coming together to support joint-district sporting teams.

Although they face many of the same challenges, the intensity and causes of them are often distinct – and therefore the strategies to address them are distinct as well. The districts state that they are jointly identifying, improving, and scaling successful strategies in one school to be used as a model in another. The Section 9 Proposal states that the districts are also identifying “additional specific strategies … to ensure a shared, collaborative focus on closing the achievement gap. ”

The Boards propose to build upon current collaborative efforts by, e.g., continuing “to assess demographic trends and student performance data in order to maintain a shared understanding of emerging needs [and to build] shared solutions;” studying options to enrich opportunities in

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 146 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

all of the schools; and developing a joint Chinese studies program for the middle and high school students. They plan to coordinate additional joint community activities and to organize forums on issues of common concern.

Although the Boards have spoken with Wolcott about joining the SU, and about the possibility of merging with EMUU, they are concerned that the SU not become too large to sustain quality and a sense of connectedness.

For more details, see the districts’ “Snapshot” at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; a link to the Section 9 Proposal at School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage; and the Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

Not only is merger of the EMUU and Stowe Districts “possible” and “practicable” in this instance, but the unified district would also be of a size sufficient to support the functions of an SU, thereby creating what the Legislature has determined to be a “preferred structure.”

Although the two districts are relatively large by Vermont standards and although they are and have been working hard to collaborate, it is difficult to ignore the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD that is large enough to be its own single-district SU is the “preferred structure” – the most likely to meet or exceed the Act 46 goals in a sustainable way.

As a unified district, for example, children from the three towns could enroll in any of the district’s elementary schools through a program of intradistrict elementary school choice. The Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 147 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

unified district could either operate one middle school and one high school campus or maintain two 7-12 campuses, each with a different focus, in which students from all three towns could choose to enroll. Sharing of teachers and other resources among all buildings would be simplified and it would be easier to maintain fiscally healthy student-to-teacher ratios. A doubled ADM would reduce tax rate fluctuations and help to minimize increased per pupil costs. Much of these could be accomplished through inter-district contracts and other less formal agreements – especially between districts such as these that seem willing to explore all possibilities for collaboration – but each is simpler, more effective, and easier to sustain in a unified district.

What makes this discussion both unique and difficult is the nature and creation of the EMUU District itself. The study and vote leading to creation of the EMUU occurred after the enactment of Act 46. The new unified district, however, did not meet eligibility requirements for tax rate reductions or other transitional assistance under any of the voluntary merger programs created by Acts 153, 156, 46, or 49 because – in a nutshell – its combined ADM was less than 900 (776 in FY 2018) and it did not result from the unification of four or more districts.

In other areas of the state, newly merged districts with smaller ADM numbers qualified for tax rate reductions because they resulted from the merger of four or more districts. In addition, some unified districts formed by two districts with a combined ADM of less than 900 were eligible because they were able to partner with an additional two or more merging districts with a different operating/tuitioning structure under the “Side-by-Side” program enacted in Act 153.

Because it was ineligible for any of the voluntary merger programs, the EMUU did not receive tax rate reductions for the first four or five years of operation, was not awarded grant funds to assist with its transition to a unified structure, did not have its small school grants transformed into perpetual merger support grants, and is not exempt from State Board-required merger under its statewide plan.

Unlike what occurred in other areas of the State, the ineligibility for tax rate reductions and other assistance did not inhibit the study committee from developing the proposal or the voters from approving creation of the EMUU because they saw the opportunities for both their students and their taxpayers inherent in the larger, more flexible structure.

This does not mean that creation of the EMUU and its first years of operation have been easy. Assuming full responsibility for the education of the unified district’s children on July 1, 2016, the EMUU Board is still engaged in the work necessary to help its communities work and think of themselves as a single entity. The process is a slow one, and the details of merging two autonomous structures into a single unit is time-consuming and complex. As a result, the EMUU Board requests that it be given the time to adjust to the governance changes which it voluntarily embraced – and that the district continue to work towards greater collaborative efforts with the Stowe District – before the EMUU considers assuming the additional challenge of further merger.

Although this is a difficult decision, and although the State Board will not have the ability to require the districts to merge after November 30 of this year, the Secretary believes that this entirely unique situation presents evidence sufficient to override the presumption that a unified

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 148 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

district that is its own single-district SU is the structure most likely to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner.

The Secretary also believes that there is no other PreK-12 operating district in the region with which it would be practicable for the State Board to require the Stowe District to merge at this time.

The Secretary trusts that the EMUU and Stowe communities’ concern for the well-being of all their children will impel them eventually to continue to seek opportunities to work collaboratively to improve educational opportunities and equity for all students in the region and hopes that they will eventually embrace the opportunities of a unified structure

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time because it would not advance the goals of Act 46, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board merge the Elmore-Morristown Unified Union School District and the Stowe School District in the statewide plan. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 149 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

27. The Enosburgh School District and the Richford School District

The Enosburgh School District and the Richford School District are each PreK-12, single-town districts that provide for the education of their respective students by operating schools that offer all grades. The two districts maintain a total of five school buildings: Enosburgh operates buildings offering PreK-5, grades 6-8/9-12, and a CTE program. Richford operates buildings offering PreK-5 and grades 6-12.

The districts are members of the Franklin Northeast SU. Other members of the SU include the recently-created Franklin Northeast PK-8 UUSD69 and the Montgomery School District, both of which operate schools through grade 8 and pay tuition for students in grades 9-12. The Sheldon School District, in the adjacent Franklin Northwest SU, similarly operates a school through grade 8 and pays tuition for its high school students. Also in the Franklin Northwest SU is the Missisquoi Valley Union High School and its member elementary districts.70

The K-12 ADM for the districts in the Franklin Northeast SU in FY 2018 is as follows:

Franklin Northeast SU – 1,465.12 Enosburgh – 473.46 Richford – 365.72 FNE PK-8 USD – 453.94 (Bakersfield; Berkshire) Montgomery – 172.00

Agency data reveal that Enosburgh’s ADM was relatively constant FY 2014 – FY 2017 before rising sharply in FY 2018, reflecting a total increase of 32.2 students (7%) since FY 2014. In contrast, Richford’s ADM has fluctuated from year to year, with an overall decline of 25.5 students (6.5%) FY 2014-FY 2018.

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Section 9 Proposal recommends that the two districts retain their current single-town, PreK- 12 operating structures within the Franklin Northeast SU.

The Enosburgh and Richford voters rejected two merger proposals presented to them since the enactment of Act 46. The first proposal recommended unification of all (then) five districts in the Franklin Northeast SU into a single district that operated all grades, PreK-12 (Enosburgh: 82 Yes / 158 No; Richford: 60 Yes / 207 No). The second proposal promoted merger solely of the two fully operating districts:

Enosburgh: 157 Yes / 65 No Richford: 99 Yes / 108 No

69 Although the district’s name is the Franklin Northeast PK-8 UUSD, the district is in fact a district organized and responsible for the education of its students in PreK through grade12. Its name refers to the grades for which it operates a school. 70 See #30, #31, and #2 in this Part VI for discussions of the Montgomery, Sheldon, and Missisquoi Union- related Districts. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 150 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Despite the positive vote in Enosburgh and the nine vote margin of disapproval among its own voters, the Richford Board did not warn a reconsideration vote of the second merger proposal.

The Section 9 Proposal suggests that the Enosburgh and Richford voters rejected the first proposal due in part to “a mistaken belief that Act 46 would soon be repealed, inadequate additional financial savings, opposition rhetoric and a lack of specific detail on how a new single consolidated district would operate.” It posits that the second proposal

failed for reasons including debt sharing, a belief that the same outcomes could be achieved without formally consolidating, concerns over future school closures, town-based boards are valued and ought to be retained, loss of local control of town school district budget items / facilities / policy / facility management and concerns over the common tax rate which would have resulted in an increase for one town.

The Section 9 Proposal asserts that merger would result in little savings because it would not eliminate the need for the SU structure. In addition, while the Enosburgh District recently retired its bonded debt, the Richford District is still paying for its capital improvements. Although the Boards acknowledge that this dynamic will change over time, assumption of the other district’s debt concerns Enosburgh voters. Voters in both communities are anxious that a switch from Town Meeting Day floor discussions and votes to the Australian ballot model will deter people from attending a unified district’s informational meeting and deny a unified board valuable community comment. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, both Boards expressed concern that unification would precipitate closure of the Richford Junior/Senior High School. They are concerned with the loss of the significant social services support that the school district provides to this high-poverty community.

The joint Section 9 Proposal asserts that a unified tax rate will result in a “winner” and a “loser” that “would only serve to unnecessarily divide the two communities.” The boards believe that a forced merger would create animosity that will inhibit forward movement. They expressed their intent to “honor” the voters’ decision while achieving the goals of Act 46 by continuing ongoing efforts to work collaboratively.

The Section 9 Proposal states that there has been an evolution in the boards’ relationship in last few years, with an increasing awareness of how one school impacts the other. The boards state that they are committed to working together to increase the availability and equity of educational opportunities in both communities. The Section 9 Proposal provides examples of the ways in which the districts currently collaborate. For example, the districts have a common K-5 math program, have regular meetings of grade level and content level teams, “share curriculum work in a Learning Academy model,” provide collaborative in-service training, share “Innovation Coaches,” and invite students from both districts to participate in enrichment activities.

