Elementary School Reorganization: Superintendents' Report-- January 13, 2009

Superintendents’ Report to the Amherst School Committee, January 13, 2009

At the December meeting of the Amherst School Committee, we proposed assembling a group of parents, teachers, principals, and administrators to explore the idea of restructuring the elementary schools according to the “pairing” model.  The superintendents and the elementary administrative team believed that the “pairing” model was the one that would cause the least disruption to families, provide the strongest educational environment, reduce the concentration of low-income students in one school, and provide opportunities for cost savings.  At that time we anticipated returning to this committee meeting with a progress report, and, if it seemed wise to proceed further, to hold public hearings in January and return to the February committee meeting with a recommendation.    This announcement resulted in large numbers of volunteers expressing an interest in assisting with the study.

Shortly after that meeting, the School Committee Chair and one other school committee member insisted that the committee study all of the possible models mentioned in the original study rather than focus on the pairing model.  Two meetings were held with some of the volunteers.  The first meeting, on December 29, was designed to be a small, steering or coordinating committee.  The second, larger group met on January 7.   At this meeting the committee identified and discussed numerous strengths and weaknesses of each of the models presented. 

Also in December, the Regional School Committee, with the encouragement of the four member towns, voted to form a committee to explore K-12 regionalization.  This vote was in response to the fact that the MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the state legislature are currently pressing for more consolidation of small, rural schools into regional districts.   Many towns in Western Massachusetts, including Amherst, are studying the concept, although such regionalization is unlikely to happen this year. However, if K-12 regionalization does happen in the future, it opens up the possibility of Amherst sixth graders attending the middle school, making it a grade 6-8 school, rather than the current grade 7-8 school.   This idea has received considerable discussion in recent years, but the fact that Amherst Elementary Schools and Amherst-Pelham Regional School District are two separate legal entities has been an obstacle to this kind of change.

We know that there are some who believe we should close Marks Meadow School and redistrict Amherst’s entire K-6 student body into the three remaining schools.  There are several complexities and unknowns that need to be considered.  First, closing Marks Meadow would require redrawing the attendance boundaries of the entire town and moving many children to another school.  In all likelihood, Marks Meadow students would be moved to Wildwood, some Wildwood students would go to Fort River to ease the resulting overcrowding, and some Fort River students to Crocker Farm.  More difficult to quantify is the fact that many Marks Meadow families clearly prefer a smaller school.  The predicted cost savings from closing Marks Meadow may well be offset by families leaving Amherst schools rather than move to a larger school.  If they choose to go to a charter school, each child will take about $13,500 with them.  Only fifteen students going to charter schools would cost the district $200,000.  Other students may also choice out in order to avoid larger classes and crowded schools. Of our 30 students who choice out of Amherst, 29 attend small schools. Without Marks Meadow, Amherst will lose its small school alternative and will be left with three large, overcrowded elementary schools.  In 2007, the district spent $7,000 for a facilities study by the New England School Development Council.  This study concluded that all four of our schools are already overcrowded.  In fact, the decision was made to address this overcrowding by adding two portable classrooms to Marks Meadow, at a cost of $400,000. 

As our leadership team has looked deeper into ways of funding the current elementary configuration, we have become convinced that making careful cuts, increasing revenue by considering school choice, and possibly instituting user fees within the current Amherst elementary school structure will be far preferable to the disruption that would result from reorganizing or closing a school at this time.  We have received significant input from parents, staff, and other community members; and, given the current situation, we believe that the potential savings gained by reorganization would not be enough to justify the inevitable level of disruption to children, families, and school staff.  A change of this magnitude will present serious difficulties for many of our students and should not be undertaken needlessly.  While reorganization or redistricting may be logical choices in the future, neither should be undertaken hastily and without extensive planning and evaluation.  In our opinion, it does not seem to be a prudent or required action at this time. 

We are grateful to those who submitted suggestions and opinions, and offered to serve on the advisory study committee or provide other assistance, as well as to the district staff members who continue to work tirelessly to prepare an educational program for next year that both maintains and respects Amherst’s high educational goals and is responsive to our current budget realities.  The challenges for all of us in the next six months are complex and difficult.  We feel it is imperative that we leave the new Superintendent with a school district that is in good order and with as few unnecessary major systemic changes as possible.

In summary, it is our recommendation that consideration of restructuring the elementary schools not be pursued at this time, but that the work of the restructuring committee last week, as well as the original study, be given to the new superintendent for possible inclusion in his or her strategic planning with the School Committee in the years ahead.  Amherst’s children, families, and staff need not be rushed into a reorganization plan that may well be more disruptive than beneficial at this time.