WILBRAHAM — The School Committee reviewed comments from Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Regional Governance Coordinator Michelle Griffin regarding the proposed changes to the regional agreement. The district was waiting for clarification from its attorney, Sean Sweeney, on certain provisions and the draft reviewed by DESE reflected that. Many of the notations from Griffin referred to those sections, however, Sweeney has provided feedback in the interim, rendering some of the comments moot.
The School Committee accepted the tweaks suggested by Superintendent John Provost in response to the DESE review without much debate. While many of the proposed changes to the regional agreement are designed to clean up language or codify existing practices, there are some substantive differences.
One change to the document states that students in “grades 6-12 shall attend schools within the district as designated by the [School] Committee” and makes exceptions for students with out-of-district placements or those enrolled in another district through School Choice. The existing language specifies that “elementary school students” and those in grades 6-8 would “continue to be educated in their own communities.”
Major alterations were made in regard to the way assessments are calculated. Rather than being based on each town’s share of HWRSD pupil enrollment, the district would use foundational enrollment. DESE defines foundational enrollment as “a count of the number of pupils for whom a school district is financially responsible on Oct. 1 of any given year.” It includes resident schoolchildren and “students for whom the district is paying tuition, such as those at commonwealth charter schools, other school districts, special education schools and other settings.”
The assessment for each town, beyond its state-determined minimum local contribution, would be based on the ratio of the town’s foundational enrollment to the foundational enrollment for all member towns. Alternatively, a three-year rolling average of the foundational enrollment ratio would be allowed, provided the School Committee and the member towns agree.
The draft states that in the case of leased schools, “capital costs for leased schools shall be the responsibility of the town(s) in which the elementary and/or middle school is located and shall be paid directly by the town.” However, it goes on to read, “Any leased building being utilized for the education of 100% of the district’s students in particular grade levels, irrespective of the students’ town of residency, will be treated as a district-owned building and capital costs will be apportioned in the same manner as any other district-owned building.”
Wilbraham is in the process of negotiating a new lease with the district for Wilbraham Middle School. At the Jan. 27 Wilbraham Select Board meeting, member Marc Ducey said he had spoken with Hampden Selectboard Chair Donald Davenport and member John Flynn about taking on a portion of the capital costs associated with Wilbraham Middle School, which currently educates all in-district Hampden students in grades 6-8. Ducey said both Davenport and Flynn mentioned preexisting issues with the condition of the building and indicated Hampden would not be interested.
A week earlier, at Hampden’s Jan. 21 meeting of the Selectboard, Davenport shared that Wilbraham was “hoping” Hampden would be willing to pay for a portion of the middle school’s capital outlays. Selectboard member Craig Rivest summed up the board’s sentiments, saying, “We have no stake in the building … other than we have children there. We don’t own the building. We don’t own the property. We don’t own the lease. There’s no [return on investment] in investing in capital for a building we have no stake in.”
One area which was yet to be decided involved the district’s ability to incur debt. Provost sought a vote by the School Committee on its preferred method. With the first option, the committee would be required to give the towns written notice regarding the amount of debt and its purpose within seven days of the committee’s vote to take on the debt. There would be a 60-day waiting period before the district could move forward with the debt, during which time one or both towns could conduct a Town Meeting considering whether to reject the debt.
Option two would require a ballot question passed by a majority of voters in each town. The district would pay for the election.
Provost said option one is closest to the existing practice. The committee voted 6-1 in favor of option one.
Only School Committee member Sean Kennedy voted against it.
