Search Results

There are two sources of public domain data that allow us to assess SAU39 Academic Proficiency: New Hampshire Department of Education (NH-DOE) Provides proficiency data associated with all NH Districts, Schools, and Grades NWEA Provides proficiency data and performance projections associated with the tens of thousands of NWEA subscriber Districts, Schools, and Grades across the US. Following is a summary of NH-DOE Reading (ELA) and Math Proficiency data … To better see the distribution of results, for Reading, 75% Proficient is ‘White’; for Math 60% Proficient is ‘White’, below Proficient results are shades of Red’, above Proficient results are shades of Green. Observations: Amherst SAU Elementary and Middle School Reading Proficiency results are significantly lower than most of their peers. Low measured Reading Proficiency performance has been the case since the 2016_17 school year. There is a clear Reading Proficiency issue exposed when SAU39 students move from Elementary to Middle School. Reading (ELA) Proficiency – SAU39 by School Type and School Name Observations: Within SAU39 Clark-Wilkins and AMS appear to have the lowest Reading Proficiency School Averages. MVVS performance has historically been higher. (Look at performance by Grade) Reading (ELA) Proficiency – SAU39 by Grade and School Name Observations: MVVS Reading Proficiency results have been trending down in Grades 3 and 4 over the last two years. MVVS Reading Proficiency results have been significantly outperforming AMS in Grades 5 and 6 over the last three years. AMS Reading Proficiency results in Grade 8 have been particularly low over the past 5 years. Math Proficiency – by Comparable SAUs / School Type Observations: Amherst SAU39 Middle and High School Math Proficiency is close to the lowest performer of its peers. Amherst Elementary School students test in the top 25% of thier peers. There seems to be something significant negative happening when students move to the Middle School. Math Proficiency – SAU39 by School Type and Name Observations: Both Amherst SAU39 Elementary School (MVVS and C-W) students test in the top 25% of thier peers. Again, there seems to be something significant negative happening when students move to the Middle School. Math Proficiency – SAU39 by Grade and School Name Observations: Math Proficiency testing issues seem to begin at AMS 5th Grade. Student Math instruction at SCHS has historically been unable to recover from earlier Proficiency deficits. NWEA Projections Observations: NWEA testing confirms the low NH-DOE test results we have historically seen in Grade 11 Math Proficiency Testing: Only about one third of today’s Amherst SAU Students will be ready to do college-level work in BOTH  Reading (ELA) and Math upon graduation from high school. About one third will not  be ready to do college-level work in EITHER  Reading (ELA) and Math upon graduation from high school.

Warrant articles paid for with unassigned fund balance have a tax impact.  They are paid for with tax dollars.  The warrant articles state that no NEW taxation is required.  The warrant articles do not state that no taxation is required.  Taxation IS required.  The school district has over-taxed you and is going to keep those tax dollars to pay for items in warrant articles funded with unassigned fund balance.  The voters can vote in favor of this, or they can vote against it.  Either way, tax dollars are being used to pay for the items in these warrant articles.  For those who think no taxes are required, the obvious question becomes, where do you think this money comes from?     When this over-taxation technically occurs is not the point.  Maybe in happens late in the prior calendar year.  Maybe it occurs very early in the current calendar year.  The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter.  You pick a year, and you stick with the same accounting method year after year, so that meaningful comparisons can be made between years.  This is a foundational principle of GAAP, or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.  It is known as the Principle of Consistency.  This is what the tax estimator does.  In designing the tax estimator, the choice was made to account for these warrant articles in this fashion.  When  the money is technically collected is irrelevant.  The important point is, these articles require tax dollars for funding.  The most accurate way to show this in a tax estimator is to present them in the same, consistent manner, year after year.  This is what the tax estimator does.    In terms of the design of the tax estimator, there are two ways to show the impact of these articles.  The first way is to show them having no tax impact when they pass, and a negative tax impact when they fail.  The other way is to show them having a positive tax impact when they pass, and no tax impact when they fail.  The end result is the same, as long as they are presented in the same, consistent way, year after year.  The tax estimator presents these articles as having a positive tax impact when they pass, and no tax impact when they fail.  This choice was made because this is what people experience as taxpayers.  Warrant articles that pass cost money.  Warrant articles that fail do not cost money.    Does the tax estimator accurately calculate your tax bill when the actual tax bill amount is known?  The answer is yes.  Look at the actual numbers for 2022 and 2023 in the tax estimator, and compare them to your 2022 and 2023 tax bills.  The tax estimator shows these warrant articles that passed as having a positive tax impact.  This is accurate because tax dollars needed to be raised to fund them.  The tax estimates for 2024 are presented in the same way as they were in 2022 and 2023.

