June 10, 2026 – School Committee – Video & Transcript
June 10, 2026 - School Committee
Welcome to the William & School Committee meeting. Today is June 10th. We are starting our meeting at 616. We're being recorded by WACAM. We are joined by Betsy Cullen, Kate Sambuco, Aaron Gibbons will be here shortly, Jessica Trawa, Rajan Chukla, David Fleischman, Dick Ebron, Christine Patterson, and Ronnie Kessler. Is anyone here for public comment?
So with that we are going to start with our HMFH Master Facilities Plan.
Alright, I'll do a brief update, a little bit of context. I'll be fast. So one of our important goals this year was to address our creating the facilities and for the entire year we've had the pleasure of working with HMFH.
Laurie Coles, James Liebman are here tonight. It's also an end of year update to let everybody know where we are. This is obviously going to be a multi-year process as we think about options.
We've had meetings with the MSBA, the Mass School Building Authority leadership. We've had community forums. James and Laurie will share some highlights from our community forum just at the end of the year.
We also think it's an opportunity for our new school community members to get a sense of this really important goal as we think about the future. As we know, school buildings are around for a long time. Our school community buildings were built after World War II during the baby boom and they're still here.
And we know we have work to do to make them updated for today's world. So James will give a brief update and also have a chance for questions and then kind of finish with where we are with options, which we will move into next year as James talks about the statement of interest with the Mass School Building Authority, which begins next January.
So it's kind of finishing this year. So it's kind of finishing this year and I'm looking forward to the next year. James.
Okay, hi. So I'm going to be talking about the pre-K to 8th grade facilities planning. This study really didn't look at the high school again because the high school was completed about 12 years ago by HMFH actually, not Laurie or I, but our firm.
So we're looking at these facilities. We're looking at the three elementary schools, Loker in the southeast, Happy Hollow towards the southwest, Clay Pit sort of further north at the central part of the town, the middle school all the way to the south, the high schools kind of in the middle.
And then here we are. We also looked at the pre-K office, the pre-K spaces and ways to incorporate those into an elementary school. And we see the location of that, number six.
So this study had four primary tasks. Those were existing conditions evaluations, educational visioning, developing options, which is where I'm going to spend most of my time today is on the options, and then community outreach, and this is part of that.
Did everybody get a chance to review this presentation? So then I think what I'm going to do in the interest of time is answer any questions you have on existing conditions and educational visioning, and then skip ahead to the options.
Does anybody have any questions related to the existing conditions of any of the schools or sort of the outcomes from the education?
I just have a refresh, if you can remind me. When we talked about this, I know I think I had asked originally if any of the schools in terms of like current state, like I know none of them were good candidates for renovation. All of them are sort of at a point.
So that's, yeah, so I was going to just, if you could refresh my memory and our committee's memory of like, is there one that stands out or are they sort of all comparably in depreciated state?
Let's call it that.
The elementary schools really are in very similar state, the three elementary schools.
Okay.
They were built around the same time. They were added to at almost the same time. They were given modulars at almost the same time. They've been treated very, very similarly.
And we don't see any of the three of those as good candidates for renovation.
The middle school was built about 10 years later, and it was built in 72, I believe. It was added to in the 90s or 2000, right around 2000.
And it has some significant issues, but it also has some elements that renovation can, I think is a good candidate for renovation, particularly around its gym, which is much larger than the gym that the MSBA would allow.
And the, um, the auditorium, the auditorium does not, I mean, uh, the MSBA does not participate in auditoriums for the middle schools.
Those facilities being, um, sort of beyond what the MSBA would participate in are really good candidates for renovation.
So I remember that. I think what I'm trying to do is, I had you here last time, the realistic timeline of our long-term facilities plan was quite shocking to me in terms of just how long it will take us and sort of like get started now.
So I was more asking as we get to development to try to think about what the order of operations, right?
Because, and so my question was largely, is there one that's sort of in more acute need that we should be thinking from a timeline, but it sounds like no.
Specifically of the elementary schools?
Yeah.
I mean, again, the elementary, I think the elementary schools are your primary need.
And the answer is no.
Okay.
That's what, it is what it is.
James, I don't know if you're getting to that later, but can you like in a 20 seconds expand on why are we talking about building new schools versus just renovating?
20 seconds is quick, but I'll do my best.
I bet you can.
So the facilities do not meet the needs of education today, and the big place where that's obvious is special education.
Special education has really exploded in public schools, and the spaces, there aren't good spaces for them.
There isn't enough space for them.
There isn't the right kinds of spaces or the right size spaces for special education.
Additionally, there's really not.
And I just add one thing in terms of special education.
Special education was started in Massachusetts in 1973, the last time the New York Knicks won their last championship.
And the federal government didn't start special education until 1975.
So these schools were built well before special education even started.
Just wanted to add that.
Go ahead, James.
Sorry.
Additionally, education itself has changed significantly.
There's a lot more hands-on learning.
There's a lot more group learning.
There's a lot more authentic learning.
And these things take space and flexibility and different kinds of spaces, whereas these schools were built when teaching was rows and blackboards.
I mean, you can touch base on the fact that in most cases there's not enough site to build something to replace or to add on to your existing buildings.
And then you'd also be talking about you couldn't just build something new, having to build swing space to be able to empty the school up, to be able to do renovations.
So it's kind of a little bit of a snowball that can happen.
