Friday, January 16, 2015

Commissioner Chester's Approval Letter for Worthington's Withdrawal

The following letter was sent to the district and shared with the school committee. The letter indicates that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has approved Worthington's educational plan and the conditions set forth by Commissioner Chester allowing Worthington to leave the district effective July 1, 2015.


Friday, December 12, 2014

Westfield Evening News Article on DESE Needs Conference by Peter Francis (12/6/14)

The following article was published by the Westfield Evening News on Saturday, December 6, 2014 and written by Peter Francis, Staff Writer.



Monday, December 8, 2014

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Updated District Testimony

Taking the feedback from the Gateway Towns Advisory Committee and several initiatives from educational organizations across the state, we have updated the District's testimony for the DESE Needs Conference to include additional means the legislature may mitigate the impact of Worthington's withdrawal on the remaining six towns. The entire document can be found here, what follows if the mitigation section of that document.

    1. Fiscal recommendations to hold harmless the remaining communities

Due to State Aid to Education not being adequate to meet the needs of schools across the Commonwealth, the lack of consistent and adequate funding for the promised 100% reimbursement of regional transportation costs, and the number of unfunded mandates initiated by the state since the education reform act of 1993, the Gateway District has made substantial reductions in their budget. These reductions have had a negative impact on course offerings throughout the district, but are especially telling at the high school level; have resulted in the implementation, and significant increases, in user fees and parking fees for students; and have caused the workload of administrators to increase (discipline laws, reporting requirements, bullying investigations, etc.) while at the same time resulting in a decrease in the total number of administrators. In fact, these are some of the factors that led to the decision to close three elementary schools, including the R. H. Conwell school in Worthington--which brings us to this day. A further decrease in state aid or a failure to provide a means to avoid additional increases in town assessments due to the loss of revenue from Worthington, will result in the further eroding of educational services to the students in the district.

Because of the significant impact on tax rates (see chart) throughout the remaining six communities (ranging from $0.45 to $1.36) most of our towns would be required to have a Proposition 2 ½ override in order to maintain town services, something that is historically difficult to do in our communities. To alleviate that situation, most, if not all, of the financial loss would need to be made up from the state. This could include:

(1) Holding Gateway harmless for Chapter 70 with the argument that the state has held the district harmless in prior years when we’ve lost even more students than through the withdrawal, with a potential of making up $147,000 under the DESE’s latest projections;

(2) The state could, without any extra expenditures, forgive the MSBA repayment--a yearly savings to the district of $327,655 for FY’16 and beyond. These two items could be authorized as a permanent change in funding.

(3) This would leave $155,351 in mitigation costs from the original cost estimate approved by the DESE which could be provided in a decreasing amount over a five year period (decreasing by 20% per year) allowing the towns to increase their assessments over this time without necessarily exceeding their annual levy limit.

In addition, the district looked at a number of potential ways to maintain services for students while saving money. These could also be factors that the state may wish to consider in providing support that would help mitigate the financial impact on the remaining towns while allowing the district to improve/expand educational services to our students. These items are:

(4) Allow the district, if needed and based upon continuing declines in student population, to repurpose buildings without incurring MSBA repayments.

(5) Provide legislation that would allow Gateway, or any other school district in the Commonwealth, to  move to a longer school day with fewer days in school (Gateway proposed a 150 day schedule in 2009).

As indicated by Representative Pignatelli at the Gateway Towns’ Advisory Committee (GTAC) Meeting on November 29, 2014, and the responses from town officials, there are also some other factors that could mitigate the impact of financial loss to not only Gateway, but school districts across the Commonwealth. In addition, there has been much discussion across the state regarding various mandates and the inadequacy of Chapter 70 to fund these (estimated by MASS/MASC/MASBO to be underfunded by at least $1.6 billion for regular education). The following changes could help districts cope with the lack of state funding and the inadequacies of the 1993 Education Reform Act:

  1. Provide legislative relief to various ‘unfunded’ mandates that negatively impact the amount of time staff and administrators can work directly with students including:
    1. The “Bullying Act” which requires hours of administrative and staff time to investigate any and all acts that may be ‘bullying’, the significant amount of resources to document these investigations, and the resources needed to report these incidents not only to parents, but also the state (with the majority of incidents found not to be classified as ‘bullying’).
    2. The collection of data from school systems by DESE which then has to be reentered into different forms and in different formats for the federal government reports - a duplication of effort, time, and resources better streamlined at the state level or by eliminating the state reporting requirements.
    3. The recently passed gun legislation that mandates a school resource officer in each district yet provides no funding to local towns or schools to implement this law.
    4. The recently passed legislation that mandates additional time, effort, and resources to process, investigate, and provide ongoing educational services in disciplinary hearings that involve suspension and expulsion yet provides no financial relief to hire additional staff or provide additional educational resources to meet these new ‘requirements’.
  2. As part of the DESE’s review of the overuse of ‘assessments’ across the state, consider eliminating MCAS and PARCC testing and potentially replace these with locally provided information from assessments commonly used for formative purposes (such as DIBELS) which are more timely, more useful, and more productive uses of assessments as well as being much less expensive to administer (in terms of time, finances, and administrative overview). MCAS/PARCC also require additional resources to be expended for students not testing well and must track progress and create educational plans for students failing HS MCAS (Individual Student Success Plans) not to mention the upgrade of technology to move to an online version of PARCC.
  3. Eliminate the new and unproven evaluation process for professional staff that has demoralized teaching and administrative staff, yielded little additional information for staff and administrators but requires hours of additional time, effort, and data collection which would be better spent on collaboration around instructional practice, meeting student needs, and building a positive school culture. This process has taken, and will continue to take, hours of professional development, negotiations with union associations, and money spent on documenting the multiple steps of the process as well as additional time to track and report this information to the DESE. None of these additional resources being used in the district is being funded through the state.
  4. Reduce the amount of ‘mandated’ reporting (i.e., the 106 reporting requirements for superintendents by DESE) that is estimated to require every educator to spend as much as 160 hours per year on pure compliance requirements that are not classroom instruction, supervision, or preparation for teaching.
  5. Simplify and streamline the coordinated program reviews (that each require immense amounts of time and effort yet all of which are ‘unfunded’ by the state) which include multiple audits including:
    1. Special Education Audits
    2. Civil Right Audit
    3. English Language Learner Audit
    4. Safe and Drug Free Schools Audit
    5. Nutrition and Food Services
    6. Title I Program Review (General and NCLB)
    7. Chapter 74 Audit
  6. Other reviews and audits which are repetitious and costly:
    1. New England Association of Schools and Colleges Accreditation
    2. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
    3. Federal regulatory requirements including NCLB and IDEA
  7. Fully funding special education costs for students from ages 3 to 22 which often include:
    1. providing assessments, evaluations and specialized instructional services
    2. non-instructional services within the review and appeal process such as arbitration, mediation, and hearings
    3. Personnel, administrative, and technology costs inherent in providing appropriate services
    4. IEP plans that dictate out-of-district placements at significant costs to districts that are only partially funded/reimbursed from the state
    5. Unreimbursed (but mandated) costs of special education transportation
  8. Fully funding regional transportation reimbursement
  9. CORI and fingerprinting checks and the time, reporting, and compliance issues with these systems
  10. Emergency training and planning as mandated as opposed to a commonsense approach
  11. Title I requirements that often exceed the funding for such services
  12. Crisis prevention training which is unfunded
  13. Preschool requirements in terms of special needs/model student ratios
  14. Unreimbursed costs associated with Homeless and Transient Students (McKinney-Vento)
  15. The requirements for training staff for services to English language learners and for meeting all of the requirements for these students
  16. Meeting the monitoring and documentation requirement for Home Schooled students at the local level with no funding for these efforts and no collection of this data by the state
  17. The time, effort, and costs associated with curriculum efforts (updating and creating curricula to meet changing state/national frameworks, extra staff to ensure that all ‘mandated’ curriculum areas are addressed, the costs of updating teaching resources)
  18. School Choice and the ‘poaching’ of students from schools by other schools to help eliminate ‘budget gaps’ caused by underfunding of education requirements of the state and federal government and the fact that students may ‘choice out’ of a district or school at any time and for any reason throughout the year
  19. Charter Schools and the funding that follows students electing to go to Charter Schools which operate completely outside of the reach of city, town, and regional governments.
  20. Professional Development and the re-certification process which is not funded by the state but must be provided at no cost by districts
  21. The reporting and compliance requirements for Highly Qualified Staff
  22. The cost of educating Foster Care and State Wards including transportation which is not paid for by the state
  23. SIMS and EPIMS - the reporting systems for tracking many data points for both students and staff and reporting this information in the approved state format which requires significant staff time, a large investment in technology and technology support, and much communication with staff to ensure data is correct - all done without significant financial support from the state
  24. Required yearly audits of both the district and student activity accounts
  25. Districts spending money on transporting private school students within the district which is not reimbursed by the state