Academic Proficiency There are two sources of public domain data that allow us to assess SAU39 Academic Proficiency: New Hampshire Department of Education (NH-DOE) Provides proficiency data associated with all NH Districts, Schools, and Grades NWEA Provides proficiency data and performance projections associated with the tens of thousands of NWEA subscriber Districts, Schools, and Grades across the US. Following is a summary of NH-DOE Reading (ELA) and Math Proficiency data … To better see the distribution of results, for Reading, 75% Proficient is ‘White’; for Math 60% Proficient is ‘White’, below Proficient results are shades of Red’, above Proficient results are shades of Green. Reading (ELA) Proficiency – by Comparable SAUs / School Type Observations: Amherst SAU Elementary and Middle School Reading Proficiency results are significantly lower than most of their peers. Low measured Reading Proficiency performance has been the case since the 2016_17 school year. There is a clear Reading Proficiency issue exposed when SAU39 students move from Elementary to Middle School. Reading (ELA) Proficiency – SAU39 by School Type and School Name Observations: Within SAU39 Clark-Wilkins and AMS appear to have the lowest Reading Proficiency School Averages. MVVS performance has historically been higher. (Look at performance by Grade) Reading (ELA) Proficiency – SAU39 by Grade and School Name Observations: MVVS Reading Proficiency results have been trending down in Grades 3 and 4 over the last two years. MVVS Reading Proficiency results have been significantly outperforming AMS in Grades 5 and 6 over the last three years. AMS Reading Proficiency results in Grade 8 have been particularly low over the past 5 years. Math Proficiency – by Comparable SAUs / School Type Observations: Amherst SAU39 Middle and High School Math Proficiency is close to the lowest performer of its peers. Amherst Elementary School students test in the top 25% of thier peers. There seems to be something significant negative happening when students move to the Middle School. Math Proficiency – SAU39 by School Type and Name Observations: Both Amherst SAU39 Elementary School (MVVS and C-W) students test in the top 25% of their peers. Again, there seems to be something significant negative happening when students move to the Middle School. Math Proficiency – SAU39 by Grade and School Name Observations: Math Proficiency testing issues seem to begin at AMS 5th Grade. Student Math instruction at SCHS has historically been unable to recover from earlier Proficiency deficits. NWEA Projections

