September 15, 2007

Candidates skeptical of school plan

No matter who wins the mayoral race, the proposed $115 million plan to build two new schools might be in trouble.
Both Republican mayoral candidate Ken Johnson and Democratic hopeful Art Ward said there should be more public input into the decision about whether to press forward with two new kindergarten through eighth grade schools.
“Based on what I’m hearing on my listening tour, the administration has failed to adequately market and sell the proposal of moving to a K-8 system,” Johnson said.
The plan suffered a blow with Ellen Zoppo’s defeat in the Democratic mayoral primary last week. Zoppo’s campaign had strong backing from several of the Board of Education leaders who have championed the project, including Tom O’Brien, its most visible cheerleader.
What’s also clear is that support for a public referendum on the project is growing, a move that might doom the plan unless school officials succeed in selling it to a skeptical electorate.
“The people should have a say in what they’re doing instead of ramming this thing through,” said Mark Blaschke, an independent running for City Council in the 2nd District.
He said that renovating existing buildings would be cheaper and called the school board “a little bit irresponsible” in pushing for such a large project.
The City Council and Board of Finance gave their blessing this summer to send the project to state education regulators so that it would secure a place in line for future funding that might pay as much as 70 percent of the tab.
School building committees are trying to figure out where to put the new 900-student schools now, with one likely to be erected next door to the existing Greene-Hills Schools in Forestville and the other in the western part of Bristol, perhaps even at the downtown mall site.
There is still plenty of time, though, for city officials to kill or modify the plan, which also includes closing three older elementary schools – Bingham, O’Connell and Greene-Hills – as well as Memorial Boulevard Middle School.
Ward said the public “should be afforded a greater input into the transition to a K-8 system” and the prospect of building two more schools.
“Unfortunately, the Board of Education, when undertaking consideration of these most important of educational issues, did not invite adequate public input into the process,” Ward said.
“Public opinion on each of these ideas has been resounding throughout the community,” Ward said, “which leads me to believe that additional dialogue will only serve to contribute to ensuring that the final decisions actually reflect the desires of the people who will be utilizing and paying for these services and facilities.”
Johnson, who would require a referendum on the project, said that “If local politicians want to switch to a K-8 system and build two new schools, then they will have to do a better job of explaining it and marketing the proposal to the voters. If the voters say no then so be it.”
Joe Geladino, a 2nd District Republican council contender, said he would prefer to have the public vote on whether to switch to a K-8 system.
“However, as it stands now, this is a decision that will be made solely by the Board of Education,” he said. “I can only hope that the BOE allows for a truly open forum and abides by the wishes expressed by the public.”
“Leave well enough alone,” Blaschke said, and don’t dump the current elementary and middle school scheme in favor of a K-8 system.
City Councilor Craig Minor, a Democrat seeking reelection in the 3rd District, said “the suitability of the K-8 system is a very complex and technical issue and therefore should be left to the elected Board of Education to decide, based on advice and data from education experts and only after a series of public informational sessions.”
The school board has, however, already made the decision to make the switch.
Minor said that the size of the new schools, however, “is an issue that speaks to who we are as a community and what we feel we can afford, and therefore should be subject to the referendum process.”
Bruce Lydem, a Democratic council contender in the 2nd District, said officials “must do everything in our power to make sure our children have the best possible educational opportunities available to them.”
He said school board members are “best equipped to make an informed decision in regards to the question of conversion” to a K-8 system.
“That being said,” Lydem added, “the City Council, the mayor’s office and the board should work together to make the best informed decisions for our kids.”
Lydem said he also believes that school board members “should put in place a process that involves heavy and frequent public input in regards to building new schools. They should set up public forums where citizens can voice their views and opinions. Democracy works best when we all get involved.”
The problem, said Republican council candidate Bob Merrick, is that education leaders have “not clearly described what a K-8 actually is in their eyes and how it would improve learning.”
He said he wants to know more about how the new schools would be staffed, how large classes would be there, whether teachers would have to deal with more than one subject or multiple grades, and more.
“The new schools is a more complex issue as well since they are replacing four schools of various sizes with two 900-student schools,” said Merrick, who’s running in the 3rd District.
He said O'Connell and Bingham “are in need of immediate attention for renovation or replacement,” but Memorial Boulevard and Greene-Hills “are in better condition and still could be utilized.”
“We can’t and shouldn’t take the public out of public education,” Merrick said. “A referendum may provide us with a clear community vision for our schools.”
“However, asking people to decide complex questions without accurate and plentiful information to seriously consider all reasonable alternatives is foolish,” he said.
“My support for a referendum would be contingent on a well-developed plan to inform the public and the opportunity to have their questions answered in a public forum allowing open discussion of the pluses and drawbacks of all available options,” Merrick said.
Every mayoral and council candidate was given the chance to respond to questions about the school plan. Some did not answer. Others said they preferred not to comment.