The boards recognize that additional collaboration can increase opportunities for both districts, such as by working together to hire a full time language or A.P. teacher when neither can independently recruit one for a part-time position. They suggest that shared staffing may enhance both school’s ability not only to recruit teachers but also to retain them. In addition,

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 151 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

online offerings in one high school might enable students in both schools to access course content and “complimentary schedules have been proposed.”

The Boards propose creation of the Enosburgh-Richford School Council, consisting of school board and community appointees, as one step toward full unification. The Council would meet at least quarterly and serve in an advisory capacity. The Section 9 Proposal states that through the work of the Council, there would be a “heightened emphasis on the sharing of resources and staff expertise” and “flexibility for the movement of students between” the two communities can become a “focal point.”

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

In their joint Section 9 Proposal and the Conversation, both boards expressed their intent to “honor” the voters’ decision not to create a unified union school district while working to achieve the goals of Act 46 by working collaboratively. They also stated that a State Board- required merger would create animosity that will inhibit progress. First, it is important to note that the vote on the most recent proposal, to merge Enosburgh and Richford into unified district that operated schools PreK-12, was not a resounding rejection of merger. In fact, the Enosburgh voters approved merger by more than 2-to-1 and the Richford voters defeated the proposal by nine votes.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 152 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Second, and more importantly, merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” because of community opposition. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into this structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity – recognizing that in some regions it will be necessary to create alternative structures, “such as” multi-district SUs or UUSDs with less than optimal ADMs. The law does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision – and to put aside “animosity” in order to do what is best for students.

The Enosburgh and Richford Board also asserted that their communities are anxious that a switch from Town Meeting Day floor discussions and votes to the Australian ballot model will deter people from attending a unified district’s informational meeting and deny a unified board valuable community comment. Inherent in the desire to maintain “local control” is the premise that maintaining decision-making at the local board level and approving district budgets at Town Meeting are the best ways to ensure responsiveness, transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility and that a centralized board, unified budget, and Australian balloting are not. It is understandable that community members would mourn transition from a school- centric budget, which often is amended and voted on “from the floor,” to a multi-school budget developed by a unified board and decided by Australian ballot. Given the Legislature’s presumption that the “preferred structure” with centralized decision-making is the best way to achieve all the goals of Act 46, including transparency and accountability, the shift to a unified board and Australian ballots is not a reason to preclude the State Board from requiring merger.

In addition, it is particularly important here to note that, other than the initial vote to form a UUSD and the election of the initial board members, statute does not require Australian balloting. In fact, some of the UUSDs formed since Act 46 have eschewed a switch to Australian ballots and will instead continue to debate and vote on their unified budgets and other public questions “from the floor.”

During the Conversation, the Board representatives from both districts discussed a concern that unification would precipitate closure of the Richford school. In part, they are concerned with Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 153 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

losing the significant social services support that the school district provides to this high-poverty community. Even assuming that the members of a unified board are incapable of learning to view all of the district’s students as “our” students rather than as students of “either my town or some other town,” this concern was addressed in several ways in the most recent merger proposal. First, although the populations of the districts are not radically different, the proposal assigned board membership under the Hybrid Model, ensuring that there would always be the same number of board members residing in each town. In addition, the proposed articles of agreement included extensive protections regarding school closure and grade reconfiguration, requiring in both cases approval by more than 2/3 of the six-member unified board (i.e., either five or six votes) and voter approval in the town affected by the closure or reconfiguration. If the State Board were to require merger and the accompanying default articles of agreement did not include provisions such as these, then the voters of the new unified district could vote to amend them.

The Richford District has capital debt and the Enosburgh District does not. Although the Boards acknowledge that this dynamic will change over time, the Enosburgh community sees it as a barrier to merger. The Boards are correct that basing a decision on debt levels is short- sighted, and – given the Legislature’s identification of a UUSD as the best means to sustainably achieve the Act 46 goals – should not be the sole or primary reason to prevent merger where it is otherwise the best alternative. Although assumption of a portion of one district’s capital debt may result in tax increases under the districts’ modeling, the increases may be mitigated by savings that could result from approaching the possibilities of merger in a creative manner. In addition, today’s district with little or no debt will tomorrow become the district that needs a new roof. In other words, long-term decision making should not be based on point-in-time circumstances. Finally, capital debt does not last forever, it is eventually paid off. Districts need to take the long view when determining what will best serve their students, particularly in small districts with steadily declining populations, increasing budgets, or unstable tax rates.

The Enosburgh and Richford Board expressed concern that a unified tax rate will result in a “winner” and a “loser” that “would only serve to unnecessarily divide the two communities.” Even assuming the accuracy of the “winner” and “loser” assertion, the Legislature requires the State Board to have a regional focus as it merges districts where necessary to create sustainable structures. In addition, it must be noted that these are both very small districts with declining or fluctuating ADM numbers. Experience throughout the State demonstrates that decreasing student population in a small district is not sustainable and ultimately leads to a downward spiral of increasing tax rates, reduced programming, and frequent staff turnover (which the Section 9 Proposal states is already an issue). Larger governance structures have been shown to provide the flexibility needed to reduce budget and tax increases, even out tax rate fluctuations, and allow small or struggling schools to stay open and programs to remain intact or be expanded. Furthermore, a contention that unification will raise tax rates for one or more groups of taxpayers cannot be the sole reason to prevent merger, particularly where there is no evidence that the calculation resulting in the projected increase accounted for the potential savings that can be realized by the creative and efficient use of the unified district’s resources and flexibility.

The Boards confirm that the two communities have a long history of shared services and activities, cross-town employment, and easy automobile access. The driving distance between

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 154 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

elementary schools is approximately 15 minutes and is 18 minutes between the middle/high schools.

The Section 9 Proposal states that there has been an evolution in the Boards’ relationship in last few years, with an increasing awareness of how one school impacts the other and the ways in which they can work together to increase the availability and equity of educational opportunities in both communities. One of these ways is to create a joint advisory council, consisting of school board and community appointees, that will “’look under the hood’ … in search of new opportunities and efficiencies.” The Boards anticipate that through the work of the council there will be a “heightened emphasis on the sharing of resources and staff expertise” and “flexibility for the movement of students between” the two communities can become a “focal point.”

The Enosburgh and Richford Boards suggest that the districts will consider increasing programmatic offerings and creating a more stable workforce by sharing teachers and other staff. If the employee were to be hired by the SU, then the respective cost of each SU-level employee would be allocated to the districts in which the employee works. The local board would thus have a diminished personnel-related role in relation to the SU’s employee and the voters would have no ability to control or reject the portion of the SU employee’s salary and benefits that the SU allocates to the local budget – which could negatively affect their ability to fully fund the programs in their schools. Alternatively, the districts could hire the same individual for a fractional position, all of which would total 1.0 FTE. Small districts have employed this approach throughout the State for many years. Although it is at times a successful strategy, more often districts report either that highly valued employees leave for a single full-time position with full benefits in a larger, often unified, district or that the candidates interested in cobbling together employment through a series of part-time contracts are less well qualified. While this approach may be all that is available in some regions of the state – especially where districts cannot merge unless the voters agree to change the current operating/tuitioning structures – it is an inherently unstable one.

The Section 9 Proposal also indicates the potential that “examination of other supervisory union’s successful school choice policies … can be considered for possible applicability” – citing a merged district as an example. The Enosburgh and Richford Boards’ proposal to explore limited school choice policies is not the “best” approach for the region. Although it is a reasonable option for districts where merger is not possible or practicable, a program of limited multi-district choice is not as effective as the broader and more accessible ability to support elementary school choice in a unified district.

Finally, the Section 9 Proposal proposes some changes that are only realizable by creation of a unified district. For example, the districts claim that “leveling class sizes may be possible through reviews by the” advisory council. It is unclear how collaboration of two distinct structures could accomplish this, especially when they funded by independent budgets and have tax rates that are dependent upon their respective average daily memberships.

Merger of the two districts into a single unified union school district is both “possible” and “practicable.”

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 155 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The Enosburgh and Richford Districts’ argument that remaining as separate, single-town, PreK- 12 operating districts is the “best” means of creating a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals is not convincing enough to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD is the “preferred” means of doing so.

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for each district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the governance structures of the Enosburgh School District and the Richford School District into a single unified union school district that provides for the education of its PreK-12 students by operating multiple schools.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 156 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

28. The Fairfax School District, the Fletcher School District, and the Georgia School District

Fairfax is a single-town PreK-12 operating district in the Franklin West SU. It is flanked by the Georgia School District to its west, which operates a school through grade 8 and pays tuition for grades 9-12. The Fletcher School District lies to the east of Fairfax and operates schools through grade 6 and pays tuition for the remaining grades. The recently unified Maple Run USD, which operates all grades and a CTE center, lies directly to the north of Fairfax. The fully operating districts of Milton, Colchester, and Essex Westford lie to its south

The K-12 ADM for the districts in the Franklin West SU in FY 2018 is as follows:

Franklin West SU – 1,751.52 Fairfax – 753.37 Fletcher – 197.50 Georgia – 800.65

At their Section 10 Conversation, the boards of the three Franklin West SU districts stated that the population is growing in all three communities because the region is more affordable for young families than towns in Chittenden County. Agency data reveal that the ADM for Fairfax has remained relatively constant for the last five fiscal years, while the ADM for Fletcher and Georgia has decreased somewhat.

Districts’ Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The three Franklin West SU districts submitted a joint Section 9 Proposal advocating that they retain their current independent structures within the same SU.