To truly hold the district’s remaining six towns ‘harmless’ in terms of financial obligations both today and in the future, the issue of Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) for insurance costs of retirees (currently $14 million) and the ongoing payment of unfunded retirement costs through the Hampshire County Retirement System has to be resolved in the District’s favor. Worthington, a member of the district since 1959, has logically and legally incurred costs, based on the percentage of students they had in the district for each year these obligations have occurred, for the staff that were employed by the district and serving the seven member towns and their students. Currently, Hampshire County Retirement has a payment plan for unfunded retirement costs that extends through 2035 and which we would expect Worthington to continue to pay for based upon their percentage of students upon withdrawal. The unfunded costs of retiree insurance for the towns would be determined using an actuarial study (estimated cost of $20,000) and we would expect that, as part of the withdrawal process, Worthington would agree to pay their share of these costs at the time that the remaining towns begin funding their own obligations, including the suggestion by a town finance member that the district borrow money to create a trust fund for covering this unfunded liability.

These fiscal recommendations are based upon the assumption that, as part of the withdrawal agreement, the Town of Worthington agrees to pay, on an ongoing annual basis, the costs of the bond repayment and the MSBA payment. It also assumes that the Town of Worthington, on an ongoing annual basis, will pay its share of the Hampshire County Retirement accrued until the date of the withdrawal and tentatively scheduled for completion in 2035. These figures are also based upon Worthington’s agreement to fund their share of the OPEB costs accrued to the time of the town’s withdrawal (currently a total of $14 million) when and if the remaining towns establish a trust and begin paying into the trust to cover this obligation.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Draft District Testimony for DESE Needs Conference

The District's Draft Testimony for the Regional Needs Conference hosted by DESE on Wednesday, December 3, 2014 beginning at 6:30 PM in the Performing Arts Center on the main Gateway Complex. You may read the testimony in the blog, or link to the testimony that's located on the district's website. We are providing written testimony to the DESE prior to the conference but you may bring written testimony to the conference as well as speaking to the DESE representatives at the conference. Speakers will be asked to sign up on a 'Speakers List' and the time for each individual will be limited to 3 minutes per subject. We hope that we'll get a cross-section of the community involved in providing information to the DESE for their report to the General Assembly. 

Anyone wishing to provide written testimony to the DESE representatives prior to the needs conference can send that testimony electronically to dhopson@grsd.org or sfisk@grsd.org or drop off hard copies at the central office.


DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education)  NEEDS CONFERENCE
(Based upon Chapter 97 of the Acts of 2014)
Wednesday, December 3, 2014


Introduction: On January 13, 2010, the Gateway Regional School Committee voted 13 to 3 in favor of consolidating the district’s elementary schools. The vote followed a 9-month process, which included public hearings in each Gateway town and the formation of an Elementary Advisory Committee (EAC)--comprised of two parents/community members from each of the seven Gateway hilltowns--tasked with studying issues around consolidation. In the 2009-10 school year, Gateway had five elementary schools serving a combined total of fewer than 500 students; four of the five schools had less than 100 students; two of those served fewer than 60 students. Elementary education was strained by efforts to hold costs down, resulting in multi-grade classrooms at every school and itinerant staff (therapists, music, art, and PE teachers, counselors and administrators) traveling between schools in this 205 square mile region. Parent and staff surveys were conducted and the EAC presented a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis to the school committee in November 2009. The January vote resulted in the closing of Blandford Elementary School, Russell Elementary School, and the R. H. Conwell Elementary School in Worthington. Students were reassigned to the two remaining elementary schools: Littleville Elementary School in Huntington and Chester Elementary School.