School District Proposed Budgets Should NOT Exceed the Default Budget Calculation   In FY23 (school year 2022- 2023), the Amherst School District (ASD) was operating under a default budget.  While some may think that this must have been a financial hardship for the district, it was not.  In fact, ASD ended up with $791,175 more than it needed, even in a default budget year.    Add to this the $586,054 in excess revenue that the district collected, and you get a FY23 unassigned fund balance amount of $1,377,229.  From this, the district was then able to contribute $605,000 to its Maintenance Trust Fund.   The remaining $772,229 was used to reduce taxes.  In summary, in a recent default budget year, ASD was able to meet all of its needs during the school year, make a $605,000 contribution to something that wasn’t even in the budget, and return $772,229 to reduce future taxes.    How could this be?  And why did the ASD school board propose a budget in FY23 that was $495,831 larger than the default budget?  The district obviously didn’t need the extra money.      The short answer is that default budgets are not bare-bones budgets.  In fact, they are not technically budgets at all.  A default budget is a calculation, a formula, that spits out a dollar amount.  It’s this dollar amount that a district is limited to when a proposed budget fails.  The default budget calculation is not confined to what the district needs to get by.  This calculation is always larger than what the district actually needs (vacant positions are still included in the calculation, expensive teachers with expensive benefits retire and are replaced with less expensive teachers with less expensive benefits, etc.).  The end result is that even in a default budget year, a district often has plenty of money to meet its needs, to fund additional items that are outside of the budget (like trust funds), and to return unassigned fund balance to reduce taxes.    Let’s continue on to FY24 (school year 2023 – 2024), another default budget year in ASD.  Back-to-back default budgets must mean financial hardship for the district, right?  Wrong.  It turns out that ASD started its FY24 school year by purchasing most of the items that the school board had earmarked in its FY24 proposed budget; i.e. $20,000 for a Library Associate, $87,000 for technology, $92,000 for facilities, $51,000 for non-union salary and benefits, and $67,000 for school board services.  So even though ASD was again operating under a default budget, the school board was still able to purchase over 75% of the items earmarked in its proposed budget.  (As a side note, the $50,000 for the St. Anselm fellows was also purchased, but this money came from the Special Education Trust fund, not from the budget.)   When the FY24 school year ends, it will be interesting to see how much money is left over.  How much unassigned fund balance will there be?  $1,377,229?  How much money will there be this year that the district did not need? $791,175?  How much excess revenue will be collected this year?  $586,054?  Will the school board be able to contribute $780,000 to items that weren’t even in the budget ($675,000 to the Maintenance Trust fund, $75,000 to the Technology Trust fund, and $30,000 to the Vehicle Trust fund)?  Almost certainly.  Will there be a significant portion of unassigned fund balance returned to reduce taxes?  Almost certainly.    As of 2/5/24, ASD has estimated the FY24 fund balance to be $1,165,000.  If this is correct, the district will be able to contribute $780,000 to its trust funds, items that were not even in the default budget calculation.   The district will also be able to return $385,000 to reduce future taxes.  This is a lot of extra money to have available at the end of the school year, especially in a default budget year.                             The same line of thinking applies to the Souhegan Cooperative School District (SCSD); operating under the default budget calculation does not result in financial hardship for the district.  The default budget calculation in SCSD is calculated the same way as it is in ASD, which means that the SCSD school board can properly fund its needs and its reasonable wants by proposing budgets that are essentially equal to the default budget calculation.    For example, SCSD was operating under a default budget in FY23.  However, SCSD ended the year with $1,256,498 in unassigned fund balance.  $220,000 went to the Maintenance trust, $70,000 went to the Recreation Revolving Fund, $25,000 went to the Technology trust, and $941,498 was used to reduce future taxes.  This is a lot of money to have leftover at the end of the school year, especially in a default budget year.     The SCSD FY23 proposed budget was $501,708 larger than the default budget calculation.  This means that the entire proposed budget could have easily been funded at the default budget calculation amount, and still have money left over to fund all the trust funds, and to return some money to reduce taxes.      Knowing all of this, what can voters do?  It’s simple.  For the next few years, vote NO on any future proposed budgets that are larger than the default budget calculation.  This will flush out a lot of the excess that currently exists in the proposed budgets.  What can the school boards and administration do?  For the next few years, they should propose budgets that are at or below the default budget calculation amount.  This will allow more voters to support both the Amherst School District and the Souhegan Cooperative School District.

To be clear, all school buildings are assets of the community to be used for the purposes of providing public education.  We elect school boards to govern the school districts.  We want to and should trust school boards to make honest and reasonable decisions as to the best possible educational outcomes. The Joint Facilities Advisory Committee (i.e., JFAC) or Amherst Building and Grounds Subcommittee (i.e., B&G) has advised the Amherst School Board (i.e., ASB) to make yet a third request for the demolition of the Wilkins School and build a new Wilkins School.  However, JFAC and the ASB have refused to consider examining utilizing any available school space in the community.  In fact, both JFAC and ASB have vigorously shunned any suggestion to reconfigure the school districts by cooperating with Souhegan Cooperative School Board (i.e., SCSB) to expand the cooperative for both 7th and 8th grades.  This year, both JFAC or B&G and ASB are choosing again to dismiss the available space at the Souhegan Annex, claiming, “it has been discussed ad nauseum.”  The truth is that the Souhegan Annex has NEVER  been HONESTLY  evaluated for 7th & 8th grades.  In May 2020, the leadership of JFAC was determined to “…take the annex off the table…”  Is this fair to the entire community that JFAC and ASB ignore potentially available classroom space for 7th and 8th grades, so they can build a brand new large elementary school building? SCSB has demonstrated in September 2022 and September 2023, and the SAU39 administration acknowledges there is space.  SCSB acknowledges adding 7th/8th to the cooperative may require reconfiguration and changes to the curriculum and master schedule.  SCSB has a standing offer to ANY SAU39 school district to just ask, and they will work with them to determine how the new SCSD will look. Unfortunately, ASB will not consider the merits of realigning or reconfiguration the ASD as Kindergarten through 6th grade, which is the same as Mont Vernon.  Is it reasonable to reconfigure with a Lower Elementary School (1st through 3rd) which could be at the Wilkins School, and an Upper Elementary School (4th through 6th) which would be at the AMS site?  Could this be a responsible use of existing buildings?  Neighboring school boards, with very successful schools, have exercised good stewardship for their communities by honestly considering all reasonable options.  Is it time for the ASB and SCSB to consider holistic solutions for K through 12th grades? For the last 5 or so years, both JFAC and ASB insist on the NEW excessively large elementary school, relocating 5th grade down to a lower elementary.  Not only does this desire create a need for more space, it also creates a burden on the immediate community by creating more congestion within the Amherst Village.  Even more unfortunate, this unnecessary expanse will be levied on 100% of the taxpayers, even though approximately 75% to 80% of all residents DO NOT have children in any of the Amherst Schools. Is this fair to the entire community?