The districts have participated in two § 706 study committees. One, in 2011, proposed merger of the Fairfax and Fletchers districts into a single district that operated all grades. The voters’ failure to approve the proposal led to a commitment by all three districts to work together more closely within the SU. Following the enactment of Act 46, the three districts met for over ten months to evaluate the merits of merger. Each of the three districts continued independently to self-evaluate and consider its options. In the end, each district reached the conclusion that it did not wish to change its current operating/tuitioning structure and that it wanted to remain in the same SU with the two other districts. In addition, Fairfax and Fletcher are interested in being reassigned to the Northwest CTE Region, which they believe will result in better opportunities for students at a lower cost (Georgia is already in that region).

Six years ago the districts “adopted a system-wide vision-based action plan [that targets] proficiency-based personalized learning, leadership, engaged community partners, and flexible learning environments.” Their strategies and targets have won national awards and recognition. They report that they have common “learning management systems, data systems, student information systems, maintenance, and technology” and shares services required by law and beyond. The districts have identified common issues facing their schools and are working together to implement common solutions. They have both decreased special education costs and improved results by implementing recommendations from District Management Group. In addition, they have a unified curriculum led by an SU-level curriculum coordinator

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 157 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

and a consolidated, SU-level IT department. They are looking to do the same with custodial and grounds staff.

The three boards meet in carousel fashion multiple times per year to “interlock governance” and are considering increasing the frequency of the meetings. The boards report that the districts are “among the lowest spending in Vermont.” Six years ago, the Franklin West SU entered into a “virtual merger” with Franklin Central SU and Chittenden Central SU that lasted for three years before the other partners chose to disband.

During the last six months, the Georgia Board met with its counterpart in South Hero; the Fairfax Board met with the Maple Run and Milton boards; and the Fletcher Board met with the Champlain Islands UUSD. The Essex–Westford Board declined to meet with Fairfax and Fletcher. The Section 9 Proposal states that some districts “had no interest in schools from FWSU. Some of the barriers included losing school choice, losing specific grade levels, and travel distance.” The boards report that both Maple Run and Essex-Westford want to settle into their newly unified structures before considering expanding to include another member.

The three Franklin West districts believe that South Hero has similar values and might be a good additional member of the SU. They are concerned, however, that expanding the size of the SU will cause the central office to “lose ambition” because the SU would be geographically expansive and new structures would need to be developed to accommodate the additional members.

For more details, see the districts’ Snapshot and baseline data at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 158 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

As a general proposition in this SU, the Secretary defers to the Legislature’s presumption that the Fairfax, Fletcher, and Georgia School Districts would be better able to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency – and Fletcher’s small school would more likely remain viable – if they had access to the flexibility inherent in a larger, unified structure.

Unless the voters in one or more of the three districts are willing to alter their current operating and tuitioning structure, however, it is structurally impossible for the State Board to require any one of the districts in the Franklin West SU to merge with another from the SU.

The districts reached out to many districts in the region. In the case of Georgia and Fletcher, there are no districts that share their respective operating and tuitioning structures within a distance that would support a reasonable sharing of students, staff, and resources.

In contrast, there are a number of other districts in the region that share the Fairfax School District’s PreK-12 operating structure. Each of these districts, however, is exempt from State Board-required merger under its statewide plan, either because it is a new unified district created under one of the Legislature’s voluntary merger programs or it is a pre-existing supervisory district with an ADM in excess of 900.

The three most likely candidates for merging with the Fairfax District were not interested in exploring merger with Fairfax at this time. Two of them, the recently-created Maple Run and Essex-Westford districts, want to settle into their newly unified structures before considering expanding to include another member. Both Maple Run and Essex-Westford are currently large enough to serve as their own single-district SUs – the Legislature’s “preferred structure.” Similarly, the Milton Incorporated School District is a single-district (and single-town) SU. Although the Fairfax District’s eventual merger with any one of these districts would move the district even further toward creating a sustainable structure capable of meeting the goals of Act 46, the State Board will need to determine at that point whether it will transform one of these “preferred structures” into a multi-district SU with Georgia and Fletcher as members or whether it will assign those two districts to other SUs in the region.

It is important to note that the districts want to remain together and have a long history of collaborating effectively. It is also important to note that by moving more employees to the SU level, they are creating a larger percentage of the budget that is assessed to districts and on which voters do not directly vote.

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board merge the Fairfax School District, the Fletcher School District, or the Georgia School District with another district to create one or more unified union school districts in the statewide plan. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 159 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Note, however, that even if the State Board declines to merge the governance structure of these districts, nothing precludes the Board from redrawing SU boundaries in a way that causes one or more of them to become a member of a different SU.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 160 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

29. The Hartland School District and the Weathersfield School Districts

The Hartland School District and the Weathersfield School Districts are both single-town districts in the Windsor Southeast SU. Both districts operate schools through grade 8 and pay tuition for their students in grades 9-12. The newly-created Windsor/West Windsor UUSD, which operates PreK-12, is the third member of the SU. Hartford, a single-district SU, lies directly to the north and Springfield, also a single-district SU, is to the south. The three Windsor Southeast districts are bordered to the west by the recently-formed Windsor Central MUUSD and the Green Mountain UUSD. All four neighboring districts operate all grades.

The K-12 ADM in FY 2018 for the districts of the Windsor Southeast SU is as follows:

Windsor Southeast SU – 1,307.14 Hartland – 430.48 Weathersfield – 311.54 Windsor/West Windsor UUSD – 565.12

Data reveal that Hartland’s K-8 ADM rose by 7% (20.7 students) from FY 2014 to FY 2017 before dropping 9.4% (29 students) in FY 2018, for an overall decline of nearly 3% (8.3 students). In contrast, the number of students for which it paid tuition rose by 7.5% and then dropped by 3.6%, for an overall increase of 3.6% (5 students) FY 2014-FY 2018.

In Weathersfield, K-8 ADM dropped by 13% (30.6 students) from FY 2014 to FY 2017 before rising by 4% (8.6 students) in FY 2018, for an overall decline of 9.5% (22 students). The ADM for Weathersfield’s tuitioned students fluctuated slightly during these years, but remained roughly constant.

The Hartland and Weathersfield districts report that between FY 2004 and FY 2017, Hartland’s K-8 enrollment declined by 17.24% and Weathersfield’s K-8 enrollment declined by 22.35%. Between FY 2013 and FY 2017, enrollment in the same grades rose 4.35% in Hartland and declined by 11.26% in Weathersfield.

In FY 2017, the most recent year for which the Agency has data, Hartland payed tuition primarily to Hartford and Hanover High Schools (36.69 and 29.22 FTE respectively), with smaller numbers of students enrolling in Thetford Academy (18.67), Windsor (18.05), Woodstock (8.5), Kimball Union Academy (6) and one or fewer FTEs each in Oxbow, Rock Point (Burlington, VT), the Ledyard NH Charter School, Olivarian (Pike, NH), and Proctor Academy (Andover, NH).

In FY 2017, Weathersfield paid tuition primarily to Windsor and Springfield High Schools (46.75 and 20.68 FTE), with small numbers of students enrolling in Woodstock (10) and Hanover (5) and two or fewer FTEs each in Bellows Falls, Lebanon High, Vermont Academy (Saxtons River), Green Mountain, Sunapee, Putney School, Brewster (NH), and Vermont Tech.

The Section 9 Proposal states that in FY 2013-FY 2017, the percentage of students on Hartland who qualified for free and reduced-price lunch (“FRL”) varied from a low of 36% (FY 2016) to a high of 42% (FY 2014 and FY 2017). In Weathersfield, it varied from 38% (FY 2016) to 48% (FY 2014) to 43% (FY 2017). Overall, eligibility has risen 4% in Hartland and is down 3% in Weathersfield. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 161 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The Section 9 Proposal states that Weathersfield students eligible for FRL “consistently out- perform students in similar cohorts throughout Vermont … In addition, Weathersfield has the smallest performance gap between these two economic cohorts.”

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Hartland and Weathersfield School Districts submitted a joint proposal in which they propose to retain their current single-town governance structure within the same SU.

The four Windsor Southeast districts formed a § 706 Study Committee shortly after enactment of Act 36 and met bi-monthly for 20 months. The committee considered multiple governance structures involving both merger and other options. It determined that Hartland and Weathersfield have similar spending, staffing, tests scores, and educational values. The committee anticipated that unification would not result in staff reductions or tax increases. It identified a number of opportunities, such as intradistrict school choice; shared enrichments and gifted/talented programs; staff sharing; and instructional collaboration.

On the other hand, the distance between schools would make it difficult to institute any of these programs. The Section 9 Proposal indicates that it is 11.5 miles between Hartland and Weathersfield schools, travel between which is 15 minutes by car and 20 minutes by direct bus. It is 30 miles between the two districts’ furthest borders, which takes more than 45 minutes to travel by car. “Currently, some students who live 10 minutes from school already face 45- minute bus rides to school”

In written responses to the common list of topics provided to all districts in advance of the Conversation, the Hartland and Weathersfield Boards stated:

We have an ongoing commitment with the districts in our SU to collaborate and strategize. The opportunities afforded to all students in all our districts are substantially similar. A Hartland/Weathersfield merger would not provide additional equity, either between the two towns or with neighboring districts.

In terms of equity with other students in our region, Hartland and Weathersfield offer similar opportunities to many of our neighboring schools and exceed them in some cases. For example, Hartland’s K-8 Spanish immersion program will be a unique opportunity for our students. We also offer a full complement of arts enrichment programs that compare favorably with other schools in our area.

