A Civic Duty for Our Community

We owe our community more than case-by-case firefighting. A systems-focused approach lets us see the whole picture — where time is lost, where students are mismatched, and where staff are stretched thin. Integrating educational and behavioral grouping, and examining feedback loops across our system, is the fairest and most data-honest way to serve every learner, protect teachers’ capacity, and steward public dollars.

This proposal is not a finished product — it is a base analysis, a starting point. South Burlington’s students are struggling to keep pace academically and socially, while costs continue to rise at an unsustainable rate. Even with the best curricula and dedicated staff, the current case-by-case firefighting model has proven inefficient and inequitable. Without systemic redesign, inequities will deepen, resources will continue to be misallocated, and outcomes will stagnate.

As taxpayers and community members, your input is critical. Constructive suggestions can improve and refine this model. You are the stakeholders whose investment sustains our schools, and your perspective helps ensure that strategies align with both fiscal responsibility and the values of fairness and equity that South Burlington holds dear.

This is not just a technical issue — it is a community issue. Leadership structures and political biases have too often left us reacting piecemeal, with entitlement and inertia blocking bold change. It will not resolve itself on its own. It will take the collective voice of the community, including the taxpayers who support our schools, to demand a systems-focused approach that addresses root causes, prevents exclusion, and ensures every child has access to real learning and safety.

We invite you — the South Burlington community — to add your voice, your perspective, and your constructive ideas. Only by building this together can we create a sustainable, equitable future for our students.

South Burlington—and districts everywhere—face a profound post‑pandemic challenge: classrooms with unprecedented readiness spreads and diverse behavioral regulation needs. Treating issues one incident at a time is no longer viable. This report integrates educational grouping (grade‑level clusters with fluid regrouping) and behavioral grouping (in‑class regulation groups and zone routines) into a single systems model. The aim is simple: protect minutes that matter, stabilize behavior through clear structures, and use staff time where it moves outcomes.

Executive Aims

• Improve academic learning time (ALT) and mastery across the spectrum of learners.

• Reduce disruptions through predictable, zone‑based routines and fluid behavioral groupings.

• Reallocate paraprofessional and specialist minutes away from 1:1 “firefighting” toward scalable prevention and instruction.

• Deliver measurable savings while increasing effectiveness—better and cheaper, not either/or.

One System, Two Groupings—How They Reinforce Each Other

Educational grouping (grade‑level clusters): Grade teams share ELA/Math blocks and regroup students into narrower readiness bands with movement every 4–6 weeks. Teachers deliver more on‑level instruction; paras support clusters, not scattered micro‑groups. The result is higher Academic Learning Time (ALT) and lower prep/transition loss.

Behavioral grouping (in‑class regulation groups + classroom zones): Students are grouped by behavioral readiness (independent, check‑in, structured). Classrooms use quiet/collaboration/regulation zones with short scripts for pre‑briefs and re‑entry. Paras rotate support across groups; specialists coach skills rather than sit in 1:1 comfort roles.

Crossover effects: When behavior is stabilized by routines and fluid grouping, academic clusters realize their full benefit (fewer interruptions, more teach time). When academics are right‑sized, frustration and off‑task behavior drop—reducing demand for behavioral firefighting. The two groupings form a positive loop.

Positive Feedback Loop (Integrated Model)

• Right‑fit academic groups → fewer redirections → more ALT → visible growth → higher engagement.

• Clear behavior groups & zones → fewer disruptions → smoother transitions → steadier attention.

• Paras rotate where impact is highest → specialists coach skills, not perpetual 1:1 proximity.

• Data every 6 weeks → fluid mobility in both academics and behavior → equity through access and opportunity.

Key Operating Metrics (Track Monthly)

ALT (min/block): On‑level engaged minutes per 60‑min core block; target ~46–48.

DM100: Disruption minutes per 100 student‑hours; target 30–50% reduction in 60 days.

Heterogeneity Index: Spread of readiness in each block; target to narrow within cluster bounds.

Mobility Rate: Percentage of students moving groups based on growth every 4–6 weeks; target healthy two‑way movement.

Para Allocation Efficiency: Student‑minutes served per para‑minute; should increase as rotation replaces 1:1 shadowing.

Incident‑by‑Zone Rate: Incidents per 1,000 student‑hours by zone; should decrease steadily month over month.

Integrated Cost Model: Instruction + Behavior

Instructional grouping (K–5): Approximately 27 two‑class teams shift from 1.5 to 1.0 para FTE each, saving about 14 FTEs overall. This translates to $516k–$612k in annual savings (assuming $37.5k–$45k loaded cost per FTE). ALT gains are roughly +66,000 hours/year, equivalent to 370 full school days of engaged learning.

Behavioral grouping (K–5 illustrative): Replacing 3.0 FTE of perpetual 1:1/comfort coverage at a grade span with 2.0 FTE zone supervisors plus 0.5 FTE behavior coach redeploys 0.5 FTE per grade span while improving coverage and building skills. Across K–5, this yields about 3.0 FTE regained capacity—roughly $113k–$135k in labor value (at $37.5k–$45k per FTE). Similar efficiencies can be achieved at the middle school for passing periods and lunch blocks.

