Members in Attendance: Caleb Bernard, Bob Brick, Tim Brown, Stoney Cantler, Benny Docter, Beth Graham, Kim Hicks, Austin Joseph, Shelia Mulholland, Mary Clare Powell, Frank Sansom, Sarah Sansom, Dorie Shallcross, Hannah Sokoloff-Rubin, Paul Weinberg, Graham Weston, Paul Wright

Members not in Attendance: Bailey Jackson, 

Others in Attendance: Jesse Docter, Alma Sanchez-Eppler, Amelia Cain, Will Seal, Benigno Sanchez-Eppler, Lynn Bowmaster, Nathaniel Mathews, Mary Cantler, Robert Brainin, Noah Loving, Mia Lloyd

Public Comment:

Comment was called for; none was advanced.

Summary of Votes Taken:

• The minutes of 11/3/09 were approved
• Amendments of Enrollment Policy and Procedures were approved
• The Financial Audit report was approved

Summary of meeting:

President’s Business

Dorie Shallcross thanked Louise Kanus for 6 years of service on the Personnel committee, and welcomed Johnathan Kane as the new Chair.

John Sciback was thanked for his work getting the school’s wireless hooked up (a formal letter of thanks has been sent on the Board’s behalf)

Executive Director’s Report

Bob Brick announced implementation of the school’s new internet capabilities.  The new cable service will be 30 times faster than the school’s current service, allowing teachers to stream video and use on-line sources in classrooms—a critical improvement in curriculum.  

Bob Brick returned to the proposed changes in the school’s enrollment policy, discussed at the 11/3 meeting.   

Benny Docter questions the legitimacy of PVPA’s being able to deny admission to students who have failed in the grade in which they are currently enrolled.  Response: this is not an illegal action for PVPA to take, and is consistent with current practice; the language is intended to clarify rather than change current practice.

The question was raised, would students be allowed to “skip” a grade in their applications—to apply to 10th grade, instead of 9th grade?  Bob Brick responded that this had never happened, but that in theory, it could, if the sending district said that the student was applying to the appropriate grade.  

Ditto language adding Petersham, Brookfield, and Sturbridge—these communities were already part of the school’s recruitment area, although they had not been so listed.

A change in a student’s residence during time on the waiting list will not affect the student’s position on the waiting list—again, an articulation of an existing policy, rather than a new policy. 

Bob Brick presented a real change in policy in regards to students who withdraw from PVPA.  Students who withdraw have 6 months to request re-admittance without having to follow the normal reapplication procedure.  Such students would not have to re-apply, but would be placed at the bottom of the current waiting list.  

Paul Weinberg asked a clarifying question regarding sibling status and readmission.  The language of the last sentence was changed to read thus: 

“However, if that student is a sibling of a currently enrolled student, the student would retain sibling status and join the waiting list following any other siblings already on the waiting list for the same grade.”

Sarah Sansom notes a potential conflict regarding retention of status if a student moves out of district: if a student lives outside district, according to pending legislation, the student couldn’t be enrolled.  

Stoney Cantler wondered why privileged status should be given to students who choose to leave.  Bob Brick noted that most students who leave PVPA are often counseled to reconsider; the new policy would acknowledge the relationship by offering a limited boost on the waiting list.

Benny Docter raised philosophic unease with the policy that students could be refused admission to PVPA based upon their status at other schools; he deemed this policy discriminatory.  It was noted that students could apply for the grade that they have failed. 

Does this policy exclude students who are badly served by their current schools?   Is it inappropriate to exclude students, when district schools cannot make the same choice?  It was agreed that these are important issues, but more suited to another discussion.  

It was also noted that obliging students to pass their current grade removes the “moral hazard” of students who stop working at their current school once they gain acceptance to PVPA.  

Sarah Sansom asked if a “readmission form” will be established?  Yes, it will. 

The Board voted to accept the proposed changes.

Curriculum and Instruction

Beth Graham noted that 300 parent/teacher conferences were scheduled on 11/18.  The conferences addressed students’ academic, social, and emotional success, and were characterized by quiet, positive energy.  Teachers have become adept at discussing students’ progress; a foundation for a culture of informed conversations about achievement and progress without any participants being defensive.

Beth sat in on 5 or 6 conferences, and reports that the teachers did a marvelous job with this demanding task.

Beth acknowledges Joannie Wollmershauser’s excellent work in scheduling each of these 300 conferences.  

Beth next addressed the school’s efforts to recruit a diverse pool of applicants.  She mentioned a visit to Holyoke Charter School met 300 parents and children; 11 or 12 families requested admissions packets.  

Fliers at Springfield and Holyoke community centers; outreach visits by Bob, Beth and students; radio spot—all aimed at maintaining a diverse PVPA community.  

Paul Weinberg suggests reaching out to the Springfield YMCA; Girls Inc. in Holyoke is another possible partner.  

Business Manager

It was moved that the Board accept the audit report.

The comprehensiveness, accuracy and clarity of Robert Brainin’s work was praised, and the report deemed “awesome.” 

The audit report was approved. 

