What’s Different

As you know, we’ve had facility conversations over the past two years. This is something new.

Under the current split‑attendance model, children’s experiences vary greatly depending on where they live; some classrooms are crowded while others are small, and access to specialized staff or enrichment opportunities can be uneven. Equity demands that all children begin school with the same opportunities for learning and support. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) notes that every child has a right to equitable learning opportunities and that early‑childhood educators have a professional obligation to advance equity. Equitable early‑learning programs build on each child’s unique strengths and aim to eliminate differences in outcomes based on where children live or what resources their families have. A unified grade‑alignment model would allow the district to balance class sizes and resources across buildings, ensuring that all students begin their schooling under similar conditions.

The social and emotional experience of young children is equally important. Research on preschool and early elementary programs shows that when first school experiences are filled with affirming and supportive relationships, children are more likely to view school positively and trust their teachers (Brey, Nishioka, & Speth, 2024). High‑quality early‑learning programs prioritize social and emotional learning (SEL) and ensure that every child experiences a sense of belonging, joy and emotional support. Teachers’ warmth and encouragement help children feel safe and ready to learn, and positive relationships with teachers and peers nurture communication, problem‑solving and self‑regulation skills. Purposefully grouping children with peers from different backgrounds fosters a classroom climate that is warm, welcoming and inclusive.

Strong peer relationships contribute to both academic success and well‑being. Studies of primary‑school students have found that peer experiences are an important part of the school context; positive peer relationships contribute to school enjoyment, academic achievement and overall wellness (Țepordei, Zancu, Diaconu‑Gherasim, Crumpei‑Tanasă, & Măirean, 2023). These benefits arise from peers offering instrumental support (such as help with tasks and inclusion in activities) and affective support (meeting children’s psychological needs for affiliation and security). Organizing schools so that early cohorts stay together helps nurture these peer networks, giving children protection from loneliness and a stable base of friendships on which to build their learning.

Reconfiguring grade levels can also improve the environment for teachers, which ultimately benefits students. Research on teacher collaboration suggests that when teachers who teach the same grades are located near one another and share similar schedules, they are more likely to collaborate, share strategies and take collective responsibility for student success (Harper, 2018). Strong collaborative environments, characterized by high trust and frequent interaction, have been associated with improved student achievement (Harper, 2018). A unified K–3 school and a 4–5 school would bring grade‑level teams together under one roof, making it easier for teachers to plan collectively, analyze student data and support one another.

Simply put, this grade‑alignment scenario seeks to provide every child with an equitable start, nurture strong and lasting relationships among students and teachers, and create the conditions, stable cohorts, balanced resources, and collaborative teaching, known to promote both academic success and social‑emotional well‑being. It is one way to break down geographic divides, foster a sense of belonging across the district, and ensure that all students, regardless of their address, have access to the same high‑quality learning experiences from their earliest years.

Grade alignment addresses educational programming and student experience. In the grade‑alignment scenario being explored, administrators would reorganize where grade levels are housed (e.g., placing all K–3 students at Tilford and all 4–5 students at Shellsburg). Grade‑level organization is a matter of instructional and administrative design; it refers to how a district groups grades to deliver programs and manage teaching staff. There is no single “best” configuration; each district weighs different patterns’ advantages and disadvantages based on its own circumstances. The rationale for Vinton‑Shellsburg’s alignment emphasises student learning and social‑emotional development: bringing all kindergartners together builds stronger friendships and a unified cohort, allows equitable class sizes and access to specialized teachers, and makes it easier for grade‑level teams to collaborate. Research underscores that early‑school experiences should be equitable and build on each child’s strengths, and that stable peer groups and supportive relationships foster academic achievement and well‑being. These themes, equity, relationships, and consistent programming, drive the grade‑alignment discussion.

Facilities planning focuses on the physical condition and capacity of school buildings. Long‑range facilities plans assess buildings’ structural condition, safety and ability to support the instructional program. The National Center for Education Statistics’ Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities notes that effective long‑term planning must be based on accurate data about the physical condition of facilities and their ability to meet the functional requirements of the instructional program. Facilities maintenance planning is primarily concerned with keeping buildings safe, clean, and cost‑effective, reducing operational costs, extending building life, and ensuring a healthy environment. It involves tasks like capacity analysis, condition assessments, code compliance, maintenance schedules, and financial planning for renovations or new construction. These are “brick‑and‑mortar” issues, important for supporting education but different from decisions about how grades are organized for teaching and learning.

Why the distinction matters. 

While grade alignment and facilities planning can influence one another (e.g., grade reconfiguration may shift space needs), they are driven by different questions. Grade alignment asks, “How can we organize students and teachers to promote equitable, high‑quality learning and strong relationships?” Facilities planning asks, “What physical improvements or capacity changes do our buildings need to support present and future educational programs?” The current grade‑alignment discussion is therefore centered on educational and social benefits for children and staff; it is not a facilities‑siting decision or a construction plan.