Other discussion? Yes, member Deniv. >> I'm a little personally disheartened that the public didn't come to discuss this because I received a number of emails um and I had another number of discussions with constituents about this and I've been on this vote twice before and I would not like to restrict it because these are small numbers of kids. This isn't a large population that's going to this virtual school. And every parent that I've talked to said that their child needed that school for some particular extraneous reason. And that that school was a stepping stone to them re-entering public school and doing a better job because of it. So, what I've heard is that it is needed for whatever reason and it's not taken lightly. People don't just do it because they feel like it. It's definitely a choice that people have made. I've never talked to anybody who's who's made the choice um lightly.
So, if this was a large number of kids, I would feel differently. But it's always been small. It's always been small. It's always been, you know, under 20. So, I will not be voting to restrict it. I think it's a necessary an important thing. And I think that one thing that we really forget about when we talk about school choice is that those school choice parents are GPS parents. The parents at Four Rivers are GPS parents. Those families have multiple children who are in our elementary schools and also in our middle schools. Some of those siblings go to Four Rivers and some do not. Some go to the virtual school and some do not. So if we're thinking about about like how could these you know people take their kids somewhere else which often kind of comes up like they're also using our schools. So this is just another pathway for them.
And I think that we should always view it as innovation, as a way to interact with these families and bring them back around and create programs where they will come back to us and interact with us. So, I'm going to say no restriction. All right. I've got member Goodwin and then member Charles. So, I'm against restriction because I don't think we can restrict virtual school unless we can restrict every other choice. I think when choice came to Massachusetts, choice came and the virtual school is just another choice. And really, it's close to my heart because we gave birth to it and we made a lot of money off of it. And I was here when that happened. And I remember the children of Greenfield who benefited from the virtual school. Um, and they really needed that kind of a opportunity. Um, and as somebody who's been looking at chapter 70 and financing and everything else and and choice and how it's sort of financially becoming a problem for our state, um, I'm following Vermont who is getting rid of choice and saying it's fine wherever you want to go, but you're just going to have to pay for it.
So, I think there's a lot of conversation about choice going on across um the states. So, yes, we're going into budget season and maybe that's another thing for Senator Kifford um because it's coming out of their offices too as well. So, um and I'm reading about that. Um, and Vermont is has just kind of said no to this choice because public schools are losing financial the financial impact on public schools is detrimental to all children. That is where they are at. So I will be voting not to cap it. I don't think we can cap anything. member child and then I would like to take a moment. >> Something that makes me uncomfortable is that we don't have other schools that people choice out of Greenfield into that we are putting a cap on. And it just doesn't sit right with me that the school that accommodates uh people who have very specific needs for accommodation would be the one that we cap.
Um I mean I get it. It's it's hard when we lose even one kid because that is so much money that walks out the door. But I I think rather than cap it, I would rather try to talk to these families that are leaving for the virtual school and see is there a way we can accommodate your family? Is there a way we can work with you? I would rather win people back that way rather than force them back with a cap. Yeah. Um I I hear I hear these that you're saying. Um when the students who are already enrolled, they're not being forced back. We can't force the back force them back. They get to continue in their trajectory. Um and I would say that like really this this doesn't have I I don't see that we've had a whole lot of clamoring. The the enrollment that we've sent to the virtual school has actually decreased in recent years.
I will say that of the seven past fiscal years, five of them we did send 20 or more students. So, so there is that there have been more than 20 students on many occasions. Um my I guess I'm also wondering and I don't know Roland if you have this data broken out in this way but one of the questions was or one of the points raised was students using the virtual school for maybe a year or two and then reenrolling in green field but I don't know if we have that information. Do we do >> no these numbers just indicate the number who have attended that fiscal year. >> Yeah. >> So as you've mentioned any of those students who are there um depending on which way you vote right would not be nobody would be kicked out of there are two virtual schools in the state.
So this is not just one this there are two. This is the combination of all those stu all of the students attending either one or the other >> in that sense. And um obviously depending if you did vote to restrict 1% that number would be 12 just for your information. So, for example, if I'm making this up, seven, if 10 kids graduated this year and the number went to seven, five would still have an opportunity to go in up to that 12, you know, and the and the reason you mentioned we don't have opportunity with school choice to limit because we don't because the state didn't give it to us, but the state gave you is or is giving you right the opportunity to do that here >> because they know that that they know that there's certain number restrictions, etc. And you saw the the numbers I sent you.