There are no other nearby K-8 districts other than Hartland and Weathersfield, which are non-contiguous towns. Due to geographic distance, differing levels of indebtedness, and the fact that due to our similar cost per equalized pupil, very little tax savings would be realized; therefore we determined that a merger between Hartland and Weathersfield was not in our best interests. After careful study and consideration, we were not able to identify educational or financial benefits from merging.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 162 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The Section 9 Proposal states that the Windsor Southeast districts’ siloed approach to instructional leadership ended in 2009 with the appointment of one Superintendent, a Director of Curriculum and Instruction, and the introduction of an SU-level strategic planning process. At that time, the SU provided centralized support for such services as the districts’ tech infrastructure and purchasing, website development, and telephone/communications infrastructure. It intends to continue to work together to maximize benefits within the SU structure.

For more details, see the districts’ Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

The Section 9 Proposal alleges that differing levels of capital debt are one barrier to merger. Basing a decision on debt levels is short-sighted, and – given the Legislature’s identification of a UUSD as the best means to sustainably achieve the Act 46 goals – should not be the sole or primary reason to prevent merger where it is otherwise the best alternative. Although assumption of a portion of one district’s capital debt may result in tax increases under the districts’ modeling, the increases may be mitigated by savings that could result from approaching the possibilities of merger in a creative manner. In addition, today’s district with little or no debt will tomorrow become the district that needs a new roof. In other words, long- term decision making should not be based on point-in-time circumstances. Finally, capital debt does not last forever, it is eventually paid off. Districts need to take the long view when determining what will best serve their students, particularly in small districts with steadily declining populations, increasing budgets, or unstable tax rates.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 163 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Similarly, geographic distance is not a barrier to merger as the districts contend. The districts report that travel between the Hartland and Weathersfield schools is 15 minutes by car and 20 minutes by direct bus. Their argument that the districts’ furthest borders are 30 miles, and 45 minutes, apart would be significant only if they are planning to transport students from one border to the other. If the districts merged and chose to institute a policy of intradistrict elementary choice, then parents on the far border of one town could decide whether the travel time to the school located in the other town was too lengthy. Even if a unified Hartland- Weathersfield district consolidated all of its students into one building, a student living on the furthest border in one town would not be travelling to the furthest border in the other. Similarly, the distance would have little effect on the ability to share teachers or other resources between the two school buildings.71

Merger of the Hartland and Weathersfield School Districts is both “possible” and “practicable.”

As a general proposition when looking at the Hartland and Weathersfield Districts, the Secretary defers to the Legislature’s presumption that they would be better able to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency – and their schools would more likely remain viable – if they had access to the flexibility inherent in a larger, unified structure. This is especially true in light of the fluctuations in the district’s ADM numbers and tax rates.

The districts assert, however, that they are unable to identify any educational or financial benefits from merger. They state that the “opportunities afforded to all students in all [the Windsor Southeast SU] districts are substantially similar. A Hartland/Weathersfield merger would not provide additional equity, either between the two towns or with neighboring” districts.” In addition, due to their similar cost per equalized pupil and what they perceive to be a great distance between the communities, the districts project that merger will yield little tax savings. Although small, both districts are not so small that they see huge tax rate fluctuations based on the loss or gain of a few students. There are no other districts in the region that share the same operating and tuitioning structure.

More compelling is that the communities in these districts are oriented in different directions, have little interaction, and the majority of their tuitioning students attend different schools (Hartland: Hartford and Hanover; Weathersfield: Springfield and Windsor). Except for their membership in the SU, they have no obvious connections. Because there does not appear to be any commitment of the communities to create a new definition of “us,” there is scant likelihood that they will realize the potential opportunities of a larger, more flexible unified structure. More likely, unification would be blamed for any encountered difficulties.

The Secretary trusts that the communities’ concern for the well-being of all their children will impel them eventually to embrace the opportunities of collaboration, and ultimately a unified structure, and work together to improve educational opportunities and equity for all students in the region.

71 The districts may want to reconsider current bus routes that resulted in the comment: “Currently, some students who live 10 minutes from school already face 45-minute bus rides.” Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 164 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time because it would not advance the goals of Act 46, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board merge the Hartland School District and the Weathersfield School District into a unified union school district in the statewide plan. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Note, however, that even if the State Board declines to merge the governance structure of these districts, nothing precludes the Board from redrawing SU boundaries in a way that causes one or more of them to become a member of a different SU.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 165 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

30. The Montgomery School District

The Montgomery School District provides for the education of its students by operating schools through grade 8 and paying tuition for grades 9-12. It is a member of the Franklin Northeast SU. The newly-created Franklin Northeast PK-8 Unified Union School District, which has an identical operating/tuitioning structure, and the Enosburg and Richford School Districts, both of which operate all grades, are also members of the SU.

The K-12 ADM for the districts in the Franklin Northeast SU in FY 2018 is as follows:

Franklin Northeast SU – 1,465.12 Montgomery – 172.00 Enosburgh – 473.46 Richford – 365.72 FNE PK-8 UUSD – 453.94 (Bakersfield; Berkshire)

Sheldon, which lies immediately to the Franklin Northeast SU’s west and shares an operating/tuitioning structure with both Montgomery and the FNE PK-8 UUSD, has an ADM of 338.60.

Agency data reveal that Montgomery’s K-12 ADM has risen 4.5% (7.5 students) from FY 2014- FY 2018, which breaks down to a 9% increase (9.94 students) in K-8 and a 5% decrease (4.4 students) in grades 9-12.

In FY 2017, the most recent year for which the Agency has data, Montgomery payed tuition for grade 9-12 students enrolled in the Enosburgh Falls HS (19.89 FTE), Stanstead College (11), North Country UHS (10), Richford (6); St Johnsbury Academy (4), and Lamoille UHS (1).

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Montgomery School District submitted its own Section 9 Proposal, advocating for the State Board to allow it remain a single-town district within the Franklin Northeast SU. During the February 15 Conversation, the Montgomery Board representatives indicated that it might make sense to move Sheldon into the SU, but argued strenuously against redrawing the SU boundaries to include all current Franklin Northeast and Franklin Northwest districts in a single SU.

The Montgomery voters rejected two merger proposals presented to them since the enactment of Act 46 follows:

• All (then) five FNE SU districts create a single PreK-12 operating district – 52 Yes / 219 No • Bakersfield, Berkshire, Montgomery form a PreK-8 operating / 9-12 tuitioning UUSD – 137 Yes / 151 No

Following the November 7, 2017 rejection of the second proposal, the Montgomery electorate voted at a special meeting on January 16, 2018 to “declare [the school district] an existing district in an alternative structure to meet the requirements of Acts 46 and 49 as outlined in

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 166 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Section 9 due to geographic and structural isolation” with a vote of 70 Yes, 21 No, 2 Abstain, and 1 ballot spoiled.

The Section 9 Proposal and February Conversation focused primarily on the geographical reasons that merger of Montgomery with another PreK-8 operating / 9-12 tuitioning district would be “impossible” or “impracticable.” The Section 9 Proposal states that the district is “geographically isolated” because of the inadequacy of the roads: the town is served by two Class One roads and one Class Two road, which is close for the winter. The town experiences the “highest snowfall in the state” and mud season is difficult. In the 12-month period immediately preceding submission of the Section. 9 Proposal, there were 85 vehicular accidents in Montgomery and neighboring towns.

Current bus routes to the Montgomery Elementary School are 38 minutes, 27 minutes, and 75 minutes. The distance between the Montgomery and districts in the region that share the same operating/tuitioning structure is as follows:

• Montgomery and Bakersfield: o Distance between schools – 16. 2 miles / 30 minutes o Most distant points in the towns – 21-30 miles / 30-46 minutes • Montgomery and Berkshire: o Distance between schools – 10.7 miles / 17 minutes o Most distant points in the towns – 15.2 and 16.4 miles / 24 minutes in travel • Montgomery and Sheldon: o Distance between schools – 20.5 miles / 30 minutes

The Section 9 Proposal also states that the district is “structurally isolated” because the Enosburgh, Richford, and Lamoille North districts operate all grades, PreK-12.

During the February Conversation, the Board stated that their voters objected to governance merger because the proposed Hybrid model for board membership (two members each from Bakersfield, Berkshire, and Montgomery) and transition from to Australian balloting would have precluded Montgomery citizens from making decisions regarding their school, such as changes to signs or whether to build a playground.

In addition, the Board representatives indicated that voters who approved the second unification proposal did so “out of fear” that the State Board would require merger, and that the terms would be worse for Montgomery. Trying to represent voice of voters – to remain a single-town district within the SU

Finally, Montgomery voters were concerned that the school would lose teachers if they were required to travel because have to travel a long distance between schools. The Board also pointed out that even if there was, for example, a shared mental health counselor who served all elementary schools, the counselor might be assigned to a different building when there was a crisis arose at the Montgomery School.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 167 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Montgomery (science, social studies, PE), the “administration will continue to be mindful of equity when developing future master schedules.” In addition, Montgomery notes that it currently offers “substantially equitable interventionists in literacy and math and SpEd.” Although the Section 9 Proposal acknowledges that Montgomery’s “comparatively low per pupil spending in some ways limits our ability to provide more opportunities for excellence like additional physical education, a technology integration specialist or language immersion teacher[, these] shared resource opportunities will be explored with other districts in the region in the future.” Montgomery students have access to early education opportunities at the school building as well as community enrichment activities, community partnerships, and other unique programs.

