The Letter that Stopped the School Consolidation Plan

DAN HARDWAY LAW OFFICE

DAN L. HARDWAY, J.D. 

ADMITTED IN WV, FL, NC & IN

PO Box 625
6815 Webster Road
Cowen, WV 26206
(304) 402-3036
fax: (919) 341-2331
dan@hardwaylaw.com

December 17, 2012

Sent via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail

Superintendent Martha Dean

Webster County Board of Education

315 South Main Street

Webster Springs, WV 26288

martha.dean@access.k12.wv.us

RE: School Closing and Consolidation

Dear Superintendent Dean:

This firm has been retained by Save Our School, LaCosta Westfall and Tanya Giles in regard to your proposal to the Webster County School Board to close Diana Elementary School (hereinafter“DES”) and to consolidate 7th and 8th grade students from Glade, Webster Springs and Diana at Webster County High School.

I have reviewed your Webster County Schools School Closure and Reorganization Documentation as Required by State Board Policy 6204 (hereinafter “Documentation”). It is apparent from a review of the Documentation that it does not comply with W.V. Code § 18-5-13a and WVBE Policy 6204. The Documentation does not provide either the Local School Improvement Councils, nor the School Board members, with the necessary information required to make a fair evaluation of the proposal. Due to its failure to comply with state law and WVBE Policies, it does not provide sufficient information upon which the Board members can make a decision without arbitrariness, partiality, passion or a misapprehension of the law.

Specifically, the Documentation, among other deficiencies, has these issues that, at a minimum, need to be addressed in order to comply with Policy 6204 and W.V. Code § 18-5-13a: 

1. The Documentation proposes both a school closure that applies to only one school with either two or three schools accepting the students from the closed school, but it also proposes consolidating the 7th and 8th grade students from two (or possibly three) elementary/middle schools to the high school. As such it proposes two separate actions for Board approval without separating the information and analysis applicable to the two separate proposals so as to enable the proposals to be evaluated independently on their separate merits and detriments. (I am uncertain of the actual number of schools that would accept students from DES if it is closed due to your statements that some of the students may be able to attend Hacker Valley although that option is not addressed in the Documentation. Similarly, you have stated that 7th and 8th grade students from Hacker Valley may elect to attend Webster County High School although, again, that option does not appear to be addressed in the Documentation.)

2. WVBE Policy 6204, at section 2.2.1.e. requires projections of enrollment by grade“in respective attendance area” for the next ten years. Your Documentation does not provide any projected enrollment by grade for the next ten years and does not provide it by grade nor does it provide the information by school which would be necessary to provide the enrollment by respective attendance areas within the county. You have provided a chart of historical enrollment by grade groups and a comparison, county-wide without respective attendance area breakdowns, of projections of attendance variation from actual attendance, for the past ten years. You have not, however,provided any projection of attendance in the effected schools’ respective areas for the next ten years as required by the Policy. Failure to provide this information makes it impossible to evaluate the proposals impact on class sizes, compliance with WVBE Policies 2419, 2510, 2520 and 6200, among other issues.

3. Not having provided projections, you have also not complied with the provisions of Policy 6204 § 2.2.1.d by not utilizing or discussing the Second Month Reports.

4. The maps you have provided at pages 8 and 9 of the Documentation do not provide a legend indicating the student enrollment by grade at effected schools as required by Policy 6204 § 2.2.2.a.A.

5. No physical appraisal of DES, Webster Springs Elementary, Webster Springs Middle School, Webster County High School, and, potentially, Hacker Valley Elementary School was provided in the Documentation. The only information provided in the Documentation is a Facility General Information Worksheet for Glade Middle School which is dated May 10, with no year specified, an undated Site Evaluation Worksheet for Glade Elementary School, and a Building Component Evaluation Worksheet for Glade Elementary School dated May 10, with no year specified. Policy 6204 requires this data to be provided for all schools effected by your proposal and such information is essential to both the citizens of the county and to the members of the Board in order to be able to properly evaluate and understand the impact the proposal will have on Webster County Schools.

