MARLBORO-The Marlboro School Board has finalized the language it will include on its annual meeting warning, which will ask voters whether the board should close the Marlboro School, which currently serves students pre-K to grade eight.
The move comes after months of the board analyzing rising costs and declining enrollment at the school, which has served residents of the town for generations.
Article 4 of the school district’s annual meeting warning asks whether voters shall “authorize the Board of School Directors to close the Marlboro Elementary School and cease using the Marlboro Elementary School facility for the purpose of providing direct instruction to students effective June 30, 2026” and “take all actions necessary to ensure the education of the students of the Marlboro School District by paying tuition to one or more public elementary schools in accordance with Vermont law.”
Regarding the district’s budget, Article 5 asks whether voters will approve a budget of $3,374,499, which would result in per-pupil spending of $15,224, which is 7.06% lower than per-pupil education spending for the current year. That number assumes Article 4 passes; the budget represents what it will take to provide education for the town’s students without Marlboro School operating.
Should the school close, the district will be responsible for paying tuition for students at approved public schools. The district would also need to cover maintenance costs on what would then be a vacant school building. The school board has also said it intends to provide transportation from Marlboro to some public schools, though the picture of exactly what that will look like and what it will cost is not clear.
At the school board’s Jan. 13 meeting, Vice Chair Rachel Boyden said she believed putting the non-operating budget on the ballot was too leading. “I feel that by putting the article for the budget for when the school closes, it’s a presumptive act on our part that it will pass,” she said.
She asked whether the board could not include a budget at all, but chair Dan MacArthur said that by law, the board is required to include a budget on its annual meeting warning. After a lengthy discussion between the board and public, the board ultimately decided to go with putting the non-operational budget on the ballot. Boyden abstained from the vote to do so.
“I’m not going to assume how the town is going to vote, “ said Boyden. “I just cannot.”
WCSU Director of Finance Heidi Russ said the difference between the non-operational budget and what it would take to run the school next year, were voters to reject Article 4, is about $400,000. In the event Article 4 were to be rejected, the board could choose, she said, to close the gap using the district’s reserve fund, which has a little over $700,000 in it.
Member of the public Charlene Morse said she thought that information was revelatory, as it meant the district could keep the school open for another year without raising taxes. Board clerk Andrea Burke urged caution in interpreting the potential use of reserve funds to close the gap for a year as a way out of considering school closure.
“It does essentially kick the can down the road,” said Burke. “We would go from having a reserve fund of $700,000 to (having) $300,000. We couldn’t do this every year. We’re still looking at an enrollment cliff. Even if we kick the can down the road, we’ll be having this conversation next year also.”
Principal Dana Gordon-Macey said owing to the conversations around school closure, the school is already experiencing staffing crises. Thus far, two classroom assistants, an academic support teacher, and the school’s chef have resigned in order to take other opportunities.
“I know that there are probably other people who are looking at opportunities, because you have to provide for your family,” she said.
Throughout the meeting, reactions from the public were mixed. Don Furman said he thought putting Article 4 on the ballot this year was premature. “I think closing the school is extreme at this juncture,” he said. “Things might change at the federal elections. Federal funding might get restored after that. I don’t know that closing the school is going to be better for our kids than keeping it open.”
Linda Fuhrman asked the board to consider allowing her to spearhead a study into what a five-year plan could look like for Marlboro with regard to education in the district. The board said it would take up the matter at a future meeting.
Gordon-Macey said the declining enrollment that the district is facing can’t be ignored, nor can the staffing issues that are already happening as a result of school closure being on the table.
“I think what gets left out of the conversation a lot is the enrollment cliff and the reality that we don’t have kids who are entering the school,” she said. “Unless someone is planning to create housing opportunities real, real quick in our town, that is not changing. This is heartbreaking. My heart is broken. This school is beautiful. These kids are amazing and our staff is top-notch.”
But, she said, “to drag people through years of conversations about closing a school, and for our kids to watch our school slowly diminish” isn’t necessarily the best solution for those in the school building.
“Right now, there is so much standing on a principle that is based on so much history and so much love for this school and so much care for our students, and I love that,” said Gordon-Macey. “But I also know, I have staff here, and myself, too, who won’t have resolution on this question and will be looking for jobs sooner. There are so many moving parts happening right now, and I don’t want that to get lost in the conversation. It is not about love for this school. The love for this school is huge. But there are some realities that we really have to face truths about, that are really, really hard truths.”
Individual board members declined to say how they intended to vote on the matter when the time comes, but said that they felt now was the time to bring the matter to the voters.
“I voted to put this article on the warning,” said Boyden. “I still don’t know how I, personally, am going to vote. I think all the people on the board felt there is enough feeling in town that it was time to vote on this. We got that feeling from the staff when I talked to the staff, too. Not that we had the answer, but that it was time for a townwide vote. That’s why I voted unhesitatingly to put it on (the warning). Not because I’m going to necessarily vote for it, but because it’s time.”
“My heart’s broken that this is on the ballot,” said Burke. “This is a really sad thing that we’re voting on, and I don’t love it. I know I come across as being cold and numbers-oriented. I am a numbers person. But I am very sad about this too and this is a great community and a great school. There are great teachers here. My kids had great experiences here. I don’t want to see the end of an era either. I also don’t know if the slow bleed out is best for sensitive souls.”
In anticipation of the vote on Town Meeting Day, the board will hold an informational meeting about the warning on Saturday, Feb. 28, at 10 a.m., at the Marlboro School. Ballots will be mailed to registered Marlboro voters at least 20 days in advance of Town Meeting Day, which this year is Tuesday, March 3.
A version of this story appeared in The Deerfield Valley News, The Commons’ sister newspaper.
This News item by Lauren Harkawik originally appeared in The Deerfield Valley News and was republished in The Commons with permission.