SUMMARY OF REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING BOARD REPORT

Note:  The full report by all members of the Regional District Planning Board can be found here as well as on the Amherst Regional Public Schools website. All of the Board members contributed to the report and the following summary was edited by Theilman.

 

The History

Regionalization has been considered many times since the current secondary education region (middle and high school) was created in the mid-1950s. The four towns of Amherst, Pelham, Shutesbury, and Leverett have had official discussions about regionalizing their elementary school districts consistent with the current 7–12 region into one region, preK through grade 12; these official discussions took place in 1968, 1976, 1992, 2009, and 2012. Starting in January 2018, the towns of Amherst and Pelham began to explore regionalizing their two elementary school districts. The current study was funded with only a $21,500 Regionalization and Efficiency grant from the Governor’s Community Compact Cabinet. 

The Process

Massachusetts General Law (MGL Chapter 71, Section 14) requires that towns interested in regionalizing create Regional School District Planning Committees by Town Meeting votes, and that these committees must come together to create a Regional School District Planning Board (RSDPB). In the fall of 2017, Pelham and Amherst Town Meetings, at the request of their respective School Committees, each approved formation of a Regional School District Planning Committee. After meeting separately, each of these committees voted to form a joint Regional School District Planning Board to explore the possibility of regionalizing their two preK–6 school districts. While creation of a RSDPB does not commit any town to any plan, it formally allows further exploration.

Using the $21,500 State Regionalization and Efficiency grant, the board contracted with Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools (MARS) as process consultants, The Abrahams Group as financial consultants, and The Logue Group as public forum facilitators.

The board began by identifying the key questions and potential benefits of regionalization, and then engaged in an in-depth analysis of the major financial, governance, and educational issues. A summary of the analysis on each of these issues, with supporting information, can be found in the appendices of the RSDPB Report posted on the ARPS website. 

The board held more than forty open public meetings, from April 2018 to August 2019, including local groups and boards. In April 2019, it held a “Two Towns Meeting,” which included both towns’ School Committees, the Pelham Select Board and Finance Committee, and the Amherst Town Council; quorums of all five were present. The board presented the results of its work to date and asked for feedback. The presentation from that meeting is included in the RSDPB Report, Appendix D. 

The consensus of Pelham officials was to pursue regionalization, and the consensus of Amherst officials was to not pursue regionalization. Following the Two Towns Meeting, widely advertised public forums were held with similar presentations and answered questions. Forums were sparsely attended, although information was distributed through all of the schools, newspaper articles, posters in public places, and on Amherst Media. General public response ranged from ambivalence to not wanting regionalization. 

The Conclusion

Following the meetings, the board discussed and considered the results of its own analysis, consultants’ reports, the input of public boards and residents, and in May 2019 voted unanimously not to pursue regionalization.

Each board member expressed slightly different reasons for voting not to recommend regionalization. The main themes were: 

* not enough financial and educational benefit to both towns to justify the level of change; and

* not enough support expressed from town officials and the public to move forward. 

The primary motivation for Pelham was increased financial stability, and there was broad agreement on the board that regionalization could possibly provide this. This was the main theme from Town of Pelham officials, concerned about future financing of their small school.

But Pelham residents also expressed concern about loss of autonomy and self-control, as a small town in a larger region.

The primary motivation for Amherst was financial savings, primarily through state reimbursement of transportation. Amherst board members echoed the feedback from the Amherst School Committee and Amherst Town Council, in concluding that the amount of savings Amherst would realize through state reimbursement of transportation (est. $228K in the first year) was not enough to justify the level of change.

Further, board members expressed disappointment and frustration with the state’s failure to keep its promise of reimbursing 100 percent of regional school district transportation costs. One of several “unfunded mandates” that the state shortchanges every year (with a “subject to appropriation” loophole), the board had to assume continued under-funding when projecting future reimbursements. The board also found the state laws on regional school district assessment method, budget approval, and governance quite difficult to apply to one small town (Pelham) and one much larger town (Amherst), along with the two different forms of government: Town Meeting/Select Board (Pelham) and Town Council (Amherst). Much time was spent trying to identify the “best” assessment method, and School Committee composition and election mechanism, without producing a clear and satisfying option.

Our stated goal from the outset of this process was to determine if this would be a “win-win” for both towns, financially and educationally. In the final analysis, our conclusion was that it was not.

The Regional School District Planning Board:

Peter Demling, Chair, Amherst

Emily Marriott, Vice-Chair, Pelham

Cara Castenson, Pelham

Richard Fanning, Pelham

Joan Temkin, Amherst

Marylou Theilman, Amherst