The following information is provided to the DESE as part of its ‘needs conference’ under the assumption that Worthington will be allowed to withdraw from the Gateway Regional School District, despite having failed to pass an amendment to the regional agreement that would have allowed Worthington to withdraw (the vote was 6 towns against, 1 town in favor). With the school committee voting to join the lawsuits against Worthington as a plaintiff with the intent of determining through the courts that this legislation is unconstitutional, we offer this information despite our belief that this legislation was not legal and will be overturned through litigation.


  1. Introductions of DESE Personnel
   Christine Lynch, Governance & Facilities Program Manager
Jay Sullivan, Executive Director, School Finance & District Support Center
  1. Overview and Comments by DESE
  2. Solicitation of information on the impact of the withdrawal of the Town of Worthington from the Gateway Regional School District on the District and its remaining member towns:


    1. Current & future enrollment in the district
As you can see from the following enrollment charts, the district continues to lose children with the K-12 population of district students being reduced by 65 students from the 2013/14 school year to the 2014/15 school year. As indicated in the educational plan submitted to the DESE,  Worthington students leaving the district would exacerbate this loss of students with a potential reduction of an additional 41 students for FY’17. Just the discussion of Worthington leaving the district has caused the number of choice students from Worthington to increase from 36 in FY’14 to 57 this FY (many of whom were not accounted for previously, most likely due to the fact that they were enrolled in private school).
This loss of students from Worthington is distributed over the Pre-K through 12th grade with the largest grade-level loss of only 5 students. This is not a significant enough number of students to allow reduction in staffing at any grade level in the district, does not impact the curriculum revision, fixed costs of running the buildings, or any other items that must be accomplished whether Worthington and their 41 students are in the district or not.
Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 1.31.53 PM.png
Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 1.31.07 PM.png

While Gateway’s loss of students is not an anomaly for Western Massachusetts, the fact is that the state faces an increase in residents over the age of 65 (see following chart). In Gateway’s towns, the largest increase in children is occurring in our Mennonite population who do not attend public schools (they are ‘homeschooled’).


Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 3.19.26 PM.png


    1. Inventory of all educational facilities under the jurisdiction of the remaining communities in the district (the facilities of the Gateway Regional School District)


The DESE has all of the plans for the facilities in the district. In summary, the district has two elementary schools and a main complex that houses grades 5 through 12. Even with this small number of buildings, the district has the requisite space to house the highest student population we’ve had in the past decade and, in fact, could currently house all of our students on the main complex.


Chester Elementary School - Grades PK-4  - Located in Chester
Littleville Elementary School - Grades PK-4 - Located in Huntington
Gateway Regional Main Complex - Grades 5-12 - Located in Huntington


    1. Plans for the reimbursement of the Commonwealth’s capital facilities located in the Town of Worthington


We anticipate that the R.H. Conwell school would be opened as a public school which should cause the MSBA to reduce Gateway’s payments to the state for the state’s portion of funding that school’s renovation. Assuming that the MSBA does not change their current protocol related to the opening of closed schools, this reduction will not happen until FY’17 (one year after reopening as a public school). Until the MSBA eliminates the repayment amount for R.H.Conwell Elementary School, Worthington should be paying their share of this cost based upon enrollment percentages at the time of withdrawal.


    1. The requirements for continued assessments to the Town of Worthington for district facilities previously paid for by the Town of Worthington


We anticipate that Worthington will continue to pay their share of the remaining capital debt and MSBA repayments at the percentage of students they have in the district upon their withdrawal (as of the Oct. 1, Census, this would amount to 9.484% of the total).


    1. The administrative structure of the new district


As per the educational plan submitted to, and approved by, the DESE, the administrative structure of the district would remain as it is with the two elementary and the middle school (grades 5-6) sharing a principal and assistant principal, and the junior high school (grades 7-8) and high school sharing a principal and assistant principal. District staff would remain as well, including  the superintendent, business manager, director of pupil services, director of academics, and a grantwriter/PIO.


    1. The long-term fiscal impacts of the withdrawal of the Town of Worthington, including detailed analyses of;
      1. Transportation


Based upon Worthington leaving the district, and not providing any transportation if the district allows choice students from Worthington, the district would be able to cut Bus #119 (71 passenger) and Bus #126 (22 passenger). The elimination of these runs could result in the savings outlined in the Worthington withdrawal cost estimates of $85,298. We do not see any other major changes resulting in bussing operations from the withdrawal.