Um, school choice when our money f our money follows right students to other districts that's $5,000 per student. For the virtual schools, it's $13,366 per student. >> Sure. So way back when the virtual school started in Greenfield, we had um I think of many of the students who accessed virtual school, we were struggling um with them being within the walls of a school and without virtual school, we would have ended up paying maybe $100,000 for out of district placement. Um we were struggling with behaviors. we were struggling with how to really work with the children and the families. So I think there is no one right school for a child whether it's virtual whether it's charter whether it's the center school or all we can do is make ourselves as flexible. It does what bothered me about what happened is we lost the virtual school.
we created something and we created a charter within our public schools basically and you know we lost it because we did such a good job at it and the state was ticked off that we did a good job at it. Um, but I don't think, you know, if if tomorrow the state said you could go ahead and create a charter school within your public schools and we would we would be sitting down looking at technology again. Um, but I don't think we can say no. We can't say no to wanting to go to whatever type of school anybody wants to go to. The issue is that our public money follows them. Um, and I I just I really I'm I was a principle of choice. And I would say right now choice didn't do what it was supposed to do. Um, which was to make things better um through knowledge, innovation, competition.
Um, all it's done is leave the public schools hurting. I really feel that now. I mean, here I am 30 years later. But I don't think we should be capping this because first of all, Greenfield Public Schools created it and it benefited our students and I still value what it brought to Greenfield. Um, I am was appalled when the state took it away from us. because we were just getting rolling. Um but again, financially that hurt us a lot um to lose those funds, to lose those students. So we've we've we lost ELT, we've lost a lot of funding um for different reasons. So I think the state needs to, you know, consider that. So it's another picket sign thing. >> All right. I saw the mayor's hand. And then I also wanted to just acknowledge that the last time this was brought up, member Dyman asked for some of the specific information.
So I want to give you an opportunity if you had further questions or want to weigh in on the discussion as well. Um, but All right, mayor first and then >> um so I just wanted to say when I asked about this early before I ever knew that we were going to have a vote on this um we talked like this is what I actually was thinking about was that the discussion was about that some people were doing this to for to accommodate sports schedule like to be on a ski team etc. I'm as sympathetic as the next person is. If your if my child needed that, needed to be in um a school because they were bullied at school, etc., etc. I'm delighted that there would be a place for them to be, but I did hear about people making a decision. I think that you had brought that up um superintendent as people >> that and I I think we are going to have choices to make.
I would want everybody to have a school that was the best thing for their child. Um and it it it seemed along the line of an a recent vote that we' taken about um doing the meals for the charter school. I think we have to educate. Yes, we're obligated to educate everybody who's here, everybody that lives here in Greenfield, but maybe that that was being looked at closely, the rationale for why those students were going. That's all. >> Member Dyman. Yeah, my question last time was really about um the criteria for uh acceptance to the virtual school. Uh and I and looking at the website, I'm sorry, I I wasn't able to really find the information I was looking for on that. Was anybody else able to find that information or do we have any inform more information about well, you know, what criteria does a student have to meet to be accepted to that school?
I do not have that information. Superintendent Joyel is shaking his head, so I don't think he has any additional information. My assumption is that they just apply. That it's not like a It's not a school that you have to meet a certain threshold of need or that you have to have these specific accommodation requests to get the school. That's not what it's for. more like any it's it's again just another school of choice that people can choose to enroll in if they'd like. Um assuming that their home district did not place a cap or they're below the threshold for the cap. >> Um are we ready to vote on this? >> Um just point of information there's a there's a there is a cap though. There's a standard cap, right? Can you remind me what that cap is? Two is it 2%? >> Yeah. >> Yep.
And how many for us? So if if one% is 12, 2% is 24. >> So we could only we could only enroll up >> stateide. >> Okay. 2% state. >> 2% statewide. But no. >> Yeah. >> Like is 11% right. Florida's 2.9, Province Town two. So there are many over two. So it's a 2% statewide cap, not a >> 2% per district cap. Right. >> And also just reminding this is a vote that we are required to take annually. So we'll be coming back. When we exceed a certain number, we're required to take that vote. So some years you may not exceed the number, you may not vote, but other years you have to vote one way or the other. >> Yep. We've Yes, you have exceeded the 1% 1% threshold. Therefore, you have to vote and we just have to let the state know what you're going to do.
