School board won't fight move to go from Class A to Class B

The Libby School Board has voted not to fight a decision to move from Class A to Class B starting in 2015.

Following last week’s vote, Libby’s outgoing superintendent Kirby Maki said the Montana High School Association (MHSA) had made the call and the board had decided not to contest the ruling.

The board voted 5-2 on June 9 to avoid contesting the association’s reclassification to Class B.

A declining enrollment in the last 10 years had led to Libby hovering below the mandatory Class A requirement, which is 340 high school students, Maki said.

“If you are two years below, you go down,” he explained. 

This last year, Libby High School had an enrollment of 338. When Maki first took over the role of superintendent in 1998 the enrolment was 670, Maki said.

“Our enrollment is declining and the potential of gaining more kids is questionable,” Maki said, adding that the move wouldn’t be necessarily one that would put Libby High School in a better position.

“There’s no given on the positives – the travel may be more in the end,” Maki said, addressing one of the “pros” of moving to Class B, which was assumed to be less travel to schools that were further away in Class A.

Other benefits to going to Class B – in a list that was compiled in the school board’s meeting agenda – included Libby being one of the largest Class B schools, and the possibility that the overall competitiveness of Class B would be good for young athletes. The move to class B would also mean Libby High would not have to compete against much larger AA schools in nonconference basketball and volleyball.

Negatives included “the psychology” of moving from class AA – which Libby moved out of in the late 80s – down to class B, which sent the message that Libby was in bad shape, the list states.

Board member Bruce Sickler said he voted to stick with the associations’ decision put Libby in class B.

“It’s only going to get tougher and tougher because of enrollment numbers,” Sickler said. “I think it will reduce travel – I know there are arguments around that – but I think there will be an increase in participation. There will be more opportunities for [athletes] to be more competitive.”