Without meaningful consolidation talks, Carlton will move ahead

It is very important that the Carlton school district community, parents, caregivers, staff and students know the facts about the most recent communications with the Wrenshall school board regarding the possibility of our school districts consolidating.

The Carlton school board has consistently supported, and continues to support, a consolidation plan with Wrenshall that improves opportunities for students and financial stability for taxpayers. However, it would be shortsighted and

irresponsible to consolidate just for the sake of consolidating. A consolidation plan would need to establish a school district that addresses our current challenges by creating a viable path to meet the goals of success for every student and becoming a sustainable and financially healthy school district for the long term. If a consolidation plan is not academically and fiscally sound, it will only perpetuate frustration, mistrust, educational inadequacies and leave taxpayers in the lurch.

The Carlton school board has listened and is listening to the many community members who want to see the Carlton and Wrenshall school districts consolidate. The Carlton board voted in support of consolidation in April 2016, prior to the August 2017 South Terrace building bond referendum. The Carlton board listened to and supported the Community Advisors’ August 2018 recommendations on this topic. In September 2018, the Carlton school board wrote the Wrenshall school board a sincere letter asking the Wrenshall board to work together on a plan that would focus on “our common goals and share our respective concerns so that we can ultimately find our way to a consolidation plan that will mutually benefit all of our students and communities.” This letter suggested the use of a neutral facilitator to moderate the discussions between the boards to help increase the likelihood that the discussions would result in an agreement that would be supported by both school boards.

In November 2018, the Wrenshall board responded to this letter and questioned the Carlton board’s seriousness, insisting upon a “significant ongoing school presence in Wrenshall” and that they did not support the need for a facilitator. The Carlton board informed the Wrenshall board that they would respond after discussing with their two newly elected board members in February (this ultimately happened Jan. 28).

On Jan. 30, Carlton board chair LeRae Lehto wrote a letter to the Wrenshall board reaffirming the Carlton board’s desire to enter into consolidation discussions “under the direction and leadership of a neutral facilitator” to “give the greatest chance of a successful outcome.” The letter also reaffirmed the Carlton board’s desire to enter these discussions “without commitments to a specific facilities plan.” At the Jan. 26 Carlton Board meeting, it was stated that it was best to explore all facility options, including but not limited to a two-site model with a middle school/high school in Wrenshall.

The Carlton board has not yet received a response from Wrenshall to the Jan. 30 letter. However, it has been communicated via a newspaper article and community members that the Wrenshall board has rejected the Carlton board’s proposal for facilitated consolidation talks,

instead electing to move forward with their own facility referendum. While we were hopeful we could engage in meaningful consolidation discussions, Wrenshall’s rejection provides clarity and the opportunity for Carlton to chart a course for the future.

It is important to understand the Carlton-Wrenshall facilities conversation would be very different IF the Wrenshall facility were “move-in ready.” Unfortunately, it is not. The Wrenshall facility is in need of $15 million-plus to address asbestos, roof, HVAC and other major concerns to serve its current PreK-12 student enrollment. Similarly, Carlton Middle/High School is also in need of significant upgrades.

Therefore, a long-term facility plan as part of a Carlton-Wrenshall consolidation agreement would inevitably include asking Carlton and Wrenshall district taxpayers to support a significant building bond referendum. Thus, it would be incumbent upon the boards to assess how the referendum dollars (tax dollars) should most effectively be allocated. In addition to actual construction costs, other critical questions to consider are:

Which facility option would be most likely to retain and increase PreK-12 enrollment?

Which facility option would be most likely to be fiscally and operationally efficient annually?

Which facility option would be most likely to be supported by Carlton and Wrenshall voters?

The school boards have had no discussions about what exactly would be included in any facility construction projects. There are numerous decisions that would directly impact square-footage, equipment and furnishing needs and, therefore, the costs. What number and type of early childhood program offerings and classroom spaces would be needed? What career/technical facility and equipment would be needed? How many K-12 classrooms and specialty spaces would be needed? How many spaces would be needed to adequately support the special education and mental health services of students? What would be needed for technology infrastructure and equipment to ensure that facilities are fully capable of providing efficient, secure and reliable internet services to students and staff? What school security design, equipment and infrastructure would be needed to best ensure the safety of students and staff? How much space would be needed for adequate staff and visitor parking and safe bus loading and unloading? Would the facility plans include an auditorium and, if so, how many seats and what other equipment would be needed? While a consultant may attempt to anticipate the answers to these questions, any resulting cost estimates of such magnitude are premature and speculative.

Facility construction costs are only part of what must be considered in developing a facility plan for a consolidated school district. The annual financial inefficiencies of any two-site model for a small school district with fewer than 1,000 students should not be ignored. Indeed, with Carlton’s existing two-site model we spend more than $100,000 annually (duplication of spaces and staff, mileage and time of staff travel between the buildings, inefficient use of staff that could be shared, bus travel between buildings for drop-off and pick-up each day, etc.). These are dollars that each year could otherwise be spent on curriculum materials or staff salaries.

Like many other smaller school districts, the Carlton school district is facing the challenges of declining enrollment and inadequate funding from state and federal governments. The Carlton school board understands critical decisions lie ahead. The teachers and staff of the Carlton school district proudly provide a high-quality education to our students every day. This will not change. We will continue to provide the individualized learning we value in Carlton.

Now that it is clearly established that the Wrenshall board is not interested in developing a consolidation plan with Carlton, the Carlton school board will actively pursue in the upcoming weeks other options to best accomplish the goals of the success of students and a fiscally responsible plan for taxpayers.

Contact Carlton Schools Superintendent Gwen Carman at [email protected] or by calling Carlton Schools at 218-384-4225, ext. 113.