I'll also say I've gone way over my 20 seconds.
The building systems are really past their useful life.
They're hanging on and they require a lot of maintenance, but they work, but they won't forever and they're getting there.
Okay.
Okay, so with that, I am going to move very quickly through existing conditions of the three schools built in the 50s, all around, you know, 50 and 60,000 square feet.
Undersized classrooms, inefficient, insufficient special ed, ADA issues.
This is true of the middle schools as well.
I said I was going to skip, but I'm just hitting some highlights.
One of the big issues at the middle school is the vast number of classrooms with absolutely no access to natural light.
Again, ADA issues, spaces that are too small, systems that are past their life.
And then what you're looking at here is base repair costs.
These are fairly conceptual, first numbers, but looking at making some of those repairs for systems, dealing with ADA issues.
But it doesn't do anything in terms of improving the space for education.
It's just base repair of the existing facility.
We also recommend, for planning purposes, doubling these numbers because this doesn't include soft costs or escalation or phasing.
And so total, this equals about $206 million conceptual total costs.
We also had a long, robust educational visioning process.
We employed Mike Perillo from Integrated Design, and he helped facilitate a number of sessions,
both with wider community groups as well as with district and school leadership.
There's a little bit to that question of how education has changed with group work and hands-on work.
And we looked at, and that's going to become really critical as we start thinking about the options that we're showing.
Because we are, at least in one option, looking at some grade reconfiguration.
Planning priorities.
So equity of access to programs and services and spaces.
So when a new school is built, some kids are going to get access to those new programs and new services and new spaces, and some kids aren't.
And so how you phase the projects plays into that.
Small schools feel is something we hear a lot about in Wayland.
Having the pre-K connected to one of the elementary schools has become a real priority, as it is not now, right, in this building.
Spaces for flexible and collaborative learning.
Planning solutions that support a long-term vision for Wayland's future, and for the future of particularly, you know, pre-K through eight, but maybe particularly elementary school education.
And then projects that are likely to be supported by the Massachusetts School Building Authority.
So they provide funding, a decent amount of money for every project, and it varies by district, so I can't really speak to the numbers.
And it's understood that that support is necessary to gain community support for projects.
And then the visioning process ended with kind of a poll.
This was during the session with educators, school leadership, district leadership, to look at the various grade configurations.
And everybody had to pick three, which kind of helped balance things out.
But you can see, so just to understand this, we're going to get back into this when we get really deep into the options.
But four here is what you have now.
It's a pre-K standalone, three elementary schools, K to five, and a middle school.
The one that got sort of the most votes or the most preferences was one pre-K to two for the whole district, one three to five for the whole district, and one middle school for the whole district.
And as we, I'll talk more about all of these.
But you can see that there was kind of a preference for two elementary schools.
That's both one and two.
And those are going to play into the options we're about to look at.
There were a number of planning assumptions.
All of the options we're going to look at assume, okay?
All of the projects will proceed with MSBA funding.
I've already spoke to that.
The projects will proceed sequentially, not non-concurrently.
And that kind of goes with that first bullet because you must be able to only support one project at a time.
Schedules are shown as sort of the best plausible schedule, which means that what we've assumed is that each project will be followed.
Once a project ends, the next year the MSBA would accept a statement of interest for the next project.
And that's ambitious.
We see it happen.
It doesn't always happen.
Sometimes districts apply again and again, and it takes a while.
But we had to make some assumptions for planning purposes, and that's the assumption for this.
All of these costs are conceptual costs.
Very high level.
There's not a design that we're pricing.
It's based on square footage.
Dollars per square foot, plus escalation for time.
And those really speak to the two triggers of what influences cost.
The size of the buildings, or the size of all of the buildings, and how quickly you can build them.
Bigger is more expensive, later in time is more expensive.
The elementary schools will all be new construction.
We kind of just spoke to that.
We don't think that they're good candidates for renovation.
The middle school we're assuming is an addition renovation project, and I've already spoken to sort of the breakdown of that.
New elementary schools are planned to be two or possibly three stories.
That's because the sites are fairly small, and so to maximize site opportunities, but also to look on some of the sites to be able to build new next to the existing while it's still in operations.
Not all the sites lend themselves to that, but some of them do.
Unoccupied site for potential school development simplifies logistics.
That's not really an assumption.
That's a fact.
But we looked at Holiday Road and Alpine Field.
These have both been identified as properties that are large enough for a school project.
They're town owned, and they're in the care and custody of the school department.
That said, we really kind of focused on Holiday Road.
Alpine Field is very far to the north, and so the idea for now was to focus on Holiday Road.
All projects will require a future feasibility study and everything that goes along with that, including geotechnical investigations and further site investigations.
Each project has its own feasibility study.
Wetlands will require flagging and filing with the Wayland Conservation Commission and negotiations with them.
We've made some assumptions about using existing data about where the wetlands are, but that has to be confirmed by a wetland scientist and negotiated with the Conservation Commission.
All projects at the middle school site are likely to require a wastewater treatment plant, and if not, then a variance from the Department of Environmental Protection.
That's simply because of the number of students in the building at any size.
Well, at a middle school size, and then we are looking at things that are bigger.
So this is that same map of the schools that I showed earlier, but this also shows Holiday Road in 7.
You can see that that's kind of in line with Clay Pit in terms of north-south.