Over the last 6 years, the Amherst School Board (ASB) and the Joint Facilities Advisory Committee (JFAC) have been making a case to build one of the largest elementary school buildings in New Hampshire.  One of the arguments is that the current Wilkins School building is too crowded.  The decisions that have created this apparent overcrowding should be examined, such that it does not happen again.  But when it comes to needing space, most community members look to the Souhegan annex, knowing the Souhegan High School enrollments continue to decline.  So, a fair question is, “What about the annex?” It has been revealed recently, that in May 2020, JFAC decided to “…take the annex off the table…” for the use of 7th and 8th grades.  Despite the admonishment and plea of a committee member to consider all options, especially the annex, the committee chairperson plowed ahead to “take the annex off the table.” Regarding the “annex,” there has never been a formal study or evaluation.  Just opinions and excuses not to consider.  Some have decided the annex belongs to Souhegan.  Again, to be clear, all school buildings are assets of the community to be used for the purposes of providing public education.  We elect school boards to govern the school districts.  We want to and should trust school boards to make honest and reasonable decisions as to the best possible educational outcomes. Instead, ASB, JFAC, and their surrogates have mounted a campaign to flood social media with misrepresentations of the facts and hyperbole about the annex.  At the mention of the word “annex,” they seem to go berserk. Some have resorted to bullying tactics as well as disenfranchisement.  Some have resorted to personal attacks and cheap shots.  Is there something about the annex that they do not what the voters to know?  Again, where is the complete and formal study? There is a belief, of some, that if some taxpayers do not have children in the school district, then they should not care.  Yet, all taxpayers are responsible for the decisions of the few voters.  To be clear, all taxpayers should be voters.  Please do not let anyone discredit your opinion or vote.  Is it reasonable to vote for an initiative that has not been fully vetted?  Again, where is the complete and formal study? Now, there is an attack on an incumbent Souhegan Cooperative School Board (SCSB) member for suggesting that the “annex” and grade realignment should be considered.  This SCSB member is an incumbent and was running uncontested, but now the surrogates of a new elementary building are annoyed, and are mounting a write-in campaign of their candidate, who is a supporter of the new elementary school building for the Amherst School District (ASD).  Why? Because there is a desire to plow ahead and build, irrespective to the fact that there is no complete and formal study.  Seriously? Is this election all about the “annex?”  Should the approximately 75% of all residents who DO NOT have children in any of the Amherst Schools, and who do not agree with this “BIG ASK” continue to be bullied or disenfranchised?  Again, the decisions of the voters will have an impact on all taxpayers.  Remember, those who show up to vote get to decide.  On Tuesday, March 12, 2024, please go to the Souhegan High School gymnasium between 6:00AM and 8:00PM and exercise your right to vote.  And please bring a friend!

Once upon a time, Amherst School District Schools had academic outcomes that were the envy of other schools.  Now, not so much.  Observe the following table of the NH SAS performance of the Amherst School District since 2009. Observe the NH SAS performance of 8th grade students since 2008 in the following graph. This is shameful at best.  There are many reasons for this, and a lot of blame to go around. Has the ASB demonstrated they have the ability to own their missteps, focus on the real issues, be fair to the children, AND the entire community? Does the Amherst School Board, and its surrogates, deserve trust and has it earned the confidence of this community? No more excuses!   The “buck” stops with the ASB!

