Westminster Board Meeting May 7

Having canceled the second meeting in April, this set a record for time--out at 10:18! We began with a report from Rockingham's Article 6 Comm., led by the hired consultant (they paid him to drive down to tell us this stuff?). The basic idea they have is to build a new middle school building somewhere near BFUHS high school. Without a partner district, they apparently are not eligible for any state funds. The cost figures are not made very clear, but the numbers $4-10 million were thrown around. Seeing Westminster paid $3 million for our gym and other renovations, it is hard to see the real cost being below $10 million for a whole building. They are asking if Westminster would be interested in a joint partnership for this school. I have problems with this idea on at least 3 levels. 1) It will invariably raise costs to our district. We will be obligated to pay for the new construction (a cost we don't incur currently with choices we have). More significantly, the costs of sending students to BFMS has almost always been significantly above the costs we pay for our choice students. This has saved our district well over a million dollars over the past decade. Given the per pupil cost history at BFUHS and BFMS, it seems almost certain this will continue to cost considerably more than when we pay for choice schools. 2) At a time when nationwide and in the state, there is clear energy for greater choice and options in our public schools (including support from the state commissioner of education ) http://www.vpr.net/episode/45974 and towns like Whitingham and Wilmington are trying to dissolve their joint agreement, why we would want to lock into long term agreement is hard to understand. I hear many more people who wish Westminster wasn't locked into the BFUHS agreement than wish we were in more agreements that constrain educational options. Especially given the history of struggles within the Rockingham board and schools, this doesn't seem like the ideal partnership. Go to the Article 6 meeting May 18 at 5:30 at BFMS to learn more. 3) Philosophically, I don't believe we are ever best served by "One Size Fits All" schooling. There is just too much research out there showing the limits of the "one best system" fraught with the "predictable failure of educational reform." Our Westminster parents have consistently chosen to take advantage of the choices for middle school. There would need to be a very strong educational justification (with assurances of quality) to consider losing this freedom of choice. In this discussion, some mentioned the value of a "community school." I think it is all too easy to idealize the possibilities of something new and unformed. We all have a picture of the ideal school we might create. But the history in this area should make us circumspect of creating an ideal that suits all our individual pictures. More importantly, I don't think there is one "ideal school" that works for all. Again, there is a ton of research and experience showing the real challenges of being "everything to everybody" in any organization. This was just the first 30 minutes of the meeting! Then financial report (should be a surplus but this will be offset some by overcharges from the Middle School(!)); principal report (fresh fruit and vegetable grant truly high quality food for kids (and locally sourced!) but a mess with getting reimbursed from state folk; lots of info about writing program and progress in this arena); superintendent report (still working on local assessment plans (going along with curriculum development to start focusing on learning (finally!); WNESU meeting report (great price for oil--less than $2/gal!; a lot of time spent on discussing evaluations of administrative leaders). Good news was hiring of Colleen Grout for art (and regretfully having to say good bye to Janelle). Also had to accept the resignation from David Hull (5th grade), losing our one male teacher. Then approved water project bids (required by state) and repairs for gym entry (a waste of money because we cut corners to save a little when it was first built and now are paying a lot more to fix effects of freezing). Finally, discussed efforts to expand preschool in the district both with more slots funded in the district and support for private providers and partners to become STARS certified and thus eligible for public funding and certification of quality programs. There was some more at executive session related to the evaluation of the superintendent. Her focus goals of curricular improvement, reduction of SPED costs, better systems for supervision and evaluation, and improved management at the SU level seem the right intentions and a more proactive stance to educational quality in contrast to the more reactive, fire fighting modality that sometimes seemed more common in the district's past.