And 8 is the Alpine Hill, like I mentioned, just very far north.
The thought was that that was too far north for these further considerations.
This slide shows the existing and projected enrollment for each of the schools.
So the first column, existing, you can see, I'm not going to read out all the numbers, projected is 10 years from now.
So there was a demographic study done sort of right as we came on board.
And so those numbers indicate that, obviously, there's a decline in enrollment.
And you can see that over the next 10 years, most significantly at the middle school.
And so this last column, these are the numbers that we use for planning purposes.
As we developed conceptual programs for each of these schools, each of these options,
this is the enrollment that we use to help determine how big that project will be.
As part of a feasibility study for a project, those programs would get really deeply analyzed and developed further,
and so it may become slightly bigger and slightly smaller.
But for planning purposes, we're in the range.
Okay.
Now we get to get into the actual options.
We have five options, A, B, C, D, and E.
In another presentation, and I'm not going to get into the weeds of that here,
each of these also has a subset of options about where you build first,
whether you build on an existing school site first or an empty site or maybe the middle school site.
So there's variations within this, but I'm going to try to stay a little bit higher level than that.
Okay.
So option A is like you have it now.
It's three elementary schools.
All of them are K through five, a middle school, six through eight, and a separate pre-K.
Again, we've already heard that there is a lot of support for incorporating the pre-K into one of the elementary schools,
but we thought it was important to show an option that is what you have now.
Option B is four schools, locates the pre-K within one of the elementary schools.
It's kind of the same as A, except it does that.
It moves the pre-K into one of the elementary schools.
So it's a pre-K to five, 2K to five, and the middle school.
Option C is three schools.
So that's two elementary schools.
It reduces the number of elementary schools from three to two.
The grade configuration is unchanged.
So the elementary schools, one's pre-K to five, and one's K to five, and then the middle school.
Option D is very similar, but it changes the grade configuration.
In that way, it's very different.
It's two elementary schools.
One of them is pre-K to two for everyone in the district.
The second one is three to five for everyone in the district.
And then the middle school, which of course serves everyone.
After presenting, I think the last time we presented to this group,
there was a discussion that led to Option E.
It's not that anyone was advocating for it, but there was enough discussion around it
that we thought we should show what its implications are, what it means to cost and schedule.
So Option E is two schools.
It reduces the number of elementary schools from three to one elementary school.
Now that would be built with an upper school and a lower school.
So it would look a little bit like D.
It would have a pre-K to two, and it would have a three to four wing.
There would be shared resources like a gym and a kitchen.
And that's one of the advantages if you build one gym and one kitchen.
It would be one building, but two entrances.
It could even have two administrations.
And then a minuscule.
Okay.
So those are the five options.
I've said a lot.
Any questions?
Corb, just a note that we know that in September of 2026,
our pre-K is actually going to an elementary school location.
So Option A shouldn't really exist for us anymore because in the future...
Okay.
Where's it going?
Happy Olive.
Oh, good.
I didn't know that.
That's fantastic.
After our last presentation.
Yeah.
Great.
Yeah, exactly.
Okay.
A lot of data on this chart.
I'm going to ask that you focus on the top half for starters.
This is simply enrollment.
So all the way to the left, you see the column for Option A.
Again, that's what you have now but are about not to have.
Right?
So it's three elementary schools.
Here, equally sized at 385 students per school.
The middle school at 600 and the pre-K for 75, which is its maximum enrollment.
Not that it's there now.
It's significantly smaller than that today.
Option B is where you're headed.
Right?
It's a pre-K to five, two K to fives, and a sixth grade.
And you can see the enrollments for that.
Option C has two schools, one at 650 and...
Two elementary schools, excuse me.
One at 650 for pre-K to five, and one at 575 for K to five.
The difference between those is the pre-K.
Three is...
The D is very similar.
Also 650 and 575, but you can see pre-K to two and three to five.
And then the E option, one elementary school, is 1,225.
Excuse me.
Again, built into two houses, but it's still a big school.
One thing that we've been asked a number of times is, are C and D essentially the same buildings, just grade configuration is different?
They're really not.
Primarily because kindergarten classrooms are different than first through five.
And so in C, you're building kindergarten classrooms in both buildings.
In D, you're only building, you're building all of your kindergarten classrooms in one building.
James, is there one direction that's captured in C, D, or E that you're seeing the MSBA gravitate towards at all?
Or districts gravitate towards for that matter?
I wasn't in the MSBA meeting.
My understanding is no, but...
Oh, but even not just for us, but like generally across the board, are you seeing approved construction projects that...
The MSBA likes, I don't like that word, but they like consolidations.
They like building more for a district than coming back numerous times to build smaller.
So if they can...
So like bigger projects, okay.
Now, bigger projects cost more and are a bigger sell to your community.
Okay.
I mean, they see...
All of our money is like public funds, and they want to use the highest and best use,
and so they see efficiencies of larger buildings,
whether it be the same elevator is serving more kids, the same kitchen is serving more kids.
You know, all of that kind of stuff is part of the rationale.
Okay.
So, and there is a little bit of, you know, if they see that a community has like multiples of the same thing,
that you're going to be coming back every seven years.
They also sort of like solve problems and not come back.
So these are things we've just seen in other communities.
Okay.
Sorry.
I was just wondering if it's appropriate for me to ask a question.
I don't know how to deal through that.
Yeah.