>> Yeah. And we do have to vote tonight because the deadline is prior to our next meeting. >> Okay. Any other any other pieces of information that you would like at this time or or would like to ask about member Diamond? I I would like to propose the idea of setting a cap that is not 1%. I would like to propose setting a cap that is approximately at the level that we are currently serving. Um, so if if we currently have uh what what was it 17 students from Greenfield uh you know what percentage of if that was is that of our total um >> you see what I'm getting at >> like one and a half or one and something one and three quarters. >> I'm sorry to interrupt you but it's in there 1.32. >> Yeah. maybe set it at 1.5 so that you know there's there's some wiggle room, but we're still meeting the current need.
I'm I'm amendable to any other percentage that folks would like to uh I'm seeing some affirmative signs from the second from disorder as well. >> I I like member Dman's idea. I think that's reasonable. >> Okay. So, new motion on the table is to restrict enrollment at 1.5%. And I get the sense just based on some of the arguments that people were making that that won't change their vote. Um, but member Webb, do you have a comment? >> Yeah, I think for myself to change the vote, I'd want to make sure that there was wiggle room within that 1.5% that if we did have two or students in Greenfield this year who wanted to join that it was accessible to them. >> Do we have an approximate how many kids does that actually represent that increase >> 2.28%. >> 17 equals 1.32. >> And so if we had 1.5 is that another one kid two kids >> who's our mathematician here.
So because it would take if you subtracted five students, right? You get to 12, get to the one, right? >> So you're So 12. So you're right. At about every six, you're at a half. You're under that threshold. The seventh pushes you over. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Was it was it wasn't this were we talking didn't this come up that some people were doing this to accommodate travel or being on a ski team? >> That was I think a hypothetical or theoretical example. I'm >> I'm not sure if we do know currently. I mean, I'm sure that some of us might know individually, but I don't know if we know as a group who these kids are, why they are, etc., etc. I don't know if we have that data, and we certainly don't have it right now, which is when we would need it to have it be part of this discussion.
Um, are we I I get the sense. Are we ready to call the question? I'm Let's call the question. Okay, will you please call the a motion on enrollment of Greenfield public school students in the comment of Massachusetts Massachusetts first school and then proposed a 1.5% cap Um, sorry. Before we vote, can I clarify the numbers here? Because by my um by my math, if we have 20 students, that would be an increase of three um divided by 1343. That would be under 1.5. >> 1285. What wise? >> If we if we added three more >> say more say more about the denominator you're using >> the number in the sheet I gave you the numbers. Yeah. that we're talking it's >> 1,285 students. >> Oh, >> my understanding would be that I I'm guessing that they generally don't count prek >> in here. >> I see.
Okay, that's the number we need to work with. Thank you. Okay, so if we had 20 students at >> that would push you over. 19 keeps you under. >> Yeah. So I I would be happy to cap it at 2% then. You know, I I I just think that there should be some limit considering what we're what we're facing uh fiscally. Can can we amend the motion to to vote on it at 2% please? >> Would anyone second that? >> Technically, we have called the question that is like we're already giving little grace for allowing this discussion. if we're being sticklers for Robert's rules about it. Um, me personally, like I still don't think just based on the way people were talking, I still don't think that's going to change how a lot of people are voting. But I am I am amendable to amending the motion to a 2%.
>> We could we >> That's why that's >> we could Okay. Um. >> Um. All right. We've called the question. Let's call the role. >> Member Dyman. >> Yes. >> Member Goodwin. >> No. >> Chair Ston. >> Yes. >> Member Webb, I'm a no. Vice Chair Childs, >> no. >> Member Dene, >> no. >> Mayor Dorger, >> yes. All right. The motion fails with four nos, three eyes. So we will not be we will not be capping virtual school enrollment >> for this year assuming assuming that the numbers are similar next year we'll be here again. >> May I just say one thing that perhaps we should be looking at that at another juncture because that was what swayed me to look at the criteria if anybody needed to be there but a choice for travel or a a sports. I would feel different about that.