Link to the story in the paper

*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bob Merrick who is running for City Council in the 3rd District is also a middle school teacher in the Bristol School system so he brings a first hand perspective to the issue.

He is quoted as saying...

“The new schools is a more complex issue as well since they are replacing four schools of various sizes with two 900-student schools,” said Merrick, who’s running in the 3rd District.
He said O'Connell and Bingham “are in need of immediate attention for renovation or replacement,” but Memorial Boulevard and Greene-Hills “are in better condition and still could be utilized.”
“We can’t and shouldn’t take the public out of public education,” Merrick said. “A referendum may provide us with a clear community vision for our schools.”
“However, asking people to decide complex questions without accurate and plentiful information to seriously consider all reasonable alternatives is foolish,” he said.
“My support for a referendum would be contingent on a well-developed plan to inform the public and the opportunity to have their questions answered in a public forum allowing open discussion of the pluses and drawbacks of all available options,” Merrick said.

It seems pretty clear from all those interviewed that more information has to be gathered from all sides before the BOE moves this forward.

For more information on Merrick's view on this issue and others I invite you to visit Bob's website www.bobforbristol.com

Anonymous said...

I'm confused. Is Merrick saying he is in favor of a referendum only after the BOE holds a public forum, or is he saying that he would vote "yes" at such a referendum only after the BOE holds a public forum? He uses too many words.

Anonymous said...

I don't appreciate Craig Minor speaking as if this K-8 system change is an absolute. Public Hearings are not for informing the citizens on what the BOE has already decided - public hearings are for the public to ask questions regarding the proposals, voice their support or their opposition.

No elected group should be allowed to make such a major decision that is so widely disliked.

The BOE may have already decided to make the system switch, but that doesn't mean that the decision can't be reversed.

I for one will do everything I can possibly do to see that the system switch does NOT happen.

Anonymous said...

Why K-8? Here's 30 reasons to consider, based on research and anecdotal evidence throughout the country. School districts throughout the country are eliminating middle schools and going back to the K-8 grade configuration. My district is planning on doing the same (North Adams, Mass). If it's done right (adding a grade to the elementary schools one year at a time, and implimenting middle grade best practices within the K-8), it
should be a great benefit to the district and the community - and most importantly, to the kids.

1 Better student academic performance

2 Greater parental support

3 Smaller class size

4 Reduced drop-out rates

5 Lower absenteism rates

6 Lower transportation costs

7 Better student behavior

8 Higher student self-esteem

9 Better continuity & stability (one less transition)

10 Reduced sexual activity

11 Longer term student & teacher relationships

12 Mentoring benefits to younger students

13 Older student leadership role improvements

14 Decreased anxiety

15 Best practice middle grade implementation

16 Opportunuties for accelerated learning

17 Improved teacher collaboration

18 Reduced "falling through the cracks" issues

19 Greater opportunity for success for "at-risk" students

20 Improved internal accountability

21 Less anonymity

22 More opportunity for adult supervision

23 Decreased transfer out-of-district numbers

24 A more seamless transition through grades

25 Healthier adolescent development

26 Improved positive student attitudes toward school

27 Increased student motivation, less disengagement

28 A safer, more familiar environment

29 Less victimization by other students

30 Decreased peer pressure

Anonymous said...

Does Lydem mean that he will abandon the agenda of the Teacher Union for the benefit of the children? I won't hold my breath.

Anonymous said...

and a partridge in a pear tree.

I have a hard time believing all that stuff is true.

Anonymous said...

John - this isn't suitable for Bristol.

How many towns in CT have K-8 or have already started the process of transitioning to K-8?

Where are the statistics for K-8 success within the last 5 years?