It's a community forum.
It's fine with me if we're considering it a community forum.
Sure.
Typically, when we're having meetings, we don't, but yeah, go ahead.
I was just curious to understand why the total population of the elementary school
is typically about double the population of the middle school.
Yeah.
Because there's more grace.
For some grace.
Thank you.
Sorry.
Yeah.
One, two.
So, earlier we were talking about how education itself has changed.
Right?
There's a wide variation here in the square footage of these options.
How do these options interact with the education itself?
So, what's behind these numbers is a significant program for each and every one of these projects
that lists all of the general education spaces and all of the special education spaces.
And we've worked with Betsy and David to define special education in Wayland.
All of the athletic spaces.
And so there's a program, and you'll be able to see that in the final report which we've issued.
All of these programs.
So, the, you know, this 85,000 square feet is supported by a program that lists all of these spaces.
And that includes space for, I guess I already said it, special education, but also for teacher collaboration
and student collaboration and project work and special programs.
And when you look at those, they are actually the MSBA space summary.
So, we're using their guidelines as a starting point like we do in any project.
And then, as James is speaking about, talk with the educators to make sure it's town, you know, district needs specific.
So, you know, a simple, I mean simple, I say simple because these numbers are floating in my head.
But like the subtle difference between, you know, 105 and 107 is related to having all of the K's in there.
And that subtle difference that the K's are bigger than the general classrooms.
Like literally, it's like, some of it's pretty subtle, but.
You know, it's an interesting question, Prashan.
You asked about space.
You know, we sometimes have certain trends in education.
So, like in the 1960s, when the Whalen Middle School was built, it was the era of open classrooms.
So, as Betsy well knows, we're working here for a long time, noise can be an issue with certain schools because it was not built.
It was built very differently now that classes are built today.
In very old schools also, the classrooms are small because the assumption was that students would sit in rows and not move all day.
And today, obviously, that's very different.
You want students going through stations in the lower grades and just moving around for writing conferences and collaboration in all grades.
Yeah, I'm asking because I think we have to optimize the ranking based on the education itself, not MSBA's preferences to build.
Right, and the MSBA certainly follows current trends and adjusts accordingly.
That is part of the rule.
We did go through a process to try to make it right for education in Wayland.
There will be more of that as you get an actual project.
But, for example, all of these include more music spaces than the MSBA typical guidelines because of Wayland.
Right.
Also, it's my third school committee meeting.
Fair enough.
No, no, ask questions.
It's all good.
I don't think I got to the bottom half yet, did I?
I did.
Yeah, fair enough.
Fair enough.
But the bottom half is somewhat self-explanatory.
It's similar to the top, except it's size of building a square feet instead as opposed to enrollment.
Option A and B are kind of grouped together.
They're very similar.
The difference between those two numbers, which are very close together, is sort of the efficiency of putting the pre-K in with one of the elementary schools and some shared programs.
Some shared multipurpose spaces and some shared education spaces.
So B is slightly smaller.
But it's similar.
C and D, again, are similar.
Of course, we've already said these options are very similar.
Lori already spoke to why they're slightly different, but in terms of enrollment, they're the same.
And in terms of square footage, they're very, very similar.
And then, of course, the one where you build one building and one gym and one kitchen.
And, again, the next ranking down, or the next size down, the next ranking down.
So in terms of size of building, kind of think of it as three bands.
Options A and B.
Maybe we don't need to talk about A because, A, you're moving the pre-K into an elementary school.
It's fantastic.
B, the difference between the four and five there is way in the weeds.
Just think of it as four building projects.
It's four schools.
From all of our planning assumptions and our square foot costs, we get that this would take four projects.
We take you 32 years to 2058 and cost approximately $865 million.
We're going to jump to this last line at the bottom.
There is an option.
All of these come with various ways of achieving them.
Building on clay pit first, and then moving Loker into it, and then building on Loker.
Or building on an empty site first, like Holiday Road, and then decanting a school into it.
Being able to knock that school down and build a second one.
One variant on all of that is if you build your first project, an elementary school, on the middle school site in a combined middle school, elementary school project.
And it would be one MSBA project, one building.
It would be built similarly to how I described the one elementary school.
It would be a middle school and an elementary school within one building.
Separate entries, separate administrations, some shared resources.
Shared kitchen, maybe not shared gyms, but some shared resources.
That allows the project to be a little bit smaller.
But more importantly, it moves the middle school from way out in the future with lots of escalation on the cost of it to doing it with that first project.
And so that significantly changes these statistics.
It becomes three projects.
It takes 26 years, completed in 2052, and costs $643 million.
James, can I ask a question there?
So I think that I have some confusion over whether MSBA would consider the elementary and the middle school together as one project that we do.
So I have four.
Have you worked on any projects where you've done that?
And they've said, yeah, one.
We've worked on lots of middle highs.
I have not in my time seen an elementary middle.
But I think that is in, so when you are accepted into the MSBA for a project and a priority project, whatever project you put as your priority.
And we'll come back to that.
So there's going to be a process before you get an owner's project manager and before you get a designer involved where you're talking to them about what the enrollment options might be.
And this study is going to help with that conversation.
And any decisions you make around this study will help with that conversation.
Again, the MSBA, or not again, the MSBA has said don't make final decisions.
But we think it would be wise to know which ones you don't want, maybe.
It's in that process that they will help you define what options they'll let you study.
