Where are my Front Porch Forum posts?

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your posting, below. However, we're writing to let you know it will not be published as it does not comply with FPF’s Terms of Use, specifically provision 2.6. While we appreciate your efforts to share information and concerns with your neighbors, we also want to ensure that many voices are heard. When members post repeatedly about the same topic at length, we may ask that they consider taking a step back so others can weigh in. Please refrain from posting about the WCUUSD vote for one week.

Thanks for your understanding, and participation on FPF.

Take Care,

[staffer A]

Member Support

membersupport@frontporchforum.com

Help Center • Website • Donate

Front Porch Forum: Helping neighbors connect and build community.

Re: WCUUSD Articles of Agreement - Vote No

Matt Rkiouak • (mrkiouak@gmail.com) • Merrill Dr, Middlesex

Posted to: Middlesex

Jul 28, 2026

Supporters of a no vote should not misrepresent, or flat out lie, about whether the votes in question impact everyone voting.

A vote for no is a vote to adopt a school configuration common no where else in the country, where young children are shipped from elementary school to elementary school across grades, disrupting their social and educational development. That is plainly relevant to all district members.

No voters should write an articulated, well reasoned argument that doesn't rest on misrepresentation. So far, none have been provided:

• Not the debt (all schools require maintenance -- the lack of debt for Calais and Doty are just signs they need the most money spent on them, and the 2023 Act 72 report shows this. See this link for more, honest and fact based, details: https://middlesexgazette.org/news/washington-central-buildings/).

• Not the disenfranchisement or gerrymandering (7% of the district population controlled the school configuration this year: https://middlesexgazette.org/news/washington-central-what-the-vote-decides/). The significant majority, 8, board members that recommended closure would still vote to close, ending the harmful elementary school grade experiment forced by the distressed budget. The ONLY reason that is happening this year is that 7% (610 across ONLY Calais & Worcester) of school district voters made the decision for us AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION of the majority of our school board, who were also by the entire district.

And worst of all, the one that no one mentions, the nearly 15 year plummet in educational outcomes won't be helped by keeping the same school configuration thats been in place during the fall. Students are testing a full grade level worse than they were just over 10 years ago. See this link for more on the educational outcomes: https://middlesexgazette.org/news/washington-central-schools/, look at the federal and state data behind the WCUUSD comparison here: https://hungermountaini.com/schools/#sec-seda. Note the 17% increase in chronic absenteeism (https://hungermountaini.com/schools/#sec-chabs), and the 23% fall in college and degree granting trade school continuation ( https://hungermountaini.com/schools/#sec-postsec).

All of this data comes directly from the State of Vermont's Agency of Education, the Federal Department of Education, and the Stanford Education Data Archive. I have no dog in this race other than wanting my 2 and 4 year old to have the best public education and school experience possible over the next 17 years. That's what all of our priorities should be. Sadly, none of the No vote supporters I've seen can articulate how a no vote gives them this. The status quo is not working for our children.

People need to not misrepresent what is at stake here -- its the proper care and education of our community's children. Vote Yes so we can start the work of fixing what we've lost over the past 10 years. If you're voting No, first have a plan for how to fix our schools -- otherwise a vote for No is a vote to continue failing our kids.

It's my second post on WCUUSD in a week, without this post, I only have a single post on that topic this week.

What time frame are you making this evaluation over, so I can properly calibrate FPF engagement?

Hi Matt,

Thank you for your follow up. Our decision is based on your six prior postings this month on the subject of the WCUUSD Vote in the Middlesex Forum, published on July 9, 10, 12, 17, 21 and 27.

Please also see our Help Center article about election-related discussions .

Thank you,

[staffer A]

Member Support

membersupport@frontporchforum.com

Help Center • Website • Donate

Front Porch Forum: Helping neighbors connect and build community.

Hi,

Sorry, you didn't answer my question.

What's the length of period and frequency of discussion of topics you're moderating to?

I've received a number of positive reach ours both via FPF and directly after each of my posts, so I want to both abide by your policies, and continue to share information on a timely basis on FPF.

None of the posts you listed this month shared duplicate information. In fact, at least 3 of those posts have to do with actions of the School Board, and nothing to do with the WCUUSD upcoming vote.

I appreciate you providing rough guidelines on period and frequency you're moderating to. I know I had 3 different people reach out to me about posting content that I have shared in Middlesex to the Calais and Berlin boards.

If I need to combine more posts during a particular period to not risk falling afoul of this policy, I'd be happy to do so.

I suspect FPF doesn't want to appear to be allowing users to post in support of one position, and not allowing other users to post against it. Given the post I was responding to was in reply to a post written by a non Middlesex resident, it is particularly odd they were allowed to post without a reply.

Would you please provide the rough criteria I can use for determine the period and frequency you consider dominating here?

Regards,

Matt

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your response. We're glad to hear you've received positive feedback to your postings.

Please see FPF's Terms of Use provision 2.6, pasted below. The provision applies to not just duplicate content, but similar content, such as repeat postings advocating for a position on an upcoming vote. In considering what qualifies as "dominating the discussion," our system weighs not only the frequency of postings, but the length, civility, etc.

We advise giving a week break between postings on a similar topic.

2.6 You agree not to repeatedly post the same or similar content, or dominate the discussion.

We appreciate your understanding.

Best wishes,

[staffer B]

Member Support FrontPorchForum.com Essential civic infrastructure in Vermont Need help? Check the Help Center.

I've submitted a ticket complaining about this unequal application of moderation.

I have posted on the election topic a total of two times..

There is no way to view this as balanced moderation.

You've continued to fail to describe how I have posted on a topic too many times, other than one person claiming 6 posts across a month that touched on 4 different topics was somehow my dominating a conversation.

FPF ought to do better.

Hello Matt,

Thank you for taking the time to reach out, and for your participation on FPF. FPF is nonpartisan. We've reviewed your postings and stand by the team's call.

If you believe other members are dominating the discussion, please feel free to share that with us.

Best wishes,

[staffer C]

Team Manager, Member Support FrontPorchForum.com Essential civic infrastructure in Vermont Need help? Check the Help Center.

Name: Matt Rkiouak

Email: mrkiouak@gmail.com

Subject: Request for moderation review

Comments: The Middlesex moderator and team are restricting ongoing discussion of special election that had less than 40 days between announcement of the election, and the date of the actual election. I continue to share new information, and attempt to respond to new questions or data discussions, such as impact on debt, property values, and so on -- but the moderation team has claimed I am in violation of FPF TOS 2.6. Yet others have posted on the topic the same number of times I have (the moderators seem to conflate a separate school board issue I posted on with posts on the election? yet I've never posted more than twice in the same week regardless. Meanwhile, No supporters on the vote post far more than I do. Is Front Porch Forum ensuring moderation is not politically motivated? I can provide the email exchange I've received from the moderation team, where they've repeatedly evaded provided an answer as to in what way I am dominating a conversation I have been blocked from participating in by them for a week now.

You are the person that moderated me. Was this reviewed by someone else at FPF?

I have already had conversations with multiple people that believe FPF is acting biased, evidenced by my moderation, and FPF selectively not sharing posts by posters in favor of the amendment vote to other communities, even when checking to do so.

I will be working to get these issues and the facts around them published in seven days, vtdigger, the bridge, and myself and others will post about it to social media. This will get noticed.

If FPF really stands by these decisions, you should have nothing to worry about.

FPF is not politically unbiased when it is selectively allowing certain people to most more on a topic than others.

Have you already actioned my account? I did not receive the FPF email for today's updates, yet I have heard from others they have received the email.

Hi Matt,

I sat down with my colleagues and reviewed all of your posts and correspondence on this issue. We stand behind what we've written to you before and the decisions made.

No changes have been made to your FPF account. Our records indicate your email Forum was delivered yesterday (check your spam folder if you have not received it).

We have declined to publish your most recent posting (copied below), because it violates FPF's Terms of Use, section 2.21. By default, all election postings aren't viewable from neighboring Forums. Please stop misrepresenting FPF, and bullying FPF staff.

We will need to leave the exchange here, as we attend to our ongoing work. Further TOU violations may lead to account closure.

Best,

Michael

Michael Wood-Lewis, Co-Founder & CEO

FrontPorchForum.com

Essential civic infrastructure in Vermont.

How Middlesex Communicates and Stays Connected

Matt Rkiouak • (mrkiouak@gmail.com) • Merrill Dr, Middlesex

Posted to: Middlesex

Aug 4, 2026

Discussion

The moderation team for our Front Porch Forum has refused to publish two posts I've made in the past two weeks — one responding to misrepresentations made by residents of other towns about the state of the Washington Central Unified Union School District (WCUUSD) and our schools, and one clarifying what the research shows about property values and schools. Their stated reason was a non-specific violation of section 2.6 of their Terms of Use: https://frontporchforum.com/terms-of-use. Reviewing my posts, and given that I had not posted for a week before the first refusal, it remains unclear to me how I violated that section. Repeated questions about how often I ought to post in order to avoid this have gone unanswered, including in replies that amount to "Thank you — please review section 2.6."

I've spoken with Middlesex and other town residents who marked their Yes-vote posts to be shared in neighboring Forums, and those posts have had that visibility to other forums turned off.

I'm very pleased to have met a large number of involved people from the work I've done writing about Vermont schools, and WCUUSD schools specifically, in the Times Argus, The Bridge and VTDigger. Open, respectful communication and shared facts are, I believe, a key part of a healthy community.

Please reach out if you'd like to brainstorm ways to share information with the town more broadly and in more depth. The Budget Committee has discussed topics it would like to share sooner and more widely, and to gather feedback on, and I've heard the same sentiment from a number of other committees, officials, and employees.

A two-post limit on Front Porch Forum, on an issue with an election 40 days away, isn't a constraint I'd want on anyone trying to participate in the town community.

You've provided no indication of how I am misrepresenting FPF, and have chosen not to answer any of my questions.

The email is not in my spam folder.

Given you haven't stated FPF's policies, even upon my asking, its rich that you're 1) accusing me of bullying FPF staff without evidence, 2) accusing me of misrepresenting policies.

If you've reviewed my previous communications, you'd see I asked for clarity on your policies to avoid further TOS issues. FPF has chosen not to clarify these, and so has forfeited any reasonable grounds for claiming I'm misrepresenting anything. FPF posts marked as discussion have been prevented from being visible to other communities, and "default" is not the behavior a reasonable person would associate with "checking a box".

I shall be following through on highlighting FPF's observationally biased approach to an election matter, and calling into question whether this particular behavior causes FPF to fall under Vermont's Political Action Committee definitions (uncoordinated spending of over $500).

Regards,

Matt

Editor's note, August 8, 2026: I now realize the definition of spending for election purposes that would trigger a PAC registration is not met here — Front Porch Forum's spending on moderation and publication happens regardless of whether the submissions are political.

I wanted to share the facts I've found that I think are relevant for the upcoming WCUUSD district ballot question, prompted by a petition of over 500 signatures from the community.

Our student's test scores have not kept up with neighboring districts, and have fallen in areas since the district was created. What we are doing today isn't working.

On top of that, class sizes have fallen, and per grade we have less than 100 kids in every elementary grade. Thats ~20 kids per grade per building TOTAL in elementary schools (and since our town populations aren't balanced, some schools have well above 20 kids per class and some have closer to 10). But we're spending more per student than we ever have.

Something has to change. Funding 2-3 elementary schools, rather than 5 is an option that needs to be on the table. If there is another option that could reasonably fix our failing system, I'm not sure why we haven't tried it already. Now is the time to be the savior that can help our kids and let every town keep its school. But again, without a fix for our communities children, all options ought to be on the table. It's the moral thing.

Please see https://middlesexgazette.org/opinion/august-11-vote-our-obligation-to-our-students/ for more data about our performance and benchmarking against the state and Montpelier Roxbury and more background that led up to the August 11th vote.

From my previous post, I had gone spelunking for public school outcomes and demographics data. In the interests of more transparency, encouraging curiosity and getting better engagement around how WCUUSD is performing, I put together: https://hungermountaini.com/schools/.

I know our students are not numbers -- but a lot of the discussion around closures and school configuration are driven by budget, and we're spending far more than our peers to get far less. Please take a look at the comparisons here, and I'll look to follow up with some narrative analysis as I have time to look more closely at the data and our most similar peers.

WCUUSD has one of the highest graduation rates in the state, but one of the lowest degree granting trade schools and college matriculation rates in the state. Why? And how are similar unified districts and supervisory unions doing compared to WCUUSD?

You can see what I found here: https://middlesexgazette.org/news/washington-central-schools/

I'll refer to Vermont's 2026 State Report Card, which states "[Vermont] is not yet consistently delivering strong and sustained outcomes for all students." and "that a majority of Vermont students are not yet meeting grade-level academic standards". (See https://vtdigger.org/2026/02/20/vermont-students-are-well-below-proficiency-goals-in-math-an[...]rt/ for more)

Thankfully, WCUUSD is still above Vermont averages -- but well below where it used to be compared to the rest of the state years ago. It's not all bad news. But when we're keeping more buildings than we need open, and starting to ferry students to different buildings for different elementary grades, and Vermont is still spending the third most per student nationally, behind only New York and Washington D.C., and we're losing ground compared to where we were five years ago, it might be time to try to put ourselves on a more sustainable path where our students are succeeding.

It would also be great if our WCUUSD school board was really focused on the data of student outcomes and how to improve every demographics performance, rather than whether or not they want to hold an election they are legally required to hold. I'm glad that is in the past -- but its one more sign of where our WCUUSD priorities have been.

I'm posting again about the Washington Central school district (WCUUSD) — its educational outcomes and its budget.

We face a choice: simple, defensible budget decisions as a district, or pretending that three elementary schools' worth of children warrant funding five. As we weigh that, we should all understand how Washington Central is actually doing.

Measured against Vermont, the district looks strong. Its English scores run seven to eleven points above the state average. It graduates 89% of its students, near the top of most state tables.

But Vermont has no statewide graduation requirements. And the state average has itself been slipping against the country for a decade. So "above the state average" is a moving benchmark with an unclear definition. Against the nation, the picture changes:

• On the common national test scale, the district's scores have fallen nearly a full grade level since 2013.
• Adjusted for the increasingly affluent community it serves, its national test standing is now average.
• College continuation, at 43%, trails the national rate by about nineteen points. And Vermont counts it on a more generous clock, so the real gap is wider.
• The district's old attendance advantage is gone: one student in four is now chronically absent, roughly the national rate. It has come down from its 2022 peak. But it is still about double the pre-pandemic rate, and the old margin below the state is nearly gone.
• Spending runs $30,402 per student — about $1.73 for every dollar the average American district spends. We are paying nearly 75% more than the national average to get average outcomes.

The one number that stays high is graduation: 89%, above a national bar the state misses. But that is the number we must question hardest, not celebrate. Vermont gives no proficiency exam in twelfth grade, so nothing tests what the diploma certifies. The nearest checkpoints sit far below it. On the state's own exams last year, 45% of the district's eighth-graders were proficient in math and 68% in English. Statewide, the figures are 37% and 60%. A district can graduate 89% of its students while fewer than half tested proficient in math years earlier. So is a WCUUSD diploma worth the paper it is printed on? Only 43% of our graduates go on to college — the lowest rate of any of our peer districts.

I encourage readers to ask former and current teachers what they have seen on grading and achievement. Ask about their conversations with administrators, too, and about how reachable the School Board is at all. Given the fall in our test scores on every metric, do we think the administrators and school board have done their jobs? Are they faithfully providing oversight of the $1.73 we spend for every $1 spent on education in other states?

Can we keep funding five elementary schools for 550 children — about a hundred per building, and fewer every year? We only have the students for three.

Full write-up, with sources and charts:
https://middlesexgazette.org/news/vermonts-yardstick-moved/

Similar statistics and commentary were published in the timesargus.com: https://www.timesargus.com/opinion/commentary/rkiouak-vermonts-school-yardstick-moved/articl[...]tml

During the WCUUSD Amendment vote discussion, at least two of the minority position School Board members that opposed scheduling the August 11th vote pointed to debt as an issue, and posted to Front Porch Forum to say as much (see for example: https://frontporchforum.com/middlesex/forum/archive/5724#post_3972479)

This viewpoint seems to rest upon missing information or a misunderstanding of maintenance and facilities lifecycle. Doty and Calais were built in 1959 and 1970 respectively. Calais was last renovated in 1990. There's no record of Doty ever having been renovated in the documents available publicly (only records of HVAC, windows, electric maintenance which the combined Washington Central district paid for) . Berlin's bond worked out to about $14,000 per student, Rumney's $19,000, East Montpelier's $37,000 — and the state's assessment already flags $13,600 to $14,900 per student at Calais and Doty over just the next ten years -- and thats NOT for a renovation, but merely replace-in-kind maintenance.

What this means is that the debt on WCUUSD's books for East Montpelier, Rumney & Berlin is money that will need to be spent in the near future for Doty and Calais. This is on top of Doty and Calais being ~15% more expensive to operate per student than the other 3 elementary schools when looking at maintenance and school office (principal and staff). There is no debt equity concern.

There's a larger write up from me at: https://middlesexgazette.org/news/washington-central-buildings/

Don't let the debt discussion distract from the balance of spending across buildings in the district, or our need to maintain school buildings of the proper size for our enrollment currently and in the future.

On August 11, Washington Central decides a simple question: when it comes to the district's schools, does every student get a voice — or can a small minority in one town control every student?

Right now it's the latter. This spring, votes in two towns — about 7% of the district's 8,300 registered voters — blocked school closures _recommended by our district's School Board_ for the entire district. The other 93% of us never got a meaningful say. A Yes vote fixes that: closure decisions that aim to save our children's education would be made the way every other district decision is made, by district-wide majority.

This matters because the district's resources are one pool, not five. Every town pays into the same budget, shares the same $7.33 million in debt, and shares the cost of keeping every building running and repaired. Decisions about those buildings are decisions about what's left over for teachers, programs, and students in all five towns. Decisions like that should belong to all of us.

Calais & Doty are the schools that are the most expensive to maintain, have the highest per student costs & and have been renovated the least. Without enough resources to fund every school fully, and with alternative elementary schools a short distance away, the board made a sound recommendation to close them. The 7% that voted against this provided no alternative plan to care for our students, and the entire district will suffer from the disruption our elementary children are experiencing now, as their outcomes echo into the higher grades.

A Yes vote also lets the school board we elected do its job — study the options, recommend the best use of our shared resources for the best student experiences and outcomes, and bring that recommendation to the whole district for an up-or-down vote. That's not a threat to any town. That's self-government.

I wrote about what the vote does and doesn't decide in the Middlesex Gazette: https://middlesexgazette.org/news/washington-central-what-the-vote-decides/

Vote Yes on August 11.

Matt Rkiouak
Middlesex

So You Want to Approve the Amendment to the WCUUSD Articles of Agreement?

If you think this Amendment is going to give you a voice in Administrative decisions like the Superintendent's recent decision to move students between Doty and Rumney, you are wrong. In fact, approving this Amendment gives you less of a voice in the affairs of your local school than you have right now. When the District Board decides to close a school, voters from all five towns will make the decision - NOT those most affected by the outcome.

From the FAQ posted by the WCUUSD Board of Directors - "This vote does not address, nor make any changes to the current model of configuration of schools and/or movement of students within the school buildings. That procedure is and has been determined by the district leadership teams, administration and the superintendent."

If you think this Amendment enlarges democracy in our district, you are wrong. This petition advocates a form of gerrymandering known as "cracking" described by the Brennan Center as a process which "splits groups of disfavored voters among multiple districts. With their electoral strength divided, cracked groups struggle to elect their preferred candidates in any of the districts because they are too small a share of the electorate to be effective."

Advocates cloak their desire for change in language which sounds very reasonable - they say everyone in a shared district should be able to vote on all decisions including those which will close a school.

Here is what they don't say:

Allowing all district voters to decide whether to close a town's school gives decision-making power to people whose property, taxes, and children will not be materially affected. Meanwhile, the communities that will bear the educational, financial, and social consequences lose the ability to determine their own future. That is not an expansion of democratic rights—it is the loss of local self-determination. It is profoundly anti-democratic, anti-representation, and anti-Vermont.

Make no mistake - the second part of this plan will be driven forward for Election Day in November and has already been voiced and walked back as "parking lot rumors" by at least one board member. The next step will be to force a vote to close Calais and Doty elementary schools. It is remarkably dishonest to claim that there is no intent to close schools. There is no reason to amend the Articles of Agreement in this way if that intent does not exist.

If your vision for the "unified" district depends on sacrificing Worcester and Calais children's schools while shielding your own children from the same loss and displacement from their communities - after Worcester and Calais have paid your $19 Million school bond payments for 6+ years – that is NOT equity, democracy, or shared sacrifice—it is inequity in its most human form.

Posted on behalf of [Calais resident 1] - Calais ((email address redacted))

Ever since the state forced our supervisory union to merge into a single school district in 2019, that district has been spitting out superintendents like watermelon seeds. This is not normal. It's not healthy. It signals that something is deeply wrong in our brave new consolidated world.

For some, the solution is forced consolidation of schools. On Aug. 11 we face yet another vote, this time to make it easier to close schools over the objections of the town where a targeted school is located.

I spent many hours of my life on the original articles of agreement, hours that I'll never get back. All of them were in open session, before the public, with representatives from all five of our towns. The basic idea behind the language that we painstakingly arrived at — and that some now want to ditch — was to salvage what we could of the principle of consent from its violation by the forced merger.

Consent. You know, that thing we try to teach our kids. "No" means No. Though we may be able to overpower a weaker party and have our way with them, there will always be consequences, often unforeseen and often very costly.

In some posts that argue for getting rid of consent I sense a breezy "time heals all wounds, they'll get over it" attitude. I wonder. Consider Montpelier. Some 50 years ago Montpelier and the five towns of our district were on the verge of getting together when for some reason the arrangement fell apart. There's hardly anyone alive anymore who can remember what the fuss was actually about. Yet the fallout from it so poisoned the well that two whole generations later any talk of joining forces has been doomed to fail, no matter how much sense it might make.

Instead, we in Washington Central have a nonsensical district with a big hole in the middle, and Montpelier has a nonsensical district with a remote exclave in Roxbury. How silly and pointless. But that's how such wounds bleed over time, even after half a century.

Let's please not go that route. It's too high a price to pay, especially for a bad idea. If we want to cut costs, lower taxes, and above all improve our children's educational experience, there are options far better than closing schools.

In the meantime, let "No" mean No.