Implementation Blueprint (90 Days)

Weeks 1–2: Master scheduling and mapping—align ELA/Math blocks per grade; draw classroom zone maps; set density caps; assign primary/backup staff; choose two universal routines (30‑second pre‑brief and 15‑second re‑entry). Launch a near‑miss/time‑loss micro‑form.

Weeks 3–6: Launch clusters and regulation groups—begin grade‑level academic clustering and in‑class regulation groups. Reassign paras to cluster blocks. Start skill groups twice a week led by a behavior specialist. Track ALT and DM100 in sample classrooms.

Weeks 7–10: First regrouping—adjust academic clusters and behavior groups based on artifacts, quick probes, and classroom observations. Tune hallway/lunch/recess flows (staggered release, queue markers). Fade any 1:1 plans to time‑bound check‑ins with exit criteria.

Weeks 11–12: Review and scale—publish KPIs (ALT ↑, DM100 ↓, incident‑by‑zone ↓, mobility ↑). Plan scale‑up to more grades, subjects, and periods.

A Civic Duty to Our Students and Staff

We owe our community more than case‑by‑case firefighting. A systems‑focused approach lets us see the whole picture—where time is lost, where students are mismatched, and where staff are stretched thin. Integrating educational and behavioral grouping is the fairest, most data‑honest way to serve every learner, protect teachers’ capacity, and steward public dollars

This is not a call to cut support. It is a call to aim support where it works: prevention over reaction, structures over exceptions, mobility over labels. With clear routines, fluid groups, and transparent metrics, South Burlington can set a statewide example of how to recover learning, stabilize behavior, and save money at the same time.

1.Systems Analysis: Library Book Removal Policies

As a system thinker, I analyzed the process of removing library books based on categorical criteria tied to diversity and inclusion language. While the intention is to align collections with community values, a regression of outcomes shows that reactive book removals can unintentionally produce negative feedback loops, inflate costs, and reduce student access to meaningful literature. This document applies systems thinking to library policy to show how a preventive, transparent approach yields better results for equity, fiscal stewardship, and student outcomes.

The Firefighting Model (Reactive Book Removal)

Current pattern in many districts: a book is challenged for not aligning with diversity or inclusion standards, and it is removed in response. While this may appear to resolve an immediate concern, the systemic effect is destabilizing:

• Complaint/challenge → Book removed.
• Gaps in content and cultural/literary range emerge.
• Students lose access to valuable material.
• Pressure rises to find replacements quickly.
• Costs increase, staff time is consumed, and literary value of replacements may be untested.
• New gaps and controversies emerge.

The result is a cycle of reactive removals, unplanned purchases, narrowing cultural exposure, and repeated controversy.

Systemic Shortfalls of Reactive Removal

• Equity in name, exclusion in practice: Removing non-compliant books reduces the breadth of voices and ideas, which paradoxically narrows inclusion.
• Hidden costs: Staff time for review committees, accelerated purchases, professional development, and lost instructional continuity.
• Disruption: Classrooms and libraries lose resources mid-year, forcing rushed adaptation.
• Trust erosion: Students and parents perceive censorship, while advocates of inclusion question whether changes are effective or symbolic.

Preventive Systems Approach (Group-Level Safeguards)

A systems-based strategy avoids case-by-case firefighting and establishes predictable, transparent processes:

• Transparent rubric for book selection/review based on diversity, age appropriateness, literacy value, and curricular alignment.
• Scheduled review cycles (annual/biannual) instead of reactive removals.
• Inclusive curation panels (teachers, librarians, parents, students) to make decisions together.
• Pilot/rotation model: test supplemental titles before full replacement.
• Equity framing: Inclusion is about broadening the range of voices, not erasing established works unless demonstrably harmful.

Positive feedback loop: Clear rubric + review cycle → Transparent, trusted process → Fewer ad hoc challenges → Stable library system → Wider range of resources.

Cost Loop Analysis

Firefighting Model (Reactive Removal):
• Books removed mid-year.
• Emergency purchases of replacements at premium cost.
• Staff time consumed by emergency review and adaptation.
• Professional development to adjust.
• Instructional continuity lost.
• Student engagement declines if replacements are weaker.

Cost trajectory: unpredictable spikes, repeated replacement churn.

Preventive Systematic Model:
• Budget set for regular review/refresh cycle.
• Bulk procurement of vetted titles.
• Avoid wasted purchases by piloting titles.
• Save staff time by reducing emergency adaptation.
• Stable curriculum/library planning.

Cost trajectory: predictable, stable, with higher ROI per dollar spent.

Impacts on Student Outcomes

Reactive removal narrows literary exposure, disrupts classrooms, and undermines trust. A systemic inclusion model expands access, preserves intellectual rigor, and respects both diversity and literacy value. Just as with curriculum and grouping, library collections need structure: Curriculum × Structure = Outcomes.

A Civic Duty for South Burlington

Library policy is not a side issue—it is a systemic one. Without systemic design, South Burlington risks wasting taxpayer funds, shrinking educational breadth, and fueling cycles of controversy. A systems-focused strategy:

• Protects equity by broadening access, not censoring.
• Protects fiscal responsibility by avoiding reactive churn.
• Protects trust by involving community voices in transparent processes.

Without such structure, so-called 'inclusionary' removals risk becoming exclusionary in practice. As with academic and behavioral grouping, South Burlington has the civic duty to adopt a systems approach that ensures sustainability, equity, and accountability in its library collections.