I believe that they would let you study an elementary, middle school kind of combined.
But it's in that conversation.
I'm going to skip option A.
Option B, three elementary schools, one of them being pre-K to five.
This aligns with the goals and embeds pre-K within an elementary school.
It retains the familiar and soon to be very familiar pre-K to five and six to eight structure.
It improves collaboration and consistency.
Tensions with the goals.
It increase risks of uneven access to program services and environments.
What I mean by that is there's a lot of time between each of those schools being built.
And some kids are going to get access to the new school and the new environment sooner,
much, you know, decades sooner than others.
The pre-K to K transition is unequal.
There was some concern in one of the forums about some pre-K kids being in what's going to become their elementary schools,
and some pre-K kids not being in what's going to become their elementary schools.
So that's what that bullet is about.
It supports the long-term vision of the district, and it does not align with the MSBA's aim for efficient use of resources.
And we kind of spoke to that.
They want larger projects.
They like consolidations.
Okay.
Option C.
Again, the 3-4 is kind of in the weeds, but just think of it as three projects, three schools.
Take 24 years to 2050 at $655 million.
Option D. Again, very, very similar.
It's the difference between them.
It's grade configuration.
It takes the same amount of time.
It costs a little bit more.
That's really just because it's a tiny bit bigger because of the kindergarten classrooms
and some redundant special education spaces.
And then option E, one elementary school, two projects, much quicker, 18 years, done in 2044, and $490 million.
C and D also have a variant where you do a first project with the middle school, similar to what we talked about with B,
each taking 18 years and costing around $550 million, $517 and $566.
I've got more on C, D, and E, but any questions here?
I think there's a good point to see if everybody's following.
Option C aligns with planning priorities.
This is, again, three schools, two elementary schools, pre-K to five, and K to five.
Aligns with goals.
Fewer schools.
This equals greater equity of access and resources, programs, and spaces.
Embeds pre-K within an elementary school.
You're doing that anyway.
Stronger support of the long-term vision.
Better staffing efficiency and collaboration.
Preserves elementary versus middle school distinction.
And better aligns with MSBA to aim for efficient use.
Tensions with those goals.
More change for the community.
This is a big one.
We've had a lot of conversation around this.
Change is hard.
So going to two elementary schools, we do hear voices that talk about, you know,
the three neighborhood schools and how important that is.
Obviously, that needs to be balanced with all these.
Requires organization to strengthen relationships.
Within those schools.
If you have bigger schools, you need organization and structures around creating smaller learning communities within those larger schools.
Pre-K to K transition is unequal.
I have to admit, this was a long time ago.
This was a long time ago.
I don't remember exactly what that note is except that the pre-K, you know, some kids are in the pre-K in their elementary school and some of these are.
And then larger elementary schools.
Option D is very similar.
I'm not going to read all of them here, but there's a strong developmental alignment.
So we talked a lot about the development of kids and their age groups.
And so a pre-K to two as an early child, as a single center for early childhood education.
A three to five for students with, you know, at that phase of growing independence.
And then six to eight, the middle school for adolescent development.
This has strong equity of access.
Everybody goes to the same school throughout their entire time.
At age-appropriate spaces, schedules, and instructions.
I'm going to move to tensions.
And I'm kind of skipping things that are redundant to the last one.
But even more change, right?
More change from the current model.
Then E, this has, again, it has strong developmental alignment.
Pre-K to two in the lower school within the same building as three to five in the upper school.
But separated into houses, perhaps with separate administrations.
Strongest equity of access.
Everybody goes to one school.
Transportation and site logistics would need to be carefully studied.
There's costs involved in busing and moving.
And more, it's, you know, it's obviously the most change from the current model.
And it's a very large element.
So this slide kind of compares all five of the options.
Anywhere from 37 years to 18 years.
And anywhere from $900 million to $490 million.
And those are the choices.
And those are really the triggers, right?
It's, again, it's the size of the project or projects, which is impacted by the number of schools.
And it's how long it takes, which is also impacted by the number of schools.
We got a lot of feedback from a lot of this material as we've been presenting it.
You've seen this presentation.
You've had a chance to read this.
Maybe I'm not going to go into these.
If you have questions about these, let me know.
Talk a little bit about the MSBA process.
Any questions on options before I dive into this slide?
The MSBA process starts with the submission of what's called a statement of interest.
It's an application to be invited into the MSBA grant program.
You can submit more than one SOI for multiple schools.
An SOI is associated with a specific school.
They typically ask you for which one is your priority.
And then, again, once accepted, they then talk to you about grade configurations
and different variants that you want to study in your early part of your project.
Once accepted, you enter into what's called Module 1.
That's the eligibility period, I'll be honest.
That happens before you come to get us, a designer, on board.
And so a lot of what happens in that is I don't know a lot about.
You're putting your school committee together.
You're getting some financial information to the MSBA.
And then there's a local authorization to fund the first portion of the work,
which is the feasibility study, which is also broken up into multiple parts that I'll go into.
But you have to have the funding to authorize that.
Then you go into Module 2.
That is where you, sorry, and that first part, that eligibility period,
can take a year to two years, about a year and a half.
And that just depends on when the MSBA wants to talk to you.
The next module is Module 2.
First, you hire an owner's project manager, and that's something that your school building committee,
and then you put out a request for services for designer services,
and the MSBA is heavily involved in that selection process.