Governance Committee

Mary Clare Powell, Paul Wright

MCP noted that no names were submitted as new Board members.  She renewed her request for nominees.  The Board needs 2 community members, valuable because they are disinterested members who provide a valuable perspective.  These members should care about education, about the arts, who will put the school’s interest first, and who will commit to attending Board and committee meetings.  Dorie Shallcross notes that “community members” in this instance is a state mandate.  

Preferred qualifications include:

• Financial expertise (bankers, CPAs) 
• Connections to local arts community
• Legal expertise
• Political or financial connections

The Board’s membership should be diverse in terms of race, culture, class, and language.

MCP called upon those present to try to come up with appropriate names, either based on personal acquaintance or local knowledge.  She called for e-mail submissions of possible candidates at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .  She notes that these vacancies offer the opportunity to “make the Board you want.”  The Governance Committee will bring a slate of possible nominees to the Board at a future date.  

Paul Wright reported on the Strategic Plan Review Committee

The school is in the middle of its current plan; the committee will look at the document, assess what’s been done, and suggest recommendations for changes and additions to existing document. Request for members went out last month; 8 parent members, 1 Board member, 1 teacher and 1 alum have responded.  How should the committee be constituted?  Ideally, this committee should be able to issue a report before year’s end.  

MCP noted the importance of a range of constituencies on the committee: students, parents, faculty.  

Beth Graham clarified that this committee ‘s role is to look at the current document and assess where we are now, rather than to write a new plan.  

Is this then an assessment committee, rather than a strategic planning committee intended to draw a new plan from work done at this summer’s Board retreat?    Paul Wright responded that the ultimate goal is to create a new five-year plan using the existing five-year plan as its basis.  Thus, the committee will be both assessing the existing plan and helping to create a new one.  

Debate about how complex a process this two-part process will be: given the plan’s brevity, assessment should be relatively quick.  Proposals for a new plan could be submitted in April or May.  

Shelia Mulholland questioned whether PVPA can proceed with a capital campaign if presentation of a new strategic plan is deferred until Fall 10.  

Beth Graham warns that moving too quickly on creating a plan might not allow for input from all members of the PVPA community.  The process needs to be inclusive.  If the committee’s role is to assess the plan, that’s a different kind of task than creating a new plan.  Do we want the committee to create a new plan, or just to tweak the existing plan?   If it’s the latter, the product shouldn’t be called a “new plan.”

Beth proposes that the Board needs a carefully thought-out, long-term commitment to a strategic plan, which the institution seems to lack at present.  The short-term revision approach is more workable, but not the best long-term solution, procedurally.

The overall concern seems to be the difficulty of prioritizing: a capital campaign can’t be launched without a clear strategic plan.  The campaign needs to be launched soon, and with a clear focus, which precludes the kind of lengthy planning that ideally would be devoted to a new strategic plan.  

What, then, is the committee’s charge?  Dorie Shallcross advises that the committee be called together to assess the current plan.

Paul Wright notes that many of the current plan’s timelines have already passed.  He suggests that the committee focus on clarifying goals that are stated only broadly (as “future”).  Beth Graham notes that the school’s vision has clarified since the plan was created; some goals have been achieved, while others no longer resonate (e.g., current work on curriculum, such as assessment and grading, is not mentioned in the plan, although it has become an important issue).  

Benny Docter emphasized that the capital campaign is secondary to the school’s goals.  We should know where we’re going before we start trying to pay for it; hence, the strategic plan should be the top priority.

Beth Graham and Benny Docter volunteered for the committee.

Students

Hannah Sokolof-Rubin: described avid concern in the student body about the progress and outcome of mediation.  She noted the importance that students perceive the Board’s operations as transparent; that information be made available to students as soon as possible.  Without regular updates, confidence wanes among the students that information will ever be made available.

Benny Docter expressed frustration with uncertainty about what can legitimately be communicated, and suggests that the burden of understanding what can and cannot be shared lies with the Board.  “I can’t tell you” is a different statement than “I don’t know what I can tell you”—the latter response leads to mistrust.  

Stoney Cantler points out that a message from the Board regarding mediation was posted on the school’s website; also notes that the Board is not the only party concerned in the mediation.  

Benny notes that the names of those on the mediation committee have not been released; neither has the number of meetings been disclosed.  The student representative suggests that the Board should better inform itself of the confidentiality issues.  Paul Wright wonders if the confidentiality agreement is a public document (no, says Sheila Mulholland; the document is itself confidential, an opinion confirmed by Paul Weinberg).  

MCP noted that the Board shares the students’ desire to resolve the situation.  

Benny notes that the situation is becoming more intense, given the lack of a time line and the rapidly approaching expiration of the Executive Director’s contract.  

Paul Weinberg notes that the slowness of the process could also be interpreted as showing the Board’s concern that the school not blow up.

Stoney Cantler notes that the evaluation committee is known and that Board meetings are open. 

Benny opines that the school will explode if the contract is allowed to expire on June 30.  

No one present offered any commentary on this statement.  

Faculty

Tim Brown reports that inquiries about mediation are the number one concern brought to him as a faculty representative.  

A 17 x 32 foot hooded greenhouse has been framed as an addition to the school’s garden.  Last year the school raised 100 lbs of organic produce, donated to Kate’s Kitchen.  A Padeia project will try to get the greenhouse in operation to begin producing food in early spring. 6 apple and 12 pear trees have also been planted.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Hicks