> Why is it that Hollis-Brookline Schools are not suffering from leaky roofs, inadequate Heating Cooling and ventilation and are not in a state of general disrepair? … AND their cost to educate kids is significantly less than ours?   I keep hearing from the ASD Board that our school building/s are at end-of-life; they need to be replaced… > Hollis School buildings are as old or older than the Amherst Schools we’re considering replacing… Hollis -Brookline Schools (SAU41) Amherst Schools (SAU39) Hollis-Brookline DID NOT replace old schools with new build versions , they upgraded (refurbished) their ‘old’ end-of-life schools to bring them up to current safety and operational levels.>> Why haven’t we done the same with our schools? ~30 % of our homes  in Amherst are older than the Wilkins School.   They’re not being replaced with new build versions, they are repaired and maintained as the need arises.   Why don’t we do the same with our schools? When I hear that roofs have been leaking for two+ years and there are buckets in the classrooms and halls, I ask the question, “Why wasn’t the roof repaired?”   “Why hasn’t the building been maintained?”   I don’t ask, “Why haven’t we replaced these shoddy buildings”. It’s clear we have done a poor job of maintaining our school buildings in the past. If the appropriate repairs had been done when the needs arose, we would not be having this ‘new build’ discussion today.   Let’s get some new quotes from companies that specialize in refurbishing and upgrading.   I’m not at all surprised that the quotes we received from the school architects favored building a new school.   That’s the business they are in. Let’s use the same logic, analysis and frugality on school repairs and upgrades that we use on our homes.   We must separate Needs from Desires and act as if the money we’re proposing spending also must pay for our food.   Moving forward, we need to conduct an honest evaluation of what needs to be done, and to truthfully cost the alternatives.  This will allow us to make an informed cost-driven decision.  If the work has been done, as we hear repeatedly on Facebook, show the voters a 10-year cash flow analysis of build vs. refurbish.  It doesn’t exit.

Despite the optimistic hopes that SAU39 enrollment will increase, the reality is that enrollments have been and are trending downward.  Observe the following table for enrollments, excluding pre-K, of the Amherst School District. Disclosures: Enrollments for Clark and Wilkins Schools prior to 2010 were reported to the NH DOE as separate.  Also, prior to 2010, there were about 75% of the 1st graders were kept at the Clark School.  The above chart takes that into consideration from 2010 to 2016. From 2008 to 2016, kindergarten was half-day.  From 2017 until the present, kindergarten is full-day requiring twice as many class rooms, teachers, and paras. Pre-kindergarten is ignored because it is not required by the NH statues. It should also be acknowledged that the Mont Vernon School District has begun exploring the feasibility to expand their school district and school to include their 7th and 8th grades.  This may also impact the tuition agreement of their approximately 70 students to the Amherst Middle School.  This has the potential to reduce the enrollment at the Amherst Middle School accordingly. The following charts are derived from the above table:

All Warrant Articles Should be Funded with New Taxation rather than with Unassigned Fund Balance   Voters are seeing numerous school district warrant articles that are being funded with unassigned fund balance.  Most of these articles are for contributions to trust funds for items related to maintenance, special education, technology, etc.  While it makes sense to have these trust funds in place and to properly fund them, the funds should be coming from new taxation, and not from unassigned fund balance.    Why?  Because a portion of the unassigned fund balance is derived from excess revenue.  Excess revenue is generated from over-taxation.  Because it is derived from over-taxation, excess revenue should be returned so that it can be used to reduce future taxes.  It should not be used for additional spending.  To properly explain this, it’s important to understand what unassigned fund balance is, and how it is derived.    Unassigned fund balance is the money that is left over at the end of the school year.  It is derived from two sources; expenditure savings (money that the district could have spent but chose not to spend), and from excess revenue (revenue that the district received that was above and beyond the budget).  Understanding that unassigned fund balance comes from two sources is important because the district is allowed to spend up to  the budget amount, but not beyond the budget.  However, because unassigned fund balance is derived partially from excess revenue, the district often has more unassigned fund balance than it is technically allowed to spend for that year .  As a result, the district can collect money that was intended for the current budget, and spend it on next year’s budget.       Why is funding these articles with new taxation better than funding them with unassigned fund balance?  There are three reasons.    First, it is a funding method that is more transparent, and easier to understand.  Remember, all of the items in these warrant articles are ultimately paid for via taxation, whether they are paid for with unassigned fund balance, or with new taxation. Here is the difference.  Paying for these with unassigned fund balance requires over-taxing the residents up-front.  The district then holds on to this money and uses it to fund items in the next fiscal year.  While it is perfectly legal to do this, it is very confusing to many residents. Furthermore, many residents often go along with supporting these articles simply because they require no new taxation in order to fund them.  But of course, no new taxes are required to fund them because taxpayers have already been overtaxed.  Conversely, if these articles are funded with new taxation, all of the unassigned fund balance would be returned to taxpayers (thus reducing the tax burden), and the tax burden would only be increased by the warrant articles that are passed.  This is more transparent, and easier for taxpayers to understand.    Second, and perhaps more importantly, the school districts would be discouraged from over-taxing the residents.  It would also prevent the school boards from labeling the funding source of these articles as “no new taxation required”.  Labeling a funding source as “no new taxation required” could be viewed as a marketing strategy.  “Let’s describe the unassigned fund balance as ‘surplus’, and then design the funding structure in such a way that taxpayers won’t have to pay anything extra (because they’ve already paid for it.”)  Again, the current funding method of using unassigned fund balance is perfectly legal.  However, it can be viewed as a marketing scheme, as a way to garner support for these warrant articles, and to make them more palatable for voters to support.    Third, districts are only allowed to spend up to the budget amount.  By funding these articles with unassigned fund balance however, the districts are allowed to spend every penny of the budget, and to spend additional money for next year’s budget as well.  In other words, the district could have zero expenditure savings at the end of the year (every penny of the budget was spent), and then spend more money for next year from the excess revenue balance.  Again, perfectly legal, but not obvious and transparent to taxpayers.  Conversely, by funding these articles with new taxation, the district would return any unassigned fund balance to reduce taxes (in this case solely from excess revenue), and any trust fund warrant articles would be funded with new taxation.  Again, this is more transparent, and it is easier for taxpayers to understand.    The result of changing the funding of these articles from unassigned fund balance to new taxation would be that it would incentivize districts to properly budget for revenue.    Furthermore, it would be a harder sell to fund the trust funds because these articles would be funded with new taxation.  Funding these articles using unassigned fund balance encourages the districts to ask for more tax revenue than they need, which generates a large unassigned fund balance at the end of the year.  Then they can market the trust funds as being funded with no new taxation, which sounds a lot better than having the trust funds funded with new taxation.  Either way, the residents are funding them with their taxpayer dollars.  The difference is, the voters can better understand where the money comes from, and how their tax dollars are being spent.    Perhaps more of these articles will be voted down by asking voters to fund them with new taxation rather than with unassigned fund balance.  That’s OK.  It’s better than putting a marketing spin on these articles as a way to garner support for them.  It’s also better to make the funding of these articles as clear and transparent as possible for taxpayers.  It may also encourage the school boards to propose more reasonable operating budgets, as a way to reduce the overall tax burden on the warrant.

The continued failure of Amherst School Board (ASB) to seriously encourage a strategic plan and proven instructional methodologies for better educational outcomes should certainly be a major concern.  However, over the last 8 years, the ASB has: Expanded to full-day kindergarten without the support of the voters and without contemplating or sharing the future impact on space, resources, and cost, and against the will of the voters. Expanded to Prekindergarten without the support of the voters and without sharing the future impact on space, resources, and cost. Expanded special services without the support of the voters and without sharing the future impact on space, resources, and cost. Now, ASB has decided to reconfigure grade 5, physically relocating grade 5 down from the Amherst Middle School to the Wilkins Elementary School. o   This decision is part of the basis for building a brand-new school building. o   Ironically, the ASB will not consider reconfiguring the Amherst School District as a grade 1 through grade 6 school district, which is the same as the Mont Vernon School District (MVSD), and having grades 7 & 8 absorbed into the Souhegan Cooperative School District (SCSD). Does the ASB seems to create problems, then demand that ALL Amherst taxpayers contribute to support these decisions and never question? Should the communities formally consider the merits of the Souhegan Cooperative School District expanding to include grades 7 & 8 physically into the Souhegan Annex? Is there a greater benefit to the entire community regarding space, resources, and cost?