We have learned what the approximate cost will be to build the K-8 but what will the operating costs be once they are implemented?

K-8 is an educational plan that is often discussed among communities with a high percentage of low income families as a way of making education more accessible to those children. However no one has done any research to determine if this type of educational system takes away from the opportunities of those children that are not low income.

Placing our children in schools that are the size of small communities is not going to encourage their educational growth. It's going to hinder their individuality.

Anonymous said...

Of the 30 that you listed, not one of them would be true in this community. Number 10 is the most offensive: Decrease sexual activity shouldn't even be a consideration when you are discussing children between the ages of 4 and 14. If you are concerned about sexual activity with a 14 year old, I don't want them in the same building day in and day out with my 4 year old.

Our transportation costs will increase. That has already been determined.

Anxiety is a common problem with children that are placed in large groups. The larger the group the more anxious they get, expecially at younger ages.

There are too many things wrong with the list you posted. Not one of them would be true.

Bob Merrick said...

I'm sorry Mr. Hockridge but North Adams is not a fair comparison to Bristol. Our schools are making continuous improvements and rank at or near the top in nearly every category compared to similar communities in Bristol's District Reference Group as measured on the Connecticut Mastery Test.

I have included the following data from the The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of Educational Quality and Accountability regarding North Adams school performance:

"Executive Summary
Based on a review covering the years 1999-2002, the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (EQA) finds North Adams Public Schools to be a critically low performing district with inadequate improvement on the MCAS test and widespread deficiencies in the quality and adequacy of its programs, services, and management.
Achievement
North Adams’s Combined Proficiency Index of 59.7, based on 2002 MCAS results in ELA and math, placed the district as the tenth lowest performing academic school district in the Commonwealth.
In the aggregate, 27.7% of North Adams’s students achieved proficiency, compared to a state average of 49.8%.
In the aggregate, 29% of the district’s students scored in the ‘Warning/Failing’ category, compared to a state average of 16.9%.
As of December 2002, 18% of North Adams’s Class of 2003 had yet to earn a competency determination, compared to the state average of 10%.
As of December 2003, 19% of North Adams’s Class of 2004 had yet to earn a competency determination, compared to the state average of 16%.

Improvement
Since 1999, overall student performance in North Adams has been unchanged, with actual declines in both English Language Arts (ELA) and math in 2002."

Broad statements like those you listed are not uniformly recognized in all districts that have a K-8 structure and are often limited to small schools.

Much of the data gathered on the K-8 schools was gathered in urban areas with greater than 80% racial isolation and districts where the the majority of the student population receives free or reduced lunches. This is not the case with the Bristol.

There are many discussions that need to take place, including the K-8 discussion, so that the people of Bristol can decide what is right for our community. It's not just up to the elected officials, it's up to all of us to be involved in the final decision of an issue of this magnitude.

Anonymous said...

Who is John Hockridge?

North Adams has a population that is less than 1/4 of Bristol's. North Adams is a college town.

You're comparing apples and oranges Mr. Hockridge. What research are you referring to? My common sense says that most of the problems/scenarios you list are better handled in/by small local schools.

Anonymous said...

Did anybody tell Merrick this is 2007 and almost 2008? NOT 2002!

Anonymous said...

Minor again makes his stupid remarks, "let the experts make the decisions on what is best for the education syste." Well duh Minor are you saying that parents are all stupid and don't, shouldn't have a say? You sound more and more like Ellen everyday and I am sure she is using you to voice her wants - time for you to go Minor!! Come November we will end your term!!

Educated parent!

Anonymous said...

thank God for Art Ward

Anonymous said...

To the poster who said

"Did anybody tell Merrick this is 2007 and almost 2008? NOT 2002!".

The data for 2007 does not exist yet and other data tends to lag behind.

At least someone is providing some data that shows if this type of system works or doesn't.

The key here is intellegent discussion where both sides can present valid arguments and folks can than form their own opinions.

You post provides no value to the discussion. Unless you have more up-to-date data?

Anonymous said...

Mr Merrick: Those statistics on North Adams are 5 years old and I'm not clear why you took the time to dig up all that. The North Adams School District today is in much better shape than 5 years ago, and none of those statistics are relevant anymore. We meet all the MCAS and AYP benchmarks in 2007. And although we once were in very bad shape (back in 1999-2002 of which you referred to), we are making significant improvements today.

