· The review committee made no specific recommendations except that option 2 and 3 were the most "doable". Option 2 was a recommendation to close some schools. Option 3 was to reconfigure a number of schools in the district.
· The report does make general notes that:
· research shows small schools are more effective than large schools (page 4)
· schools are the "the heart" of rural communities (page 4)
· More grades in a school provide more opportunities for cross age activities(page 5)
· K - 8 may be on the horizon as an appropriate configuration(page 5)
· The committee needs to consider the interests of students first.(page 8)
· Eight hours were spent in small groups analyzing the options further. In the first 4 hour session report(Appendix 3.2),( the Wells School is mentioned only once by Committee members. The committee noted:
· Option #2 pro: Closing the Wells school is easy. Con: creates issues regarding bussing safety, costs and negative effects of children on bus 3 hours a day
· In the second 4 hours session on the 'doability' of various options (Appendix 4.2)(charts omitted from public versions available at the District Office) Option #2 was doable subject to:
· Checking the times students will spend on buses,
· making boundary adjustments to lower distances travelled
· supporting Community Schools (Wells)
· determining the maintenance costs of closed schools
· Keeping the WELLS SCHOOL OPEN. Future considerations included
· k-8
· distance education delivery,
· creating a destination school

Option #3 - Reconfiguring the Schools. This option has the best relationship of positive and negative values. They note that it would create more work for the administrative staff than closing small schools, however it fits in with current research on improving education. They also felt this option improves age appropriate relationships amongst adolescents, which, they noted was a point which increases this option's public acceptance.

· Group Feedback Form (Appendix 3.1) notes:
· Rural schools are different from small in-town schools
· One size does not fit all
· smaller school populaton benefits community as a whole
· personal and smaller is better for students.

Over the same period that the review committee was meeting, and for 18 months before it was even formed, the Wells-Barkerville school was involved with the School District Administration in a local facility review. Since February of 2000, Ed Coleman, District Coordinator for School District #28 was engaged in a comprehensive Business Plan and Resource Guide with the Community of Wells for the Wells Barkerville School. This plan was laying the groundwork for expansion of services, improved educational options, adult education and "the stimulation of local economic development". When the Long Term Facilities Review Committee was formed, Mr. Coleman became an active member of that committee also.