Once you have your consultants on board, the feasibility study, that's about a year.
Schematic design, these are developing, defining the project.
The feasibility is really defining the project.
What enrollment option are you going to go with?
What site are you on?
How big a project are you going to build?
And then schematic design is sort of development of the option for that building.
That takes about a year, maybe a year and a half for those phases.
Then, at the end of schematic design, you get the project is really well scoped out.
You know what it's going to cost.
There are contingencies in it, and escalation in it, and there's room,
but you get a number that the town can vote on.
You have to vote.
And so there's some public process, a lot of public outreach, and then a vote.
Assuming that vote passes, the project then goes into detailed design.
That's about a year and a half.
It's broken into a couple of phases, a couple of deliverables, but then construction.
Construction can be anywhere from two years to multiple years because of,
depending on how complicated the phasing is, but a typical new build, take down the old building.
And then there's some completing the project, which is process with the MSBA.
But that is a big overview of the MSBA process for a specific project.
Obviously, the options we were looking at, you know, were five projects or four projects or three projects.
So each one is a long duration.
Any questions on that?
It's a lot of material.
Okay.
I will circle back next year as we get closer.
The statement of interest process begins in January and runs through April.
So we are well set up, thanks to your good work, James and Maury, to get ready to do that next year.
So we'll have that on our agenda.
That will require us to isolate on a preferred option.
Right.
Go ahead, Maury.
Yeah, we were talking a little bit about it.
I think the aim would be that you submit SOIs for all of your buildings because there is this possibility of something.
Right, but that still only requires us to pick one of the lettered options to know which building, like how many buildings we're submitting.
I think based on the conversation we had with MSBA, they don't want to pick one, which is what we've heard at this time.
But they want, I think you want to submit all four schools so they all have needs.
And then they're going to say, I think that all of your SOIs are going to reflect back to this planning effort that's been done, every single one of them.
And when MSBA says, which is your priority line, I think you should pick one of your elementary schools.
Preferably not the one that has land on it.
Because it immediately will trigger, we need to look at a bigger picture.
And every, all your SOIs identify that in some manner.
Okay.
Do you know what I mean?
It is tricky because it used to be you could just submit them and figure out which one is your priority later.
Then they started realizing that that was too complicated.
They wanted towns to say a priority.
But because you don't definitively know yet, I think it's, I think it's the way you write the SOI and make clear that this is a greater process.
We'll give them that heads up.
Every project with the MSBA is, in their eyes, the replacement of a school.
Even if ultimately you consolidate, it starts with them accepting a school to replace.
Okay.
And then in that process during the eligibility period that I spoke about, that's when they talk to you about other enrollment options that you want to study.
I think that ideally you would have one or two others, not five others, like we were doing.
Yeah.
But I don't think they need you to pick one.
And I do think, I mean, there is a section in there that's like, have you done any planning work?
And so you can reference it.
You can attach it, the whole report.
You can state very clearly.
We've already moved.
Option A is no longer relevant.
You know, you can tee yourself up with everything you know to date at that point.
From the meeting that we had, it seemed that they appreciated us doing our very clear homework.
I think we thought we needed to choose one, but that's not what they want.
Yeah.
Which is fair.
Yeah.
Thank you both.
Thank you very much.
We appreciate it.
We look forward to working with you in the fall and for next January.
Kate, for our next item, because we're waiting for one person.
If Jen Judkins has been patiently waiting for a policy update, so maybe we could speak.
David, before we move on this, can we make sure maybe over the summer that we put just a touch base on your thinking on like,
logistically, what the SOI preparation process looks like?
Yep.
So that we just, for those of us who have never done this before.
Yeah.
We'll put a call agenda for sure, Betsy, because there are steps.
But thankfully, we had a really good year of planning with our HMFH team, and we really enjoyed working with them,
meeting with them virtually every Friday.
Oh, did you get something from Mark?
No.
That's wrong, Mark.
Yes.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Jen, we're not presenting.
We're just talking, right?
Yeah.
I mean, if I can pull up that link, it's a lot of words.
I don't know that anyone really wants to do it on the screen.
So, I am here to talk about an update to the acceptable use policy.
This is a school committee policy, I-N-J-I-J-N-D, and it covers the use of technology resources.
This essentially covers the use of, you know, computers and the network, right?
And so, as you can imagine, it's the kind of thing that requires updates, especially in this moment with AI.
It felt like we needed to go to the policy and make it more current.
It wasn't too bad, because I had actually just done a pretty major rewrite of this with the policy committee last April, actually.
So, it's about a year since, so there isn't a lot of change.
We had made quite a bit of changes last April, because prior to that, I want to say the policy hadn't been updated since, like, 2016 or something.
So, there were a lot of changes.
So, I had provided to the committee, essentially, a red line version to highlight the things that were changing.
But, essentially, we were, there were a few areas and gaps that we were trying to close with regard to generative AI and social media.
Sorry, can you give us one second?
We don't have it in the folder.
It's in the agenda.
Oh, thank you.
Okay.
Sorry, let us catch up with you.
No problem.
Thank you.
Which tab, Jen?
So, that first tab is really the updated, is what the policy would be, and the text that is red are the new additions to that policy.
The second tab, and if you're not sure what we're talking about, on the left-hand side, you might see three vertical lines, horizontal lines, and those are, there are three.
