RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Elementary upheaval



Toolbox

By Josh O'Gorman STAFF WRITER - Published: June 26, 2009

SPRINGFIELD — With the resignation of Joan Nagle and Jonni Nichols, all three of the town's elementary school principals have departed. Their motivation to leave at once, however, remains unknown.

Wednesday night, the Springfield School Board accepted Nagle's and Nichols' resignations. The two — principals of Park Street and Elm Hill schools respectively — were preceded by Cheryl Hoffman, who announced earlier this year she would retire as principal of Union Street School.

All three principals had exit interviews Wednesday night with the School Board, conducted in executive session and closed to the public, and following the interviews the three hinted at but would not explicitly say why they were departing at once.

"I expected to retire here, but it doesn't look that way," said Nagle, whose nine-year tenure as principal at Park Street followed 24 years there as a teacher. She then posed a rhetorical question.

"There's a $32 million bond to renovate these schools and there isn't anyone to run them. Why is that?"

Nagle, who will be the principal at Chester-Andover Elementary School this fall, is leaving before Park Street's final year, per the plan to consolidate elementary pupils in Elm Hill and Union Street schools. All three women insisted the consolidation project was not the reason for their departure. In fact, they were clear about what isn't driving them out — not the pupils, nor the parents, nor the faculty and staff and not the School Board.

When asked if it was a problem with their superintendent, all three declined to comment.

They said they told the School Board why they were leaving, but Board Chairman Larry Kraft said the conversations with the departing principals were personnel matters and so he declined to comment.

The exodus leaves questions neither side seems willing nor able to answer. Nichols, who is leaving Springfield after four years as a principal and who will start July 1 as a teaching principal at Albert Bridge School in Brownsville, said she was reluctant to be more specific about her motivation because she didn't want to be perceived as a troublemaker at her new job.

"We have had very congenial relationships and I gave them excellent recommendations," said Superintendent Frank Perotti, who said he did not know what problem the principals might be referring to. Perotti was not present during the exit interviews, but has his own interviews scheduled with the departing principals.

Perotti said most major decisions made at the administrative level were made by committee with the input of all the principals and said there were never any discipline issues with any of the departing principals.

"Honestly, I'm at a loss," he said.

Perotti said he has received about 50 applications for two principal jobs — the third was cut during the budget process in January — with the plan to have a full-time principal at Park Street and another principal to cover both Elm Hill and Union Street schools.

Kraft said the board will offer one-year contracts and hopes to have the positions filled by late July.

"The schools will be fine," said Hoffman, who is retiring after 15 years at Union Street. "The reason they'll be fine is the teachers really care about the kids."

"What I wonder after all this, will things change in Springfield?" Nagle said. "Will this make any difference at all?"

josh.ogorman@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


CF-- right on! I think the gist of what you're saying is to stop playing make-believe and let life go as it goes. Stop funneling money from one place to another to try to keep a dying town surviving. Absolutely. If a place is meant to die, let it die (the irony, though, is that this is precisely what would give a town like Springfield a genuine chance to prosper again).

I blv that the future will one day bring prosperity to Springfield. This will happen by one of two reasons:

1, the newer generations, who are less beholden to failed liberal ideologies of the 60s and 70s, will naturally take more control of the state as the older generations die off;

2, As neighboring NH continues to thrive, this will eventually benefit Springfield and other bordering communities -- though not anytime soon, since people immigrating to the valley will prefer the state that better promotes personal liberties and economic freedom. But eventually NH will get crowded and people naturally want to spread out into VT, especially as VTers become increasingly aware of the prosperity they are missing out on and seek to better capitalize on it. This is a future turn that I think is a very, very long way off.

Either way, though, I don't see any major improvements in Springfield in the near future.
.
-- Posted by mark on Sat, Jun 27, 2009, 11:06 am EST

report this comment



Excellent points raised by previous posters- particularly the discussion about the decline of schools mirroring the decline in housing values. I, too, find it hard to believe that the Superintendent is "at a loss" as to why the principals are leaving. I had the pleasure of working with 2 of them years ago and they are strong, dedicated educators- as are many of the teachers in the schools themselves. Their dedication, despite Rome burning all around them, has kept those elementary schools above water for the past few years.
-- Posted by just sayin on Sat, Jun 27, 2009, 8:30 am EST

report this comment



Mark, Springfield has been dieing for many years.

And I don't think any state is "Prospering" at the moment. The whole world is in an economic crunch. It's just that the "really weak" area's. Area's that have faultered many years ago are seeing the brunt of it. Many people struggled on low paying jobs and were barely able to survive 5-20 years ago. But in the past couple years. Gas prices and everything else has stressed everyone into financial ruin. The American dollar has lost a great deal of value in the market. Everything costs more and instead of increasing minimum wage and everything. People are losing jobs.

I know you live there and understand. I just don't understand the continuing argument about the area. This isn't something new. This has been talked about, among the people, for atleast 15 years. I live 40-60 miles away. Worked in Ludlow for almost 5 years. And I've heard stories about the economic problems of the area back then.

Some people would love to believe this is all Vermont legislatures fault. Or that this is a New issue.. blah blah blah..... But it's not...

Cities do die. Towns do die. It happens in many states. WHOLE towns/cities have been completely abandoned when the local economies of the area's died.


Look at many of the Gold Rush towns/cities. Completely abandoned. Even more recent area's were completely abandoned with beautiful theatres/buildings. Watch the History channel sometime. You will see some gorgeous buildings/towns just completely abandoned.

I guess other states are smart about it. They help or force people to relocate. Or the people are smarter about it and relocate on their own. I guess the greedy people followed the money?