[Calais resident 1] - Collar Hill Road, Calais

Here's a short story for all of us to consider. Way back when my mom was teaching 6th grade at Four Corners School in East Montpelier, I was home from college and she was talking about a kid in her class that year who was causing a lot of trouble and disruption. He was taking her attention away from everyone else and it was upsetting her. I asked with all the naïveté of an early 20-ish year old, "Why don't you see if you can trade him to one of the other 6th grade teachers down at the big school?" Her reply stuck with me for years and has informed how I view groups and group work - she said, "Because there is always a person (student) who makes trouble. If I get rid of this kid, someone else will take his place as a troublemaker. My job is to figure out a way to reduce the disruption by helping him fit in to the class that I have."

Shortly after that lesson, I learned that my solution created a classic scapegoat. A scapegoat is defined as "a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place."

Making the smallest schools in our district the scapegoat for the significant problems we face as a district is the easy answer. It relieves the Board and the Administration of the need to solve the very real issues present in our District. Closing those schools does nothing but create more complex trouble for everyone: - There are no cost savings by closing schools. Teachers and students will simply move elsewhere.

• Bussing children out of their communities adds more costs and liabilities that are both unknown and are not offset by benefits to the towns with shuttered schools.

• Calais & Worcester will suffer economically. Property values will fall as school-age families find homes closer to schools outside the district. Day cares will close and many other jobs will be lost as the towns' largest employer closes.

• Many families will opt for alternative education rather than subjecting their little ones to hour-long bus rides with middle schoolers - reducing the WCUUSD student population and further straining the budget.

The number of schools is not the problem.

• Our combined debt burden is the problem.

• A Board of Directors exclusively focused on a single, simple solution to a complex set of issues is the problem.

• A bloated Central Office Staff is the problem.

Why not tackle these issues as a unified group of towns, taxpayers, and voters? Wouldn't that be more sustainable?

Forcing small towns to sacrifice to the might of larger communities is divisive and mean. And like the wayward student my mother was dealing with, that sacrifice does nothing to reduce disruption and include the towns we have.

The path to unity, community and sustainability lies in sharing resources, diligent work, and shared sacrifice. It is not comfortable; it requires honesty and hard work - not platitudes and petitions.

Posted with permission of the author, [Calais resident 1]. For questions, comments or accolades please contact her at (email address redacted).

[Calais resident 3] • Calais

Thanks to [a district resident] for addressing the "elephant in the room" regarding this huge decision to change the rules regarding our Calais school. I was fortunate to be teaching in the early 70's in Vermont. My first Elementary job was in the small Mad River Valley schools, including a classic 2 room schoolhouse in East Warren where our neighbors, the next door cows, would stick their heads in the open windows as a distraction to the kids. One of the best schools ever. I ultimately moved to Waterbury Elementary with over 400 students, with all it's extended "services" and more opportunities. I can best describe that school as a "zoo."

One thing I've noticed as a teacher and then a coach for 20 years is how many parents move into a new community and want all the educational opportunities they had early on, an admirable goal. The other thing I have seen is ultimately these parents are not satisfied with the local small school education and they have the means to ship their kids off to Rice H.S. in Burlington or to a private school. In all likely hood many of the folks who want to change the rules after not winning will ultimately be sending their kids off for what they consider is a better school

So think of it voters. Some of the well meaning parents who want to change the rules to ultimately eliminate your Town school will never even see their kids graduate from U32 as they prep these kids for Harvard Law School or whatever their educational goal is. Goodness knows that Vermont needs more lawyers when you can't find a plumber or electrician and even your local painter is booked a year ahead. It's with sadness and humor to see the glossy ad campaign and now "free" food and a picnic to influence voters to vote Yes on Tuesday. I hope they learn that if you lose at horseshoes, you lose and you can't change the rules. Is that even legal?

Please think it over and take the time to VOTE NO. It should count this time!

Reply to the author: (email address redacted)