The second one says updates, and it was really just more sort of set up as an executive summary for you of, like, what are these updates, like, what is the why behind these updates, and where do they go within the policy, just as a supplement to you.
But essentially, we were looking at, so kind of looking at that second tab as a way to kind of summarize the places where these changes are happening.
We created a new section called artificial intelligence and generative technologies.
We are purposefully trying to be somewhat broad in our language here in this policy, because this is, you know, obviously technology that's moving at a fairly rapid pace.
So, we don't want to be so narrow in scope and specific in scope and what we're saying, because we want to allow for the handbooks to speak to that in a more specific manner in terms of, like, what does this look like in our schools?
How are we handling this, you know, at different levels differently?
So, we didn't want to speak too much at that level.
We want to leave that for handbooks and for the schools.
And because of the nature of this technology, it made sense.
So, we're looking at the section around network usage and filtering and monitoring.
There's some proposed language in there.
Talking about, you know, the fact is that these tools can be used to prevent, to create harmful content.
And they can be used to manipulate images and voices without people's permission.
And we need to call that out and talk about what we allow and don't allow with regard to that.
So, you doing okay, Betsy?
Okay.
So, another area that we focused on was around, and we had quite a bit of discussion around this area, was around school communications.
So, as the committee is probably aware, we rolled out ParentSquare as a communication tool this year.
This is our first year with ParentSquare, and our schools and our teachers have done a really great job in adopting this new tool.
But, to be honest, we haven't given it the same type of full push we would give most products like that,
because we also rolled out PowerSchool, you may recall, at the beginning of the year.
So, we kind of soft launched ParentSquare.
But, as we went through the year, and as we had these conversations with school committee, and with our building principals, and getting feedback from families,
it was clear that there was some need to really standardize around that platform, and really sort of call out to our school community that this is the way we communicate.
We can use other methods, right?
We can use social media to promote things in other ways, but it cannot and should not be the primary means of communication to our students and our families.
That that tool, that those tools are certain things that we've defined.
So, those tools would be whether we're talking email through our email system, messaging through our, you know, ParentSquare system,
or using Google Chat as an internal chat tool.
We kind of wanted to define those as the avenues that were primary for communication, that other things were secondary.
So, that's all called out in this, we put that in to both the student and the staff sections,
because as we communicated with the policy committee, it was clear that there were times at which students were maybe using social media
or text messaging, right, to communicate with others on a team or others that are in a club,
and that was without meaning to leaving some students out or creating situations where families were feeling like,
I didn't want my kid to be on Instagram, and now they have to be to get these messages.
So, it was really helpful to get that feedback so that we could inform and make some changes to this.
So, use of approved platforms for school communication, prohibition of social media for school communication as a primary method,
staff responsibility around student communication in groups.
Again, you know, wanting to flag things like coaches, people that we don't always think about,
but are a part of the folks that are involved with our students,
and we want to have consistency around how communication happens between students and staff,
so that families can have predictability about that.
Jen, can you jump in there?
Yes.
One of the questions that was left hanging when we had that great big discussion was,
what about fundraising, and does this limit the ability of classes to fundraise?
And you and I had a discussion about that, and the answer is, no, it does not.
It does not, but it was a helpful conversation because I went back and provided some rephrasing around that to make sure,
because I think, to your point, when we initially had it, it sounded like this is not allowed,
and so we needed to say, well, it is allowed, but it just can't be the primary method of communication.
So, I think that the new wording is more clear now because it says, quote,
all official communications regarding schedules, requirements, participation, logistics, deadlines,
and other activity-related information must be communicated through district-approved communication platforms
or through a designated advisor or coach.
So that, like, I feel like that sort of captured it, but social media may be used to promote school-sponsored activities,
recognize accomplishments, share public information, or encourage participation,
provided that all essential activity-related information is also communicated
through district-approved communication platforms.
So, I feel like...
Yeah, thank you for clarifying that.
I feel like we nailed it.
Yeah.
But it was really helpful for you to tell me that because I didn't, I wasn't thinking about it that way,
so that helps.
You've had a dialogue before other people at the table said, oh, wait, we have older students who do that.
Yes, hadn't thought of that.
Right, right.
This, you know, so I feel like that keeps us, you know, create some guardrails without being overly restrictive
because when you're creating policy, you don't want to be coming back to this every year.
You really want to be able to let sort of the handbooks make adjustments that are developmentally appropriate
where we are at different points because, you know, we will, you know,
we're moving towards some of this technology at some of our schools.
We're doing that at different paces and appropriately, you know, where our staff and students are.
So, that's going to change over time potentially and that allows us to have that ability to make the adjustments
in the handbook and communicate those out at the school level which I think is the appropriate place
for that level of detail beyond what's here.
So, we were looking to have, you know, make sure that we have community, you know, support from school committee
because voting to approve this is important so that we can then frame our handbooks
to have them supported by this policy.
So, that's part of the timing for this too.
Does anyone have any questions for Jen about the changes and questions?
No, I'm good.
Okay.
So, I'm going to move to approve the updates to IJND and go out for public comments.
I'll second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Opposed.
Thank you, Jen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Do you need us to keep?
Yeah, we need to do like the physical restraints.
Continue the discussion if possible, both.
Let's stop.
Discussion regarding the town, either one.
We don't have to if anybody goes.
I think we just skipped that, I think.