During the Conversation, the Board representatives stated that the Act 46-required self- evaluation had illuminated deficiencies in the district’s offerings and disparities between male and female students and among students living in poverty and those who are not. The representatives noted, however, that despite a high percentage (50%) of students eligible for the federal Free and Reduced-Price Lunch program, 67% of them are meeting state assessment standards. In addition, during the last five-to-ten years, the district has initiated programs designed to address its weaknesses. To address the gender gap, the principal is “working on researching and providing teachers with resources for how best to engage male learners” and has “identified researchers in the region to reach out to as a resource for future professional development options.” “[S]everal professional development books are being considered for analysis by staff during school-wide professional development days.” In connection with both disability and the poverty gap, the Section 9 Proposal stated:

Analyzing how students are supported and the type and variety of targeted interventions and accommodations is, and will continue to be, an ongoing cycle within the established system of supports for students with disabilities.”

The Montgomery District currently shares nursing, music, and guidance services with the Berkshire and Franklin Districts. “Future potential opportunities could include shared language immersion teacher, shared literacy, math, or behavior intervention instructional coaches, etc.” The Franklin Northeast districts already centralize purchasing at the SU level as well as in a number of areas required by statute. Montgomery “believes it has demonstrated the ability to meet” Act 46, Goal # 3.

The Section 9 Proposal acknowledges that the region “continue[s] to struggle with teacher retention and turnover,” noting that after working for a few years in Montgomery, young teachers move to Chittenden County for lifestyle choices and higher salaries. The Montgomery Board members stated that 46% of licensed teachers have five or fewer years’ experience.

The Section 9 Proposal states that the district promotes and will expand transparency and accountability by, for example, participating in the SU-wide Local Assessment Plan and analysis of SBAC results; the districts’ [o]ngoing development of FNESU standards based report card/proficiency based reporting documents;” and creation of a list serve and improvement of the district’s website.

The Report also notes that in FY 2016, Montgomery had “highest student/teacher ratio of all 33 schools in its cohort” of single-town districts that operated K-8 schools with enrollment of less

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 168 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

than 200. Montgomery’s ratio was higher than 241 of all 296 districts that operated schools for those grades, regardless of the school’s size. In FY 2015, Montgomery had the lowest education spending per pupil (without including the cost of special education services) of its 33 school cohort. Because its tax rate is already low, the Montgomery Board believes that it would be possible to increase taxes to a “palatable” level to address identified opportunity and achievement gaps.

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage; and both Study Committees’ Merger Reports and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …”

Montgomery voters rejected the first merger proposal, to merge all five Franklin Northwest SU districts into a unified district that operated schools for all grades PreK-12, by a vote of 52 Yes / 219 No. In November 2017, they rejected a subsequent merger proposal to merge the three PreK-8 operating/9-12 tuitioning district into a unified district with the same structure, by a vote of 137 Yes / 151 No. Despite approval by Bakersfield and Berkshire, and despite the narrow margin of defeat, the Montgomery Board chose not to warn a vote to reconsider. At a subsequent special meeting convened in January, the Montgomery voters approved an item to “declare [the school district] an existing district in an alternative structure to meet the

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 169 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

requirements of Acts 46 and 49 as outlined in Section 9 due to geographic and structural isolation” by a vote of 70 Yes / 21 No.72

Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” because of community opposition, however. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into this structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision.

During the February Conversation, the Board stated that their voters objected to governance merger because the proposed Hybrid model for board membership (two members each from Bakersfield, Berkshire, and Montgomery) and transition to Australian balloting would have precluded Montgomery citizens from making decisions regarding their school, such as changes to signs or whether to build a playground.

Inherent in the desire to maintain “local control” is the premise that maintaining decision- making at the local board level and approving district budgets at Town Meeting are the best ways to ensure responsiveness, transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility and that a centralized board, unified budget, and Australian balloting are not. It is understandable that community members would mourn transition from a school-centric budget, which often is amended and voted on “from the floor,” to a multi-school budget developed by a unified board and decided by Australian ballot. Given the Legislature’s presumption that the “preferred structure” with centralized decision-making is the best way to achieve all the goals of Act 46, including transparency and accountability, the shift to a unified board and Australian ballots is not a reason to preclude the State Board from requiring merger.

72 Although it is interesting to note the votes in favor of the declaration and to appreciate the sentiment behind it, nothing in law bestows legal significance on such a declaration. It is also worth noting that there were very few votes separating the favorable and unfavorable ballots cast in the November merger vote. In addition, although the statement was made here and by other districts that anecdotal post-vote conversations revealed that individuals who had approved the merger proposal did so because they hadn’t understood the consequences of their vote or out of fear, there is nothing to suggest that votes of disapproval weren’t similarly based upon misunderstanding or misinformation. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 170 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

community-based entities that advise and otherwise serve as a bridge between the local community and the unified board. In addition, it is important to note that, other than the initial vote voluntarily to form a UUSD and the election of the board members, statute does not require Australian balloting. In fact, some of the UUSDs formed since Act 46 have eschewed a switch to Australian ballots and will instead continue to debate and vote on their unified budgets and other public questions “from the floor.” Even assuming that the members of the newly-created Franklin Northeast PK-8 UUSD are incapable of learning to view all of the district’s students as “our” students rather than as students of “either my town or some other town,” the articles of agreement require board membership under the Hybrid Model, which allocates an equal number of board seats to each town, including Montgomery if merged, even though it has the smallest population.

The Montgomery District’s argument against merger with the other districts in the region that share its operating/tuitioning structure is based upon its assertion of geographic isolation due to both distance and treacherous driving conditions. The distance between the Montgomery elementary school and the Bakersfield, Berkshire, and Sheldon elementary schools ranges from 10.7 miles, or 17 minutes driving time (Berkshire), to 16.2 / 20.5 miles, or 30 minutes driving time (Bakersfield / Sheldon). The towns of Montgomery and Bakersfield are 21-30 miles, or 30- 46 minutes, at their furthest points. The towns of Montgomery and Berkshire are 15.2 and 16.4 miles, or 24 minutes, at their furthest points.

Geographic isolation is not a barrier to merger as the district contends. Its argument that the districts’ furthest borders are between 15.2 and 30 miles and 24-46 minutes, apart would be significant only if the district is planning to transport students from one border to the other. If Montgomery merged with the Franklin Northeast PK-8 UUSD, then a family living on the far edge of Montgomery could decide to take advantage of intradistrict elementary choice, or alternatively could determine that the travel time to the school located in another town was too lengthy. Even if the unified district consolidated all of its students into one building, a student living on the furthest border in Montgomery would not be travelling to the furthest border in another town. It is also interesting to note that in FY 2017, exactly 50% of Montgomery’s 52 high school students chose to enroll in schools outside the SU – including 11 students who travelled over the mountains to Stanstead Quebec, 10 who travelled to the North Country Union High School, four who travelled to St Johnsbury Academy, and one who travelled to the Lamoille Union High School.

The Montgomery District also believes that its community members voted against merger believing that teachers would leave the district if required to travel long distances between schools. The district already “shares” teachers with other districts in the region, however, (e.g. nurses, music teachers, guidance professionals) and the Section 9 proposal indicates that the district intends to broaden programming offerings through, e.g., a “shared language immersion teacher, shared literacy, math, or behavior intervention instructional coaches, etc.” Once they have experience and Montgomery has invested time/money in their training/mentoring, young teachers are already leaving at a high rate, often for higher paying jobs in Chittenden County. Rather than merger causing teachers to leave because they have to travel among buildings, it might cause them to stay if they were offered a single full-time position at a competitive salary with benefits,

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 171 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

rather than a series of part-time contracts with multiple employers that may or may not add up to 1.0 FTE.

The Section 9 Proposal asserts that there currently is “substantial equity in the type of course offerings and the amount of instructional time offered in math and literacy” in the Bakersfield, Berkshire, and Montgomery Districts. Self-evaluation under Act 46, however, revealed deficiencies in programmatic offerings and outcome disparities between various sub-groups of the student population. Montgomery’s Section 9 Proposal also acknowledges that the district’s “comparatively low per pupil spending in some ways limits our ability to provide more opportunities for excellence like additional physical education, a technology integration specialist or language immersion teacher.” The district intends to explore sharing these positions with other districts in the region.

Small districts have employed the approach of “sharing” teachers for many years, often by having multiple districts each enter into a separate contract with the same individual for a fractional position, all of which total 1.0 FTE. Although it is at times a successful strategy, more often districts report either that highly valued employees leave for a single full-time position with benefits in a larger, often unified, district or that the candidates interested in cobbling together employment through a series of part-time contracts are less well qualified. While this approach may be all that is available in some regions of the state – especially where districts cannot merge unless the voters agree to change the current operating/tuitioning structures – it is an inherently unstable one.

Alternatively, some elementary districts attempt to increase programmatic offerings and create a more stable workforce of full-time staff by sharing teachers and other professionals who are hired by the SU. In such an arrangement, the respective cost of each SU-level employee is allocated to each of the districts in which the employee works. The local board would thus have a diminished personnel-related role in relation to the SU’s employee and the voters would have no ability to control or reject the costs the SU allocates to the local budget – which could negatively affect their ability to fully fund the programs in their elementary school.