6. The Documentation has no information in regard to the various effected schools’adaptability to the “present and proposed educational programs and the provision of related services” as required by § 2.2.2.c.

7. While the Documentation does provide some information on the utilization of DES and Webster Springs Elementary School, it does not provide such information on other effected schools as required by § 2.2.2.d.

8. The Documentation does not provide any information regarding the cost of the consolidation of the 7th and 8th grades at Webster County High School as required by§ 2.2.3.a.A.

9. The Documentation does not provide any information regarding the anticipated costs the plan will require at the receiving schools (Webster Springs Elementary, Webster County High School and, possibly, Hacker Valley Elementary) as required by §2.2.3.a.B.

10. The Documentation does not provide any information by which any reasonable, non-arbitrary person could calculate even a reasonable approximation of the net cost or savings generated by the plan. Policy 6204 § 2.2.3.a.C. requires the Documentation to provide the net cost or savings based upon the information provided in compliance with §§ 2.2.3.a.A and 2.2.3.a.B.

11. The information provided in the Documentation regarding the cost of renovation at Webster County High School is very general and nonspecific. In addition, the Documentation provides no hard data, or even specific proposals of specific renovations, that would allow a true, reasonable and non-arbitrary cost analysis of the needed renovations. With the minimal information provided in the Documentation,it is not possible to determine whether the estimate of $100,000.00 in renovation expenses is reasonable or arbitrary.

12. The Documentation does not address whether the proposed plan will have any effect on the administrative and service personnel at Webster County High School. You have stated publicly that the plan will require at least one additional administrator at Webster County High School. This should be addressed in the Documentation under both the provisions relating to costs and those related to the effect the plan will have on personnel.

13. The Documentation has a summary of the educational program resulting from the plan and a statement of assurance that listed WVBE Policies have been considered and adhered to. The Documentation does not address in any detail whatsoever how the Policies have been considered and how they will be adhered to. There is not a projected educational program improvement analysis as required by § 2.2.6. I would think, at a minimum, such a plan would address how moving all the students from a school that has made AYP with the highest reading and math scores on Westest II reading and math (and one of the highest in the state) to schools that have not met AYP in, respectively, the past two and three years. Consequently, it is not possible to evaluate the validity of the assurance.

14. Finally, you have stated publicly that students from Diana may be allowed to choose to attend Hacker Valley Elementary and that 7th and 8th grade students from Hacker Valley may be allowed to elect to attend Webster County High School. The documentation does not address the effect that such plans may have on transportation and the effects that the plan’s implementation would have on variances § 202.02 of WVBE Policy 6200.

Much of the information required to be provided by the West Virginia School Board’s regulations has not been provided as part of the Documentation required to be available to the public,and provided to the Chairman of the LSICs, at least 30 days in advance of any public hearing as required by Policy 6204 § 2.1. Consequently, I am asking that you voluntarily provide the missing information, and postpone any and all hearings until 30 days after the information is provided, so as to comply with the WVBE regulations.

I note that, while courts in this state are generally reluctant to review school board decisions on closures and consolidations, it is well settled in West Virginia law that a county board’s failure to comply with the WVBE regulations will form a basis for relief in court. See, e.g., McComas v. Bd of Educ. of Fayette County, 475 S.E.2d 280, 197 W.Va. 188 (W.Va., 1996); City of Benwood v. Bd. of Educ., 573 S.E.2d 347, 212 W.Va. 436 (W.Va., 2002).

It is my hope that we can agree to resolve these issues without the necessity of court action so that the hearings you have on the proposed plan may be held before an informed public and an informed School Board. I look forward to hearing from you in regard to the issues I have raised herein.

Very truly yours,

Dan L. Hardway

cc via email: Lacosta Westfall

Tanya Giles

Paula Tanner

Harold Carpenter

Joyce Markle

Lisa Clutter

Heather Davis