The public got a peek at possible new school buildings or renovations derived from the ongoing facilities planning project at a March 4 community meeting in the lecture hall at Wayland High School. The presentation prompted questions about student groupings and how these new buildings would weather future educational trends decades later.
Attendees included Superintendent David Fleishman, Assistant Superintendent Betsy Gavron, School Committee member Kate Sambuco, State Legislator David Linsky, former school committee member Jeanne Downs, and James Liebman and Lori Cowles from HMFH Architect.
Dr. Fleishman gave a brief outline of the facilities project that commenced in October 2025. He shared a photo that showcased a new 21st-century classroom with flexible learning spaces, high ceilings, and soft chairs that could easily accommodate small groups, collaboration, and active student learning. He emphasized the need for this new type of classroom and explained that the Wayland’s elementary schools have not caught up with changes in education. The buildings were constructed before the 1975 Special Education Law was passed, and they initially served as a space where educators lectured in front of rows of seated students. Cooperative learning, small group instruction, STEAM projects, the explosion of technology, providing students with brain breaks and movement opportunities are some of the many other positive trends warranting a need for new spaces.
James Liebman from HMFH Architects summarized options A, B, C, and D. He also presented a new Option E, inspired by the School Committee’s last discussion, which includes a two-building scenario with an elementary school for 1,150 students and a middle school, creating an upper and lower campus. Liebman ran through a rough estimate of costs, year of completion, and pluses and minuses for each option. Options C and D could be done as two-school options. The cost would change to $517 million for Option C and $566 million for Option D. The entire slide deck can be found at tinyurl.com/s926v9fp.
He then briefly described the eight modules, or steps, associated in a project with the MSBA. These include planning, hiring a team, enrolling in an educational study, beginning a schematic design, and with a vote on the design by the town coming at step five. The last phases would include creating a more detailed design, construction, and completion of the project. While some communities create new buildings more quickly without utilizing the MSBA, the downside would be that those projects are not funded.
Inequity in access and the breadth of the change from the current school configuration were viewed as negative aspects of the options. Positive aspects focused on greater access and equity and better alignment with the MSBA’s vision.
Community member Mary Kowalski expressed an interest in Option D. She asked if there had been any studies that had yielded positive results in developmental clustering.
Fleishman stated that there had not been any studies and said that groupings themselves were not vital to student outcomes but rather the most important quality in a student’s education was the quality of the teacher, the instruction and the curriculum.
Heather, a mother of a kindergarten student and a child in preschool, posed a couple of questions regarding the length of time it will take for middle school renovations.
“If we are just creating a new wing, what will the original building look like in 37 years?” she asked. “If it’s going to take 37 years, what will learning look like then?”
Liebman explained that each building in the project would incorporate these considerations as the project unfolded.
After the questions, the meeting ended with the promise of more community engagement opportunities to further examine and discuss the proposed changes.
