To the Editor:

On Aug. 16 and Aug. 30 The Journal published editorials pushing consolidation of Bennington Valley Supervisory Union with Bennington Rutland Supervisory Union. These editorials were based on the premise that bigger is more efficient and thus cheaper, and any downsides can be made to work. We disagree.

Mergers can be good or bad depending on the circumstances, and size is not the only factor that affects the outcome. BRSU voluntarily expanded recently by adding the Mountain Towns RED and Winhall. That consolidation is working well, perhaps because those involved are willing partners with common interests.

When the Mountain Towns RED and Winhall joined BRSU there was a complete cost analysis done. That was not the case for the proposed merger with BVSU.

An analysis showed BVSU's savings if it merged with a larger supervisory union but did not consider the impacts on the BRSU.

The limited information available showed that costs to all current BRSU districts would have increased upon merger with BVSU and that was without considering the probable need for more BRSU office space. Bigger was not going to be cheaper in this case.

Also, bigger was not going to be better for BRSU students. The integration of another supervisory union into the BRSU would have decreased efficiency at a time when we are implementing innovative changes in order to provide personalized learning for each student.

Sue Ceglowski

Chair BRSU Board

Wendell Coleman

Vice Chair

Mountain Towns RED Board


If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.

Powered by Creative Circle Media Solutions