It can never be a good feeling to leave your hometown. Many people want to fight to keep it going.

Truth is.... Is it better to let one go that has died years ago, and put your efforts into another struggling/stable area. Or is it better for the state to keep dumping money where there is a possibility that there will never be a return for their/our investment?


Let's look at the truths...

Travel will be very costly soon. Gas prices will never be at a low rate again. So the further you live from work the worse it will be. The average person will not be able to drive long distances and support themselves or a family.

For towns/cities that do not have any relatively close "good paying jobs". Town offices and schools should start considering closing. It's time to start being smart about all of this.

Do we continue to dump money into towns that have no future? Is that truly the *ideal* thing to do?

Already many of our cities/towns need more money than what they receive in taxes... People are leaving... Less to pay the already high taxes. What will the towns do?

Isn't it simple? They will have to keep increasing taxes to keep schools running and whatever else operating.

What will be our Legislature's fault very soon, is:

Our Legislature needs to really consider getting rid of that recent "equal tax-rate". Because stable towns are getting strained trying to support area's that probably should have been abandoned years ago.

The way Vermont is setup right now, it will hold even the best of towns from ever prospering. Because the weight of the "struggling area's" will be on their shoulders.

It's time our Legislature understands this truth. Get rid of the "Socialist Tax Idea". It had good intentions. But with the economy the way it is. And many towns struggling to survive before "The world economic crash". It's not practical and it will be more of a problem, than good. It will always be more of a problem than good. Unfortunately it is a good thing to let area's die. If they can support themselves. They need to find a way to do so or perish. (I'm not talking about people.. I'm talking about towns in general. Why turn honest, hard-working people into couch potatoes? If there is no work, nothing to do, they will receive help. But what if there is nothing in that area ever. They will always receive help? They will learn to feed off the system from our very stubborn ways?)

I hate to say it... But we need to let some of these dieing towns die on their own. We cannot keep letting these people live off the state when there are no jobs in the area anyhow. They will continue to do it until someone says "No".

Well, I think it's time we say No... Your "town" cannot support itself. Your "town" will lose anything being supported by the state until you are able to afford your own place in this state.

It may sound evil and mean. But isn't it just reality? Other states have done it for years. Yes, Vermont can be pretty and quaint. Little towns are nice for out of staters to visit. But the truth is... Why are we the ones to keep paying for their "Ideal Vacation". Or their "Ideal 2nd home location".

We need to take back Vermont.

Step#1 = Taxes the way they were. Let suffering towns die. Do not put the financial strain on other stable/struggling towns. Give stable and struggling towns a chance to make a come back. If the struggling towns die off... Oh well.. It's better than dragging surrounding towns down with them.

After that we'll see what's left.... Step#2 will have to be put on hold.

Step#1 needs to happen if Vermont ever wants a chance at surviving.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Sat, Jun 27, 2009, 8:29 am EST

report this comment



The Superintendent knows. The Superintendent always knows. To say he doesn't is an insult to the intelligence of those asking the questions.

Here's a question for you: Why would the Superintendent, the CEO of the organization, not be at exit interviews?
-- Posted by SC Boy on Sat, Jun 27, 2009, 4:45 am EST

report this comment



Let me get this straight. Mr.Perotti has no idea why his top management is departing? Sounds like Mr. Perotti is out of touch with his own organization. Perhaps the school board should release Mr. Perotti. The flip side is Mr. Perotti knows exactly why his top managers are jumping ship, but he's not willing to share those intimate "personnel matters" because they reflect so poorly on his leadership.

SHS graduated 80 kids this year, and members of the school system are happy that 33 of them have applied for further education. Eighty kids - that's all???? Class of 1982 was around 200 plus.

More money does not equal better education.
-- Posted by Keith Carey on Fri, Jun 26, 2009, 9:53 pm EST

report this comment



I am really quite curious to see how having one principal for both Union Street and Park Street School's is going to work out. Should be interesting....
-- Posted by Stephanie Gibson on Fri, Jun 26, 2009, 3:42 pm EST

report this comment



It certainly does.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jun 26, 2009, 2:38 pm EST

report this comment



Sounds like Frank Perotti has something to do with their resignations.
-- Posted by sue Johnson on Fri, Jun 26, 2009, 2:07 pm EST

report this comment



From the article:

"What I wonder after all this, will things change in Springfield?" Nagle said. "Will this make any difference at all?"


How can anyone make a difference if she won't speak up about exactly what the problem is? How can the average Springfielder get the whole story if nobody will share it with us?
Homeschooling is a lot of work, but sheesh- there is no shortage of new reasons for our family to continue to do so.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jun 26, 2009, 12:16 pm EST

report this comment



ONce upon a time, Springfield was known for having good schools. But now, as Springfield turns into VT's welfare dumping ground, the schools are collapsing like the rest of the town. Springfield's schools are turning into large, urban-style schools.

Schools are a huge factor for potential home-buyers; the town's decline will be exacerbated as potential immigrants look for homes in other area towns (especially NH, with it's economic prosperity and lower taxes). There is little reason to come to Springfield now, other than a glut of houses on the market as people flee the town (and state). But as my own family learned--the hard way-- buying a home in a town like Springfield just because it's cheap, is a wrong thing to do.

I would rather live in a shack in NH than a nice home in Springfield, Vermont.

Meanwhile, construction will continue on enlarging Springfield school buildings in a town that is losing residents, not gaining them. If we do gain them, it will likely be more welfare families, making the state a continuing drain on other VT towns who are forced to share their education funds with "receiving" schools like Springfield's.
-- Posted by mark on Fri, Jun 26, 2009, 10:55 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout