Exhilarating AND Challenging! HUUSD Consolidation Year #1 (Summer 2017)
A conversation with HUUSD board communications working group chairman Rob
Williams and HUUSD Superintendent Brigid Nease
Q.
The HUUSD board is responsible for overseeing the work of a single employee -
YOU - as superintendent of our supervisory union (SU). I think we can all agree
it has been both an exhilarating and challenging year. As our superintendent
for eight years, how would you describe this past year as our first under the
Act 46 unified school program, which was overwhelming approved by voters in all
six of our towns - Waterbury, Duxbury, Fayston, Moretown, Waitsfield, and
Warren?
A. You said it well - exhilarating and challenging.
The exhilarating part was and will continue to be, imagining with my
administrative team, what could be possible now that the old financial barriers
have been lifted so that we can share resources and grow collectively together.
I have felt since the beginning eight years ago that the WWSU had considerable
untapped capacity.
However, it has been
more challenging than I could have imagined. I would describe it as closing
down seven businesses and opening a new one all at the same time. You can't
imagine all the work - what needs to get done - just to change our name!
The board has
struggled and so has our administrative team. In order to make progress and
achieve desirable goals, we all need to make some sacrifices, compromises, and
move forward assuming good intentions. We made promises to our taxpayers. All
the economic problems that existed prior to Act 46 both within our SU and
statewide haven't gone away. Our students and those for many years to come are
counting on us to get it right.
Now that we have
pooled our resources, I really feel that what comes next, both financially and
operationally, means that we need to accept our geography from Warren to
Waterbury, acknowledge that the buildings that we have are what we have, and
persevere to develop a redesigned operational delivery model that puts students
first, positions our SU to be exceptional and innovative, all while delivering
an effective and financially sustainable educational system to the taxpayers
when compared with others in Vermont.
Q.
Can you describe the most significant specific accomplishments of our SU this
past year?
A. In spite of the difficulties this year, we
did marry 7 very separate budgets together into one - no small feat. Through
this process, board members and building administrators became aware of the
many differences and inequities that exist. Everyone gained knowledge and
understanding throughout the process as each member became intimately aware of
each school’s unique qualities. We established board working groups and got
them well underway working on communication to the public, policy development
and revision, and facility needs in all seven buildings and the central office.
Our large new team engaged in considerable board training from the VSBA and our
school attorney. Ground rules and operating procedures were developed. We
developed and adopted a new “school choice” policy that allows families to send
their children to any of the schools within our district regardless of the town
they reside in. This policy was one tangible outcome of our many discussions
about working to increase student enrollment in our SU. I expect we will
continue to find ways to adopt additional policies that provide the greatest
amount of choice and flexibility so that families move to our towns, stay in
our towns, and graduate their students from Harwood Union High School.
Q.
As someone who spends a tremendous amount of time traveling around our
supervisory union in conversation with students, staff, teachers,
administrators, parents, and citizens, sketch out for us what you see as our
greatest challenges and opportunities over the next ten years?
A. The single biggest
challenge, in my opinion, is getting all stakeholders to understand and believe
that we may have to give up things important to us now to realize an even
better future for many generations of students to come. I think we need to
strive to make any changes we can to grow our enrollment. That said, the entire
state continues to see a steady student enrollment decline and has for 10 or
more years. We have a statewide funding formula so the statewide landscape has
always affected us greatly. We can't afford ourselves now.
Everyone loves our
schools for good reason. They are some of the best in the state and in the
nation, by design, hard work, and commitment by our taxpayers, not by accident.
Change always comes hard. Human beings do not usually like to get out of their
comfort zones, especially when they believe things are going so well. But, if
you are slowly and quietly being choked from within, so that you cannot grow
and change to modernize, you become outdated and ultimately less attractive to
new home buyers. That is what is happening. Schools are forced to defer
maintenance, fight to maintain the programs they have currently, and just tread
water. How many businesses would last with this business model?
The elephant in the
room is our real estate. We have seven school buildings that we are trying to
sustain. Hard choices need to be made as to whether we fight to the death to
sustain all of them, all the while trying to provide exceptional learning
environments for each and every student. Can we really do both? Or, could all
students be offered more if we combined buildings and/or grades of students?
B. The opportunities seem almost overwhelming?!
Yes. There are so
many opportunities and possible combinations that I hesitate to speak about
them. My disclaimer here is that I am not wed to any one particular plan. I do
strongly believe though that we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work
exploring all the configurations of a possible redesign. Through this work, we
need to identify the gains and losses, guesstimate the likely financial gains,
evaluate long term sustainability, and engage the larger community in the
decision making to define a new "us". If in the end we adopt none of
our many ideas, that's fine too because we will have proven that we explored
all possibilities and rejected them because of specific reasons. Nothing
ventured, nothing gained. Mindset is a very important word these days. Folks
keep speaking about the seven silos. My dream is that instead of "breaking
down those silos" we learn to cherish and appreciate the differences of each
but redefine community as encompassing all of them, blending them together from
Warren to Waterbury.