Experience throughout the State demonstrates that decreasing student population in a small district is not sustainable and ultimately leads to a downward spiral of increasing tax rates, reduced programming, and frequent staff turnover (which the Section 9 Proposal states is already an issue). Larger governance structures have been shown to provide the flexibility needed to mitigate annual budget and tax increases, moderate tax rate fluctuations, and allow small or struggling schools to stay open and programs to remain intact or be expanded.

Finally, the Section 9 Proposal states that the Montgomery District is “structurally isolated” because the Enosburgh, Richford, and Lamoille North districts operate all grades, PreK-12. It is correct that the Montgomery District could not merge its governance structure with one or more of these districts unless the voters of one or more of the districts voted to change its operating/tuitioning structure. There is no such structural barrier, however, to the merger of the Montgomery District with the Franklin Northeast PK-8 UUSD.

Montgomery’s Section 9 Proposal cites the State Board’s approval of the Marlboro School District’s “3-by-1” proposal as precedence for the conclusion that Montgomery is structurally incapable of merging with another “like” district. In the Marlboro situation, the State Board

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 172 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

had no reason to believe that the newly-created Southern Valley UUSD would be willing to accept Marlboro as a member and, in fact, had reason to believe that the UUSD would not. In contrast, the Franklin Northeast PK-8 UUSD’s voter-approved articles of agreement explicitly granted advance acceptance of Montgomery’s membership in the unified district if Montgomery voted before July 29, 2018 to join or if the State Board’s final statewide plan required Montgomery to do so.

No facts have been presented to support a conclusion that merger is not “possible” or “practicable” in this instance, nor can the Agency identify any other facts that would do so.

The Montgomery District’s argument that remaining a single-town school district is the “best” means of creating a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals is not convincing enough to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD is the “preferred” means of doing so.

Accordingly, the Secretary believes that the best means of meeting the Act 46 Goals – for each district individually and for the region – is for the State Board of Education to merge the governance structures of the Montgomery School District and the Franklin Northeast PK-8 Unified Union School District, acknowledging that the UUSD’s voter-approved articles of agreement granted advance acceptance to Montgomery’s membership.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 173 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

31. The Sheldon School District

The Sheldon School District is a single-town PreK-12 district that provides for the education of its resident students by operating a school through grade 8 and paying tuition for grades 9-12. It is a member of the Franklin Northwest SU. Other members are the Missisquoi Valley Union High School District and its three member elementary districts.73

The K–12 ADM for the Franklin Northwest districts in FY 2018 is as follows:

Franklin Northwest SU – 2,000.50 Sheldon – 338.60 (K-8 operating / 9-12 tuitioning) Franklin – 99.1 (K-6) Highgate – 300.10 (K-6) Swanton – 521.1 (K-6) Missisquoi Union – 747.79 (three towns, 7-12)

The K-12 ADM for the districts in the neighboring Franklin Northeast SU are:

Franklin Northeast SU – 1,465.12 Montgomery – 172.00 (K-8 operating / 9-12 tuitioning) Enosburgh – 473.46 Richford – 365.72 Franklin Northeast PK-8 UUSD – 453.94 (K-8 operating / 9-12 tuitioning)

Data reflect that Sheldon’s ADM decreased by 4% from FY 2014 to FY 2018, a relatively moderate decrease. But over the same period of time, education spending grew by 15%.

In FY 2017, the most recent year for which there is data, Sheldon paid tuition for its high school students to attend the Enosburgh Middle/High School (33.64 students), Missisquoi Valley Union High School (17.80), and Bellows Free Academy – St. Albans (33.67).

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Sheldon School District submitted a Section 9 Proposal jointly with the other districts in the Franklin Northwest SU. In it, the districts propose to remain as one union high school district and four single-town districts (one – Sheldon –responsible for PreK-12 and the other three responsible for their respective elementary students) in same SU.

The Missisquoi Valley UHSD and its member elementary districts are discussed above at VI(A)(a) at #2.

73 See #2 in Part VI(A)(a) for a discussion of those districts. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 174 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Franklin -- 161 Yes / 0 No Highgate – 103 Yes / 1 No Swanton– 148 Yes / 105 No Sheldon – 87 Yes / 0 No

After conducting the self-analysis required by Act 46, Sec. 9, the districts conclude that there are no major issues of equity among the elementary schools, with time spent and access to programs being substantially the same. The analysis revealed that there are “gaps” in middle school programs for which the districts have developed action plans. The districts report that staff have equal access to professional development opportunities as well. Turnover varies from school to school, but the Highgate District has had a high administrator turnover (four principals in seven years). The districts have experienced the phenomenon of young professionals teaching in the Franklin Northwest SU districts for a few years to gain experience before accepting a position in Chittenden County.

Some of the specific improvements and action steps identified in the Section 9 proposal include:

• “Research and implement” elementary/middle school choice among the districts of the SU; possibilities include: five students in and out per year with school board approval; splitting ADM 50/50 between the sending and receiving districts.74 • “Investigate a foreign student/out of state student team to research and develop a system designed to attract foreign and out of state students to enroll at” MVU MS/HS – from China, Canada, and New York. • “Implement curriculum focus and accountability measures to ensure all students are provided equitable learning opportunities (i.e., all teachers using and implementing same curriculum) and learning successes.” • “Establish an ‘Instructional Resource Team’ to promote access to learning opportunities and ensure all students are afforded educational opportunity.” • “create site-based school improvement team” (Principal, Guidance Counselor, Math Teacher, Literacy Teacher, SpEd Teacher) – “to create, monitor, and update all site-based continuous school improvement plans.” • “formally establish[] an SU level school improvement team.” • “Continue exploring and sharing resources” although the Proposal notes that “Many of the efficiency measures being adopted by merging districts … have already been implemented by FNWSU.”

74 This could be done only if the Legislature amends current law. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 175 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

In support of maintaining the same governance structure while working to improve upon identified weaknesses, the Section 9 Proposal makes the following points:

• The Franklin District has high test scores and low taxes – merger will increase the cost per pupil and tax rates in Franklin and will not increase student performance. • The residents of all districts “made it clear” in the November 2017 vote that want to maintain local control and that “town identity was critical to them.”75 • Sheldon has different structure than other Franklin Northwest SU districts and so cannot be merged. • The districts have not found evidence that merging will improve test scores.

For more details, see the districts’ Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

“(1) is the best means of meeting the [five Act 46 Goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency] in a particular region; and

“(2) ensures transparency and accountability for the member districts and the public at large …

The Franklin Northwest districts’ Section 9 Proposal states that the residents of all districts “made it clear” in the November 2017 vote that they want to maintain local control and that “town identity was critical to them.” Merger is not “impossible” or “impracticable” because of community opposition, however. The Legislature determined that a UUSD that is its own SD

75 The text of the question voted by the electorates of Franklin, Highgate Sheldon and Swanton was, “Should the [Town] School District, with other members of the Franklin Northwest Supervisory Union, propose to the Vermont State Board of Education to enhance the current operation of the Franklin, Highgate, MVU, Sheldon and Swanton school boards (which is an enhance Alternative Governance Structure as defined in the Act 46/49 law)?” Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 176 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

is the governing structure most likely to meet the educational and fiscal goals of Act 46 in a sustainable manner. The Legislature requires the State Board to merge districts into this structure where necessary to create a sustainable entity. The law does not contemplate a departure from this goal based on community sentiment. Community opposition does not make merger “impossible” or “impracticable,” although it is important in any merged district for both the unified board and the townspeople to take the time to build trust, develop new habits for working together, and embrace and develop a shared and coherent vision. It is also worth noting that a school board is charged with making decisions that are best for its students and its taxpayers. It is understandable that a school board endeavors to implement the will of the community. In contrast, Act 46 and longstanding statutory law require the State Board to decide what is best for the district, the region, and the State – and, given the statutory purpose underlying the State Board’s existence, that means the State Board must focus on what is best for the education of the State’s children.

Many of the more specific action items listed in the Section 9 Proposal (creation of an Instructional Resource Team, site-based school improvement teams, and SU-level school improvement team) are approaches that have been employed for many years in other districts or are elements of unified union school districts. In addition, the Section 9 Proposal’s specified action items primarily are to “continue doing” or “build upon” what the districts already do, are items to be studied with no particular plan of action offered

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 177 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

at this time, or are services that an SU is already statutorily required to provide on behalf of member districts (e.g., special education services). While these approaches may well yield improvements, they do not result in an “Enhanced Alternative Governance Structure,” but rather are standard elements of sound SU and district operation.

The Franklin Northwest Section 9 proposal cites Sheldon’s different operating and tuitioning structure as a barrier to merger. This statement is correct only as it relates to merger of the Sheldon District with the Missisquoi Valley Union High School District and its member elementary districts. There is no such structural barrier, however, to the merger of the Sheldon District with the Franklin Northeast PK-8 UUSD. In addition, the Franklin Northeast PK-8 UUSD’s voter-approved articles of agreement explicitly granted advance acceptance of an adjacent district required to merge by the State Board’s final statewide plan.

The Sheldon District’s (as part of the Franklin Northwest districts’) argument that the proposed “Enhanced Alternative Governance Structure” is the “best” means of creating a sustainable structure capable of meeting the Act 46 Goals is not convincing enough to overturn the Legislature’s presumption that a UUSD is the “preferred” means of doing so.