      1. Special Education


We anticipate a reduction of $20,000 in special education contracted services.  Additionally, we expect  reduced costs in out-of-district special education transportation of $36,886 and special education in-district transportation of $23,125.


      1. Vocational Education


Vocational education costs, including transportation, are not a function of the district or the district budget, we see no major changes in vocational education based simply upon the withdrawal of Worthington, as long as the education at Gateway remains nearly identical after the withdrawal.


      1. Personnel Costs


Because the withdrawal only minimally impacts the number of students at each grade level and does not eliminate any state or federal mandates, we see no significant changes in personnel costs. However, if the towns refuse to pass a budget, and the state forces the district to cut hundreds of thousands of dollars so that there is a minimal impact on town assessments because of no or limited mitigation of the loss of revenue, the district would see significant cuts in staffing leading to a decrease in overall personnel costs with a resulting increase in class sizes, potential multi-age classes throughout the district, increased costs in unemployment, a reduction in student activities (both athletic and extra-curricular), and a decrease in course offerings at the 7-12 grades.


As an indication of what reductions could look like, take a look at the potential reductions developed for the FY’10 budget in the following chart and the percentages of those reductions in the second chart.


Potential Reductions from FY’10 Budget Process
Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 8.06.12 AM.png
















FY’10 Potential Reductions as percent of staffing across employee groups
Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 8.02.29 AM.png


    1. Fiscal recommendations to hold harmless the remaining communities


Due to State Aid to Education not being adequate to meet the needs of schools across the Commonwealth, the lack of consistent and adequate funding for the promised 100% reimbursement of regional transportation costs, and the number of unfunded mandates initiated by the state since the education reform act of 1993, the Gateway District has made substantial reductions in their budget. These reductions have had a negative impact on course offerings throughout the district, but are especially telling at the high school level; have resulted in the implementation, and significant increases, in user fees and parking fees for students; and have caused the workload of administrators to increase (discipline laws, reporting requirements, bullying investigations, etc.) while at the same time resulting in a decrease in the total number of administrators. In fact, these are some of the factors that led to the decision to close three elementary schools, including the R. H. Conwell school in Worthington--which brings us to this day. A further decrease in state aid or a failure to provide a means to avoid additional increases in town assessments due to the loss of revenue from Worthington, will result in the further eroding of educational services to the students in the district.


Because of the significant impact on tax rates (see chart) throughout the remaining six communities (ranging from $0.45 to $1.36) most of our towns would be required to have a Proposition 2 ½ override in order to maintain town services, something that is historically difficult to do in our communities. To alleviate that situation, most, if not all, of the financial loss would need to be made up from the state. This could include:


(1) Holding Gateway harmless for Chapter 70 with the argument that the state has held the district harmless in prior years when we’ve lost even more students than through the withdrawal, with a potential of making up $147,000 under the DESE’s latest projections;


(2) The state could, without any extra expenditures, forgive the MSBA repayment--a yearly savings to the district of $327,655 for FY’16 and beyond. These two items could be authorized as a permanent change in funding.


(3) This would leave $155,351 in mitigation costs from the original cost estimate approved by the DESE which could be provided in a decreasing amount over a five year period (decreasing by 20% per year) allowing the towns to increase their assessments over this time without necessarily exceeding their annual levy limit.


In addition, the district looked at a number of potential ways to maintain services for students while saving money. These could also be factors that the state may wish to consider in providing support that would help mitigate the financial impact on the remaining towns while allowing the district to improve/expand educational services to our students. These items are:


(4) Allow the district, if needed and based upon continuing declines in student population, to repurpose buildings without incurring MSBA repayments.


(5) Provide legislation that would allow Gateway, or any other school district in the Commonwealth, to  move to a longer school day with fewer days in school (Gateway proposed a 150 day schedule in 2009).