Q.
Some voters are skeptical that our unified SU can actually save money through
“efficiencies.” Can you speak to this concern?
A. Saving money is
always hard to articulate. It is important to acknowledge up front that savings
also includes not spending what you otherwise would have had to spend. Reducing
increases, covering fixed increases from within the budget savings, and cost
shifting to cover new costs are much harder to represent in the way we present
budgets.
Usually we look at
savings as merely what gets reduced. We absolutely will save through
efficiencies by being 1 instead of 7. I look forward to sharing a list of these
specific savings but it is a bit too early to do that because we have operated
all year the old way. Those savings will begin to be realized after July 1,
2017. I can tell you that through bulk purchasing just within the last two
weeks we have saved considerably in supplies, fuel oil, copier paper, copier
bids and leases, technology, service contracts, and so on. Next year we will
have 1 audit instead of 7.
I think what some
folks might be asking is will we achieve 1) sustainable savings or just
transitional savings?; and 2) will the savings be sizable enough to positively
effect tax rates? That's the million dollar question, no pun intended. Any
savings is good and should be realized. We cannot afford to be of the mindset
that “oh well, that only amounts to a half of a penny on the tax rate.”
Q.
Can you paint us a picture of what our SU could be ten
years from now? What kind of SU do you imagine helping us build?
A. Wow! I do love
this question. Everything I am about to say is, of course, contingent upon
feasibility studies and community will.
If I were putting
students first, I would absolutely bring them all together at 5th grade and
keep them together as a larger cohort from 5th through 12th grade, the middle
and high school years. The group would be large enough to maintain robust class
sizes that provide for more cognitive discourse, to adequately field sports
teams, to create and/or expand band, chorus, drama, dance, the arts, student
government, outdoor education, speech and debate team, future engineers,
robotics, and the list goes on. The social peer group would be healthier and
expanded for all students. No matter how hard you try to align learning
opportunities, the students will tell you how different their experiences were
and are. Transitions are difficult and contribute to a slower pace, if not
backsliding. Removing them from grades 5-12 in my opinion would be best for
students for all sorts of reasons.
I would move all 5/6
into Crossett Brook Middle School (CBMS) and all 7/8 into Harwood Union Middle
School (HUMS). This is similar to other SU's that reconfigured grades to deal
with buildings while capturing the assets of grade groupings. Is it ideal?
Maybe not. But I doubt we are going to build completely new buildings. Would it
involve a longer bus ride by about 5-7 minutes for some already on a long bus
ride? Yep. But as a parent, I would trade that for better, more robust, and
extended learning opportunities. At that age, the truth is they snooze, use
technology or complete homework on the bus anyway. What we could provide our
students if they were grouped this way would be truly wonderful and help us to
develop an even greater model in our towns, attracting more families.
The population in
Waterbury and Duxbury is growing. Thatcher Brook (TBPS) is bursting. I would
move grades 3/4 to CBMS and make TBPS a birth to grade 2 building. Yes, I just said
birth. Early education has exploded over the last 5 years. Many of you have
heard, I am sure, of the challenges with space that led to the almost eviction
of the Children's Room at TBPS. That was unfortunate, but we still have
competing needs. With more space, we could meet those needs. I would expand the
Children's Room model in that end of the district and open one up in the
valley.
If moving 3/4 to CBMS
is not possible or something folks can get around, I would still do whatever it
takes to capture these young families, whether it means modular units, yurts,
whatever. Young families move to towns that provide services for children,
younger and younger. I would make each school site available for parents with
before, during and after care from 7:15 am until 6:00 pm. This is what families
need today. I would partner with recreation groups and run summer camp/school
options at both end of the district.
I would focus the needed
bond at Harwood Union to support the all 7/8 there, as well as to provide for
personalized learning and wellness. What do we need to change in the facility?
Harwood Union should become a community hub, what you, Rob, like to call a
“communiversity.” The construction project could include whatever is necessary
to offer evening classes and opportunities; technology, pottery, language
classes, painting, dance, starting a business, the sky is the limit. Make this
a revenue stream. I would build your own central office on the Delong property;
it would pay for itself in no time at all, be central to the operation, and
could help support a more year round longer day model.
Of course I have
other ideas if only I could be Queen for a Day, but I think I will stop here.
Q.
What do you say to voters and citizens that are concerned about the possibility
of having to shut down one or more school buildings in our SU?
A. Truthfully, they
may be right. It is all going to depend on what we can continue to afford. Do
we want to keep fighting to have exactly what we have now, or do we want to
transform to hopefully provide more and better opportunities that have a better
likelihood of drawing home buyers to our community at large and keeping them
here? These are big deal decisions - I get that. I would hope that if any of
our buildings closed, it would only be in how we are using them presently. I
would like to think that we could re-purpose any building to be a part of the
larger plan. All the buildings are great assets to have unless we allow them to
turn into detriments because we are too afraid to change and take some risks.
Comments
Post a Comment