However, it is true that North Adams and Bristol are not comparable communities, income-wise. And your approach to conversion to K-8 may be different than the approach we are looking at. If Bristol's proposed K-8 conversion means larger schools, then in my opinion, that's the wrong approach. If this is the case, then is the real dispute the conversion to K-8 or the size of the schools? Smaller schools, smaller classrooms would be a desired outcome of conversion to K-8.

The low-income demographic issue you refer to is an important factor, but many of the issues listed in my list of 30 reasons to consider a K-8 grade reconfiguration are, in my opinion, more important and more relevant issues. Reduced drop-out rates, lower absenteism rates, better student behavior, higher student self-esteem, mentoring benefits to younger students are all supported by research (during the last 5 years)as K-8 benefits vs middle school grade configuration - and can all be realized by communities of any size and any income level. You only need to google K-8 or conversion from middle school to K-8 to find a long list of current or recent research and supporting articles. You only need to look at the news features by USA Today, the Wall Street Journal & the New York Times during the past couple of years on the trend across the country by cities of all sizes to go back to the K-8 model.

For the anonymous person that was "offended" by the "decrease in sexual activity" being listed as a benefit of K-8, I would just say, climb out of the hole you find yourself in. Sexual activity at ages 13 & 14 is happening in every community. This is one of the issues that can. in large part,be tied to the peer pressure realities of the middle school model - that could be eliminated (or nearly so) in a K-8 environment.

But K-8 may not be the right answer for all communities, and this may be the case for Bristol, especially if it means converting to a larger school environment. Smaller schools are an important part of any consideration for converting to K-8.

Anonymous said...

City Councilor Craig Minor, a Democrat seeking reelection in the 3rd District, said “the suitability of the K-8 system is a very complex and technical issue and therefore should be left to the elected Board of Education to decide, based on advice and data from education experts and only after a series of public informational sessions.”
So Minor, if only after public informational sessions its okay for the BOE to do this? Very complex and technical issue - what are the majority of parents in Bristol to stupid to understand this? We were stupid and misguided voting you in. But come November, we shall overcome that.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hockridge's blurb reads like the "sales pitch" from the consultants of school construction industry keen to snare a building contract.


Just how are "mega" sized schools proposed by the BOE going to deliver those 25 promises, when over 20 years of educational\social research indicates the exact opposite?

For starters, larger sized schools are related to increased violence and decreased academic performance.

K8 configuration or Middle School configuration, completely irrelevant!

There are good K8's and good middle schools. There are bad K-8's, and bad middle schools.

However, school SIZE matters for each of those 25 "promises".

Make a "mega" school (K8 or Middle), and those "25 promises" are gone with the wind.

Keep Columbine out of Bristol!
"Mega-sized" schools saving transportation costs - laughable.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hockridge,

You stepped in this without understanding the proposal. The proposal is to consolidate schools into large K-8s, each with about 900 students. The initial plan is to replace 4 elementary schools, but the system consists of 10 elementary schools and 3 middle schools.

If carried to its logical conclusion (all students in K-8 and assuming 900 or so students is each school and a total enrollment of about 6,000), Bristol will ultimately replace its primary schools and middle schools with 6 or 7 K-8s. Even though much of the cost will be paid by state government, a significant share of the construction costs will be borne by the taxpayers in a city that is already economically distressed.

Apart from the arguments about the pros and cons of such a consolidation, the very least the plan proposed by the Bristol BOE will do is increase transportation costs (the BOE acknowledges this). Even worse than the costs will be the impact on student travel times which will significantly increase. An extra half hour or hour or so on the bus staring at the traffic is something I am sure will be academically beneficial to students, especially those in the early primary years (note: this last remark is not a serious comment).

Anonymous said...

"Very complex and technical issue - what are the majority of parents in Bristol to stupid to understand this? "

No, but apparently at least one Bristol parent can't even spell or punctuate properly.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hockridge,

Who are you (an educator, BOE member, administrator)? And,what exactly is "your dog in this fight"? Do you have a connection to Bristol and this issue? Also, do you have recent statistics to support your contention that things are better? In other words is it getting better under the current format? It sounds like Mr. Merrick (who I believe is a school teacher) was just trying to shed light on your posting and that the two communities are different.
Since your community is considering a similar move to K - 8, what was the process involved?
Thanks.