To truly hold the district’s remaining six towns ‘harmless’ in terms of financial obligations both today and in the future, the issue of Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) for insurance costs of retirees (currently $14 million) and the ongoing payment of unfunded retirement costs through the Hampshire County Retirement System has to be resolved in the District’s favor. Worthington, a member of the district since 1959, has logically and legally incurred costs, based on the percentage of students they had in the district for each year these obligations have occurred, for the staff that were employed by the district and serving the seven member towns and their students. Currently, Hampshire County Retirement has a payment plan for unfunded retirement costs that extends through 2035 and which we would expect Worthington to continue to pay for based upon their percentage of students upon withdrawal. The unfunded costs of retiree insurance for the towns would be determined using an actuarial study (estimated cost of $20,000) and we would expect that, as part of the withdrawal process, Worthington would agree to pay their share of these costs at the time that the remaining towns begin funding their own obligations, including the suggestion by a town finance member that the district borrow money to create a trust fund for covering this unfunded liability.


These fiscal recommendations are based upon the assumption that, as part of the withdrawal agreement, the Town of Worthington agrees to pay, on an ongoing annual basis, the costs of the bond repayment and the MSBA payment. It also assumes that the Town of Worthington, on an ongoing annual basis, will pay its share of the Hampshire County Retirement accrued until the date of the withdrawal and tentatively scheduled for completion in 2035. These figures are also based upon Worthington’s agreement to fund their share of the OPEB costs accrued to the time of the town’s withdrawal (currently a total of $14 million) when and if the remaining towns establish a trust and begin paying into the trust to cover this obligation.


OPEB liabilities
Screen Shot 2014-11-19 at 10.58.38 AM.png


Screen Shot 2014-11-19 at 10.11.39 AM.png


Failure to ‘hold harmless’ the remaining six towns for both the incurred liabilities and the loss of operational funding would adversely impact the school committee’s ongoing efforts to improve student educational outcomes, particularly in the areas of the “whole child” aspects including 21st Century Skills, the performing and visual arts, physical education, extracurricular and athletic opportunities. Current and future Gateway students should not be punished educationally because one town wishes to overlook reasonable operating and educational decisions made as a district which resulted in three elementary schools being closed.


The following chart provides information related to the ability of towns to pay due to the financial impact of Worthington leaving the district.


Tax impact on towns due to the loss of Worthington revenue.
Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 11.02.11 AM.png

  1. Closing Comments


As indicated on the following charts, the district has been very prudent in managing costs, in reducing the impact of the district’s budget on the towns, and in respecting the financial indicators of our member towns. Despite this, the impact of such a large decrease in revenue to the district due to Worthington’s withdrawal is difficult to comprehend and brings back memories of the $1.8 million loss in state aid in FY’04 that the district is still recovering from. Gateway shouldn’t have to face another devastating loss because of a single town electing to override the regional agreement through potentially unconstitutional special legislation which negated the opposing vote of six member towns. The following information provides some interesting facets related to our towns’ financial situation in relation to the district’s financial position.
Note that despite the Gateway budget decreasing as a % of the town budget, the towns have had to increase spending to maintain town services, and in some cases, start capital projects that have been put off for years.


Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 3.08.55 PM.png


While the district has used E&D to offset the budget, we have been unable to maintain a 5% E&D and moving forward will be able to use even less to offset assessments. Without significant mitigation efforts by the state to offset Worthington’s withdrawal, town reserves will erode quite rapidly despite being a good percentage of the town budgets and growing over time.


Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 7.50.52 AM.png


This chart clearly shows that the housing values, tax rates, and tax bills in the Gateway Regional School District cannot be directly correlated to the district assessments and that the Gateway budget decreased to alleviate pressure on town assessments while absorbing decreases in total state aid for education/transportation.

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 3.09.10 PM.png
We can also see that town revenues generally exceed expectations when completing their recap sheets for DOR.
Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 7.50.39 AM.png

In 2009, the district looked at ways to minimize costs - unfortunately these were not allowed or approved.
Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 8.02.43 AM.png
Screen Shot 2014-11-19 at 10.23.39 AM.png




This forecast essentially was correct - we have kept, or lowered, the average cost of education for GRSD over the past years leading to a significant decrease in budgets for the schools. If we’re forced to continue this, and the cuts are exacerbated by Worthington’s withdrawal because of a lack of mitigation by the state, then the district will be forced to severely curtail student services or dramatically increase local assessments.


Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 10.25.08 AM.png
This chart shows the problem with increasing education assessments to member towns due not to improving education, but maintaining services based upon the desire of one town.
Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 3.20.30 PM.png