No facts have been presented to support a conclusion that merger of the Sheldon District and the Franklin Northeast PK-8 UUSD is not “possible” or “practicable” in this instance, nor can the Agency identify any other facts that would do so. Creation of the unified district would also enable the UUSD formed by the merger of the Missisquoi Valley UHSD and its member districts to become its own single-district SU, thereby creating what the Legislature has determined to be a “preferred structure.” In addition, noting that Sheldon pays tuition for 40% of its students to attend a public high school in the Franklin Northeast SU, while only 20% attend the Missisquoi Valley Union High School in Sheldon’s own SU, the merger of Sheldon with a Franklin Northeast district will provide more continuity to students enrolling in schools within the Franklin Northeast SU.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 178 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

of the Sheldon School District and the Franklin Northeast PK-8 Unified Union School District, acknowledging that the UUSD’s voter-approved articles of agreement granted advance acceptance to Sheldon’s membership if merger was required by the statewide plan.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 179 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

32. The Stamford School District

The Stamford School District is organized to provide for the PreK-12 education of its resident students by operating a school offering kindergarten through grade 8 and paying tuition for its students in prekindergarten and grades 9-12. On May 31, 2017, its voters declined to approve the proposal that created the Southern Valley Unified Union School District, which will become operational for the students residing in Halifax and Readsboro on July 1, 2018.

In December 2017, the board of the Stamford School District submitted its report in response to the requirements of Act 46, Sec. 9, proposing that it continue to pursue creation of an interstate school district with its neighbor to the South – Clarksburg, MA. Both communities are in the midst of exploring this option based upon existing connections (e.g., most Stamford students enroll in the Clarksburg High School; the towns are adjacent and easily accessed by existing roads; Stamford residents are oriented towards the MA town for employment, health care, etc.; the other schools in Windham SW are not easy For Stamford students to access geographically; etc.)

At the Section 10 Conversation held on April 9, 2018, the board’s representatives supplied written responses to the common list of topics provided in advance to all districts. They also provided written and verbal evidence of support for exploration of the interstate compact from within both communities, the Vermont Legislature, the Massachusetts Legislature, and the Congressional delegations of both states.

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; a link to the Section 9 Proposal at School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage; and the Southern Valley Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage.

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

The timing of the currently-available voluntary merger options complicates the ability of the Secretary to issue the proposed plan by June 1, 2018, and the State Board to issue its final statewide plan by November 30, 2018. Nevertheless, the Legislature clearly contemplated that districts would continue to have the opportunity to pursue governance consolidation during the period in which the statewide plan is being

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 180 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

developed (e.g., the Legislature enacted both the Sec. 7 merger possibilities and the Sec. 10 statewide plan deadline in the same piece of legislation).

The Secretary’s ability to comment is limited because it is impossible to predict the outcome of the Stamford School District’s attempt to create an interstate school district with a state (Massachusetts) with which Vermont has never before entered into an interstate contract. By the time the State Board is required to issue its Final statewide plan, the Board will have more information, and hopefully the information it needs to make its decisions.

Accordingly, in light of this development and out of respect for the Legislature’s decision to provide the districts with this opportunity to merge voluntarily, the Secretary makes no recommendation regarding the governance structure of the Stamford School District at this time so that the Agency does not insert itself into community discussions and potential votes of the electorate. The Secretary anticipates that the State Board will review and may potentially address the governance structure of this district in its final statewide plan.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 181 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

33. The Waits River Valley Union School District (Towns of Corinth and Topsham)

The Waits River Valley School District is a unified union school district located in the Orange East SU. The district operates a school through grade 8 for the resident students of Corinth and Topsham and pays tuition for students in grades 9-12. The other members of the SU are the Oxbow Union High School District, its two member school districts (Bradford and Newbury) and the Thetford School District. In May 2018, the State Board of Education redrew SU boundaries to include the Blue Mountain USD in the Orange East SU as well.76

The K-12 ADM numbers in FY 2018 for districts in the region are:

Orange East SU (with Blue Mountain) – 1,737.5 Waits River Valley Union – 332.42 Newbury (K-6) – 137 Bradford ID (K-6) – 221 Oxbow Union High (7-12) – 273.83 Blue Mountain Union (three towns; K-12 o) – 380.25 Thetford (K-6 o / 7-12 designating) – 394

Echo Valley Community (K-8 o / 9-12 t) – 265.27 (147.92 Orange + 117.35 Washington) - which is in the Central VT SU – 1,241.60 First Branch USD (K-8 o / 9-12 t) – 334.87 (167.17 Chelsea + 167.70 Tunbridge)

The district’s Section 9 Proposal projects that enrollment in the Waits River Valley District is and will continue to be stable. When looking at ADM, data reveal that K-8 numbers have risen by nearly 15% (29.64 FTE) during the period FY 2014-FY 2018 and the ADM for Grades 9-12 has dropped by 5% (5.4) during the same period, which is an overall rise in K-12 ADM of nearly 8% (24.2).

In FY 2017, the most recent year for which data are available to the Agency, the district paid tuition on behalf of a majority of its high school students to school districts or schools located in the Orange East SU – Oxbow Union (37.84 FTE) and Thetford Academy (23.17). The Waits River Valley District also paid tuition to the St Johnsbury Academy (6.12); U-32 (5.94); Blue Mountain Union (4.2); Rivendell Interstate (3.62); Hartford (2); Chelsea (1.19); Danville, Spaulding, and Connecticut River Academy (1 each); and Northfield (0.68).

District’s Sec. 9 Analysis and Proposal

The Waits River School Valley District proposes to remain a two-town unified union district that operates K-8 and pays tuition for the high school grades. It appears to see merit both to remaining in the Orange East SU and to being moved into the new Central Vermont SU77, where it would have the same operating/tuitioning structure as the newly-created Echo Valley Community School District (Orange; Williamstown).

76 See Part VI(A)(a) #3 (Oxbow UHSD and its member districts), VI(C)(b) (Thetford), and VI(C)(a) #21 (Blue Mountain) for more information and a discussion of these districts.

77 The new Central Vermont SU will serve the two new UUSDs: the Echo Valley Community School District and the Paine Mountain School District. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 182 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

The Waits River Valley community is oriented to the East and the South for tuitioning, employment, recreation, services, and health care. After the Legislature enacted Act 46, the district engaged in exploratory conversations with the Orange and Washington districts, the Tunbridge District and, to a lesser degree, the Chelsea District. The voters in both pairs of districts created new unified union school districts. Neither new unified district is interested in further discussions with Waits River Valley at this time. Waits River Valley states that its Section 9 Proposal “is not simply the ‘best means’ for the WRVS to meet the goals of Act 46, it is the only means!”

Describing Waits River Valley as “structurally isolated,” the Section 9 Proposal stated that the district would continue to explore “assignment of the WRVS to another SU in our region whose member districts share an educational philosophy, instructional goals, and operating structures similar to our own.” At the Conversation, the Board representatives speculated that if it is assigned to the Central Vermont SU, then the district might develop a relationship with the Echo Valley Community School District that would lead eventually to merger.

The Section 9 Proposal asserts that the district “historically and currently … meets the requirements of the” State’s Education Quality Standards. The SU, however, “has yet to fully coordinate, implement and support the delivery of a unified approach to curriculum and instruction. Despite that absence of leadership, WRVS has forged ahead in addressing the [EQS] including a comprehensive plan for ensuring that its students meet or exceed state and national performance standards .” Even so, the Section 9 Proposal concedes that its “overall record of student performance [on standard assessments] remains uneven from grade to grade.” Examining cohorts over three years reveals “instances of steady progress, but more often the results are uneven. There was a “substantive performance gap” when results were disaggregated based on economic status, although “the only cohort large enough to examine was in grade 6.” The Section 9 Proposal concludes that “[c]learly more work needs to be done to align the school’s curriculum with state standards and provide consistent instructional approaches across grade levels, as well as the required levels of instructional support.”

The Waits River Valley School District has adopted a universal meals program, ensuring that “all scholars [can] eat breakfast and lunch at no cost. The District asserts that it is one of the most efficient K-8 operating districts in the State having undertaken a number of initiatives on its own and some in conjunction with other Orange East SU districts. Among other things, it cites its food service, fuel oil contract, and student data system as examples. It has restructured its administrative team and consolidated “its tax anticipation notes with the other districts in OESU to acquire more favorable rates.” The Section 9 Proposal indicates that the district intends to continue to explore other opportunities to collaborate and coordinate with the other member districts in Orange East.

The district also notes that its education spending per equalized pupil is “well below state-wide average for similarly structured schools” and “has grown at an annual rate of only 1.1% from FY’13 to FY’17.”

For more details, see the district’s Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; and a link to the Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 183 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Secretary’s Discussion and Proposal

As a general proposition when looking at the Waits River Valley District, the Secretary defers to the Legislature’s presumption that the district would be better able to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency – and its school would more likely remain viable – if it had access to the flexibility inherent in a larger, unified structure.

Both the Echo Valley Community School District (Orange; Washington) and the First Branch Unified School District (Chelsea; Tunbridge) are, like Waits River Valley, two-town PreK-12 districts that operate schools through grade 8 and pay tuition for high school students. Both will be fully operational on July 1, 2018. The Echo Valley District is a member of a new, larger SU that also will be fully operational on July 1. The First Branch District is a member of the fairly recently-created White River Valley SU, which has been operational for a few years.

The State Board cannot require the Waits River Valley District to merge with either the Echo Valley District or with the First Branch District unless Echo Valley or First Branch agrees to accept Waits River Valley as a member (because both Echo Valley and First Branch are newly created districts that meet eligibility requirements for one of the Legislature’s voluntary merger programs). Both new unified districts have indicated their unwillingness to merge further at this point, and both need to focus on the structural, clerical, and community-building work that accompanies unification.