Bob Merrick said...

Mr. Hockridge,

Thank you for your response. Your point on the K-8 model and small school size is a critical issue. My concern is that much of the published data on K-8 systems was based on small schools in certain demographical situations. Most of these demographical variables do not apply to our community.

As you stated, "If Bristol's proposed K-8 conversion means larger schools, then in my opinion, that's the wrong approach. If this is the case, then is the real dispute the conversion to K-8 or the size of the schools? Smaller schools, smaller classrooms would be a desired outcome of conversion to K-8."

K-8 and building size are two separate components but can not be looked at in isolation. That is the reason that many people including myself, want to have a meaningful public discussion regarding this issue. The BOE needs to provide Bristol residents with more information regarding the pluses and minuses of the new plan and how it improves student acheivement.

In my opinion, without the opportunity for meaningful discussions and supporting information, the plan, in its entirety, is likely to lose the support of the public.

Anonymous said...

Nothing is stopping the BOE from switching the new Chipppens Hill Middle School or the Northeast Middle School to K8 configuration ,today.
In 2001 -2003, the same BOE wanted to shutter all the older smaller neighborhood schools and create a massive 1,000 pupil MIDDLE SCHOOL at a cost of approximately $115 million.
The people rebelled.
So in a mere four years, the whole educational concept is turned upside down?
The BOE had the same "educational research" four years ago. Why the silence then?
Why the big switch now?
If the people listened to the BOE in 2001, the children would be moving into a brand new MIDDLE SCHOOL today.
Where would we be?
If K8 is a better educational deal than Middle Schools, why does the BOE allow the Chippens Hill Middle School, and Northeast Middle School children to languish in a presumably second rate educational environment for years to come?

If the BOE came forward with a plan to repair,to upgrade, and to make appropriate additions to the smaller neighborhood schools, they would get support.
By the way, those charming, older smaller, neighborhood schools that the BOE wants to discard, were originally constructed as K-8's.
They could be K8 again.
The K8 advantage occurs in the small,neighborhood school configuration, not in the mega schools that are being proposed.

Seems to me that Bristol already HAS what everyone else in America is clamoring for - small sized schools.
Why throw them away?
Why let them fall into disrepair?
Invest in them. Don't discard them for a massive impersonal warehouses.

Anonymous said...

that dumb things that minor said and im glad that im not in his district. so hope that he will lose in nov. let get new blood for the 2nd district.

Anonymous said...

I am a School Committee member and chairman of the committee looking into the conversion from a middle school to a K-8 grade configuration for North Adams. I have no connection to Bristol - I just stumbled into the discussion.

I strongly support the K-8 model, but I do not agree with the K-8 plans as discussed in the Bristol media. In my opinion (backed by all the research I have read), conversion to K-8 must involve the creation of smaller neighborhood schools - not "mega-schools" - many of the K-8 benefits I outlined in an earlier discussion will not be realized in a school of 900 kids.

But this is your community, and I have no place in the discussion or in influencing the outcome. I only jumped in because it seemed the K-8 benefits were not getting aired in the arguments I was reading in this blog.

It seems from the outside that the community of Bristol is against the K-8 idea. I would just suggest that the more relevant issue is the "mega-school(s)" that are proposed. The K-8 model with school sizes of 250-400 is a model worth exploring - as we are doing in North Adams. That may not be an option for you.

In any case, open minds and dedicated individuals who have the kids interest as their primary focus will go a long way toward doing the right thing for Bristol -and North Adams.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Hockrige,
Thank you for informing us that the K-8 model that North Adams is exploring is the small-sized school, (250-400 pupils per school).
Bristol, on the other hand, is pursuing school conglomeration with a vengence.

I'm pleased to read how your town is approaching the K8 issue, and is applying the educational research appropriately.

Does North Adams intend to rehabilitate and improve an older school building, or does North Adams intend to construct anew?
Do you have any cost estimates to share with us?