The Waits River Valley District suggests that becoming a member of the new Central Vermont SU will promote collaboration with the Echo Valley District and that collaboration might lead ultimately to merger. Although this makes sense on a theoretical level and looks promising on a map, the reality is that the Waits River Valley community is focused to the east and to the south for employment, services, and tuitioning. In FY 2017, 61 Waits River Valley students (70%) enrolled in either Oxbow Union or Thetford Academy. In that same year, the district paid tuition for 0.68 FTE students to attend high school in the new Central Vermont SU. It paid tuition for just under two FTE students to attend high school in Chelsea (which the First Branch District will no longer operate as of July 1).

With a large percentage of its high school students enrolled in Oxbow Union and Thetford Academy, it is important for the Waits River Valley District to work with the other Orange East SU districts to provide continuity for students enrolling in schools within the SU.

Accordingly, because the Secretary believes that it is not practicable to require merger at this time, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board request either the Echo Valley Community School District or the First Branch Unified School District to accept the Waits River Valley Union School District as a member. By the time the State Board is required to issue its statewide plan in November, it may have additional information with which to make the final decision.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 184 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

b. Districts for Which Merger is Either NOT “Possible” or NOT “Practicable” or Both

As a general proposition when reviewing the districts in this Part VI(C)(b), the Secretary defers to the Legislature’s presumption that the district would be better able to meet or exceed the educational and fiscal goals of opportunity, equity, and efficiency – and the district’s school would more likely become or remain viable – if it had access to the flexibility inherent in a larger, unified structure.

This group, however, consists of districts that are geographically distant from any other district that shares the identical operating/tuitioning structure. In each instance, movement into a larger unified governance structure can occur only if the voters of the district (and/or the voters in one or more other districts in the region) are willing to compromise regarding the grades for which they operate schools and those for which they pay tuition.

The Secretary has found no possible or practicable way in which the State Board can require a merged governance structure for the districts listed below even if the Board were to determine that merger is necessary to create a sustainable entity capable of meeting the Act 46 goals.

Accordingly, the Secretary does not propose that the State Board merge the governance structures of any of the following districts:

34. The Arlington School District 35. The Canaan School District 36. The Coventry School District 37. The Sharon School District 38. The South Hero School District 39. The Strafford School District 40. The Thetford School District 41. The Vernon School District 42. The Windsor / West Windsor UUSD78 43. The Wolcott School District

This does not mean, however, that the districts necessarily should remain in their current SU, an issue discussed in more detail in Part VII. The State Board can redraw SU boundaries either as part of its final statewide plan or at a later date pursuant to 16 V.S.A. § 261.

For more details about each district, see its Snapshot at Appendix F; common data points at Appendix G; links to its Section 9 Proposal at the School Governance / Sec. 9 Proposals webpage; and, where applicable, the study committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of

78 Like the Elmore-Morristown UUSD, the Windsor / West Windsor UUSD did not meet eligibility requirements for any of the Legislature’s voluntary merger programs. As a result, it is not automatically exempt from State Board-required merger under the final statewide plan. Windsor / West Windsor did not submit a Section 9 Proposal separate from its merger report (which served the dual function of a Sec. 9 Proposal for all of the SU’s districts) or participate in a Conversation, and the Agency did not prepare a Snapshot for the new UUSD. Instead, for more information, see the Windsor / West Windsor Study Committee’s Merger Report and proposed Articles of Agreement as approved by the State Board and the voters, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage. Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 185 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

Agreement as approved by the State Board, which can be accessed through the School Governance / Merger Activity webpage.

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 186 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

VII. Adjustment of SU Boundaries

Act 46 requires the State Board to “publish on the Agency’s website its order merging and realigning districts and supervisory unions where necessary.” The Board’s authority to require districts to merge their governance structures into unified union school districts derives solely from Act 46 and must occur, if at all, in the final statewide plan. In contrast, the State Board has had independent authority for decades to alter the boundaries of supervisory unions either on its own initiative or at the request of one or more districts. 16 V.S.A. § 261. Section 261(a) provides in part that the State Board:

may regroup the supervisory unions of the State or create new supervisory unions in such manner as to afford increased efficiency or greater convenience and economy and to facilitate prekindergarten through grade 12 curriculum planning and coordination as changed conditions may seem to require.

As a result, the State Board can redraw SU boundaries as part of its final statewide plan or at some point in the future, or both.

In its statewide plan, the State Board will have no choice but to make SU boundary changes in a few regions of the State in order to effectuate district merger. For example, if the State Board chooses to merge the Sheldon District with the Franklin Northeast PreK-8 UUSD, then it will need to redraw SU boundaries so that the town of Sheldon lies within the Franklin Northeast SU. Similarly, merger of the Cabot and Danville District would require the adjustment of SU boundaries.

In addition, The State Board may choose to use its authority to designate a new UUSD as a Supervisory District, (“SD”) a single-district SU, pursuant to § 261(c). For example, if the State Board requires the Missisquoi Valley Union School District and its three member town elementary school districts to merge, then Board might determine that the new UUSD is “large enough to support the planning and administrative functions of a supervisory union.”

Some existing SUs are very small – arguably too small to “support the planning and administrative functions” of an SU in an efficient and sustainable manner. The State Board recently addressed this issue when it redrew the boundaries of the Blue Mountain SU and the Orange East SU and made the Blue Mountain Union School District a member district of the Orange East SU, effectively eliminating the Blue Mountain SU. It was for this and other reasons that the State Board granted the requests of several voluntarily-created UUSDs during the last year to adjust SU boundaries, thereby eliminating an additional four SUs.

In other instances, it would be helpful to realign SU boundaries so that they align with the boundaries of career technical center regions, Agency of Human Services Districts, or counties. This would not be an easy or even possible task, however. For example, the CTE regions, AHS Districts, and county lines do not align with each other. In addition, many of their lines intersect existing and potential UUSDs.

In many regions where the State Board might find it desirable to redraw SU boundaries, there are one, two, or even more new unified school districts that are very recently operational or are still transitioning to full operations on either July 1, 2018 or July 1, 2019. Any UUSD created by

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 187 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

the final statewide plan on November 30, 2018 is required to be fully operational by July 1, 2019. Not only is transitioning to and beginning operations as a new UUSD time consuming and complex, but creation of these new relationships might reveal alliances and natural partnerships with other districts that are not apparent now. This suggests that the State Board may want to delay redrawing SU boundaries.

For different reasons, the State Board will want to require SU boundary changes in order to create more sustainable planning and administrative service units in many regions of the State. The Secretary proposes, however, that the State Board decline to make any SU changes in it its statewide plan other than those that are necessary to effectuate a merger required in the plan. The State Board could then revisit the question of SU boundary lines in the coming months and years, perhaps beginning talks with districts in the spring of 2019 and meeting on a regular basis with them thereafter to remain apprised of the progress of mergers and other activity.

Even if the State Board chooses to issue decisions sooner that require SU boundary changes, either in the statewide plan or pursuant to § 261, the Secretary suggests that the State Board consider requiring that the changes be effective no sooner than July 1, 2020, unless the districts affected request that it occur sooner.

In no particular order of significance, and with the recognition that some of the following are incompatible, some of the SU boundary adjustments that the State Board might want to consider might include:

• Eliminating the Grand Isle SU and assigning the three districts to two different SUs • Assigning the St Johnsbury District to the Caledonia Central SU or the Kingdom East SD • Eliminating the Orleans Southwest SU by, for example, assigning • The Craftsbury District to the Orleans Central SU • The Wolcott District to the Lamoille South SU • The Hazen Union, Lakeview Union, and their member districts to the Caledonia Central SU • Redrawing SU boundaries around the Barre SU, Montpelier-Roxbury SD, Twinfield UUSD, and Washington Central SU into one or more SUs • Assigning the Thetford District to the White River Valley SU • Creating an SU with the Thetford, Strafford, Sharon, Norwich, and Rivendell Interstate Districts as members • Creating an SU with the districts of the Windsor Central SU and the Two Rivers SU • Creating one SU with the Hartford and Hartland Districts as members and another SU with the Springfield, Windsor/West Windsor, and Weathersfield Districts as members • Assigning the districts of the Windham Northeast SU to another SU • Assigning the Arlington and Sandgate Districts to the Bennington-Rutland SU • Assigning the Stratton District to the Bennington-Rutland SU or the Winhall District to the Windham Central SU • Assigning the Stamford District and/or the Searsburg District to the Southwest VT SU • Assigning all or some of the districts in the Windham Southwest SU to the Windham Central SU • Assigning the Marlboro District to the Windham Southeast SU or the Vernon District either to the Windham Central SU or the Windham Southwest SU

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 188 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)

APPENDICES

A. New Unified Union School Districts Voluntarily Created July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2018

B. Maps • Merger Activity as of June 1, 2018 • Technical Center Regions • Agency of Human Services Regions

C. January 2018 – Secretary of Education’s Report to the Legislature

D. Memorandum from the Governor, Legislative Leaders, and the State Board of Education Chair dated April 4, 2018

E. List of Topics Provided to Superintendents to prepare for Section 10 Conversations

F. “Snapshot” of Each Section 9 Proposal and Section 10 Conversation

G. Common Data Points for Each District Submitting a Section 9 Proposal

Proposed Statewide Plan; Act 46, Sec. 10(a) Page 189 of 189

(Revised: June 1, 2018)