I was wondering,
Does Mass. require school districts to submit a cost comparison before bonding is given to the municipality?
That is, the cost of rehabilitation of older building vs new site acquisition, new construction, (including transportation costs) are compared BEFORE the state of agrees to bonding?
I've heard that some states will bond brand new construction only if
it can be demonstrated that it is not cost effective to update the existing school.
Since new school construction on the outskirts of cities and towns fosters sprawl, does Mass. have development policies related to public school siting that encourage land conservation and discourage sprawl development patterns ?

Thank you for your participation.

Anonymous said...

North Adams, being a much smaller community than Bristol, has a less complicated issue with a proposed K-8 conversion. We have three K-5 elementary schools that would be converted to K-8’s – growing them into K-8’s one year at a time. The middle school building (100-yrs old) will close after the K-8’s become established – and the building will likely be sold to a private developer for some form of housing. The current K-5’s need considerable renovation and additional space to become K-8’s. The eventual K-8’s would be ~350-400 students each. (I would prefer to build a new K-8 so that we would end up with 4 K-8’s with 250-300 students each, but it does not appear this will be financially feasible).

In Massachusetts, we have the Massachusetts School Building Authority that funds school facility improvements and reconstruction – and prioritizes the funding based on health, safety and overcrowding issues – funding availability up to 80% of total cost. They work in “partnership” with the school districts throughout the entire process, sending architects and engineers to evaluate the facility needs outlined by the school district, doing a feasibility/assessment study, and with the school district, determining what the best solution is for accomplishing the school district’s plans for the facilities.

School districts receive funding via a “capital pipeline” again prioritized by urgency of need. But yes, they assess rehabilitation vs. new construction feasibility before funding. I believe the bonding process is the same, but I am less familiar with this.

The MSBA funding also takes into consideration the support of the community in the specific plans – requiring city council as well as school committee endorsement. And they will not fund new construction if rehabilitation of existing buildings is deemed more feasible and cost-effective.

Because our plans primarily call for rehabilitation of existing facilities, we do not anticipate our costs comparable to what Bristol is looking at for new construction.

Steve Collins said...

I just want to say thank you to John Hockridge for weighing in on this issue. His perspective is fascinating. I'm sure I'm not alone in learning something valuable from his posts here.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Hockridge,
I'm sorry I was away for the day, and I am just now reading your post.
As Steve said, it is most enlightening.
In contrast to Mass., the State of CT (as far as I am aware) apparently has no requirement for its municipalities to prove cost effectiveness for new construction over rehabilitation of existing buildings prior to bonding.

What a break for the property owners of your state to have such a review process!
In Bristol the idea that is constantly circulated by the "powers that be", is that it is "cheaper" to build anew that to expand and rehabilitate existing structures.
Apparently, according to what I'm reading, this is not so in all cases.

It's interesting to read that North Adams has chosen incremental rehabilitation and expansion of the existing K-5's, has chosen to keep small schools, and has chosen to be fiscally prudent.
Could you tell us the approximate ages of the existing K-5's that North Adams is choosing to expand and rehabilitiate to modern standards, and perhaps the architectural firm doing the work?

I suppose that certain firms are more familiar and more adept at rehabilitation while the others simply prefer to involve themselves with new constuction.

Autumn is coming, the leaves are changing, and I would like to take a ride to North Adams to see for myself what's up with your school buildings.
An autumn ride to a New England town with a focus on schools sounds like fun.

Thanks for the inspiration.

Sincerely,
Cheryl Barb

Anonymous said...

One of the K-5's is 54 years old, another is 42, and the third is relatively new - 12 years. The newer K-5 can more easily accommodate the growth to a K-8. The two older schools will need considerable rehabilitation and sizeable additions.

The architects that have toured the facilities were hired by the Massachusetts School Building Authority, to assess, along with engineers, the condition of the buildings and to assess what needs to be done to convert them to K-8's.

We have to wait for MSBA to come back with approval to apply for state funding before we go forward with anything, facility-wise. We anticipate receiving state funding, but it may be a while before we see it - perhaps two years or more.

The efforts of our K-8 committee is focused on the anticipated ability to add the 6th grade to the k-5's without any facility renovations. With the 7th and 8th grade conversions not happening until at least the 2009-10 school year, we can spend the time necessary to focus on 6th grade issues – space availability, curriculum, shared facility scheduling issues, grade reconfigurations, special education issues, questions regarding teacher certification, etc.

And by all means, come visit North Adams! Our peak leaf color is typically during the first week of October.