Yeah, and then the scheduling should we skip that too?
Yeah.
Uh, I think we better, yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
I think we'll move, yeah.
Okay, so we're just going to skip over all administrative matters for tonight
and move them to two weeks from now.
Okay.
Um, okay.
So, Ron, can we talk about this?
Sure.
Okay.
Um, was it the last meeting or the meeting before we talked about that the, um, Department
of Ed has changed the, um, time out and seclusion regulations, um, and definitions.
So, our attorney actually put this together.
Um, Kate and I met about the, um, MSE guidance and I sent that to our attorney and she felt
like it was a little redundant and actually didn't cover everything.
So, her, her, um, recommendation, I think we should use their guidance.
Um, it really does, it's very comprehensive in terms of like defining what different restraints
are.
It defines what escort is.
It defines seclusion under the new regs.
It defines that time out under the new regs.
It talks about what the requirements are to use physical restraint, when physical restraint
is prohibited.
And then most importantly, it talks about seclusion and what's required in order to use seclusion.
Specifically, um, there are, um, uh, documents needed from the student's doctor before you
can do it.
So, that's spelled out here.
It also talks about that, you know, we can't write seclusion into behavior plans.
It talks about proper administration and safety requirements and the staff training that
we do.
It talks about reporting, reporting to parents and reporting to the DESE.
Um, then safeguards, how to prevent behaviors and violence, parent engagement, a grievance
process, um, and then prevention alternatives, which I do need to beef up a little bit, um,
from the training I went to, de-escalation techniques, procedures for time out, and then documentation.
So, it's pretty comprehensive, um, and I think, um, would be important to, to have that update.
Um, I can, um, there's a part around the, you know, they put in the revised regulations required
description of the program alternatives to physical restraint and methods of restraint
and procedures.
So, we're actually doing some of that work over the summer, so I would probably want
to wait, um, and just update this and then maybe at our first meeting in the fall, um,
have it approved, you know, go for approval.
Um, just so I make sure that we update it appropriately once and don't have to do it twice.
Um, you don't need it approved by a certain date.
I think if we do it our first, I don't, I'm sorry, I don't know how, like, can you got,
can you approve it or does it have to go out for?
We can vote to approve it and put it out for public comment.
Okay.
I think if we do that at our August meeting, um, I'll share it with you all ahead of time
in terms of the, anything we add, um, and then, um, in August if you, if we do that,
I think that would be sufficient, um, as long as, you know, it's out for public comment.
Um, I'll also, um, once it is approved, I'll put it, I think, um, on the, on our website,
our wonderful, she left Jen, our wonderful new website, um, we have a section on, like,
discipline, but I think I'll probably put a tab about this as well, just, um, so it's
easy to find as well.
Okay.
Ronnie, as we talked about last time, this is a very, very significant shift in practice.
I think it will, we'll probably want an update mid-year on, like, how it's going, because
I'm just, I'm very sympathetic that this is a big change for you and for the staff.
Yes, it is.
Um, um, over the summer, actually, I have, um, 60 people registered to get trained over
the summer, which is wonderful, and then the last 20 will get trained in the beginning
of September, and then I'll be at the school, schools, um, meetings, for staff meetings to
train everybody.
So what's great is, by the end of September, we'll all be, everybody will, I mean, before
that, everybody will be trained.
Um, but yeah, I'll be keeping a close eye.
I'm redoing a lot of our forms that we do, so I certainly can, um, you know, January,
December, January, give an update on how it's going.
Is it going to require a lot of new communication to families?
Uh, for some.
Yeah.
Um, we're, we're kind of being as proactive as possible, um, with some of that, um, so
with the new seclusion regulations, you cannot use seclusion unless you have a doctor's note,
a mental health provider's note, parent permission.
So, you have to be very proactive if you think you're going to be using seclusion, and those
will be conversations we have with parents on an individual basis.
I know this is an extreme example, but it is top of mind for me.
Is there no exception if a student is creating a physical danger to others?
If a student is creating a physical danger to others, um, we would, um, you know, if they
are in, we would, unfortunately, have to use physical restraint.
Okay.
So that's kind of what, it's counterintuitive, right?
Yeah.
Because you're like, no, but our physical, this is the data that I'll share mid-year, our
physical restraints may go up.
So I report to the DESE at the end of the year, or I do it throughout the year, but I
have to certify it at the end of the year, the number of restraints.
Total as a district, maybe we have five or six for a year.
I mean, it's, it's relatively low.
Next year, I don't know of that.
Okay.
It'll be interesting to compare the data.
And, and I think other districts are going to be doing the same.
Looking at that same assessment.
Absolutely.
That, you know, um, DESE hasn't put out what will be required to report for seclusion,
but I'm guessing it's similar to what we report for, um, uh, restraint.
So.
And I apologize.
I asked this last time and I don't remember.
There was no like opportunity for, or invitation for districts to comment on these changes.
They just sort of got promulgated, but it was like a couple of years.
Like this has been kind of in the works that they put it off for a year.
So it may have been like a couple of years ago, but they put this out at the beginning
of the year and said it was going into effect beginning of 26, 27 or August.
I think it's August 16th, 2026.
It's effective.
Right.
It's a regulation.
Yeah.
So it's not necessarily something that the board has to pass.
I don't recall seeing anything.
I was maybe transitioning, so I may not have been invited.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Um, but, uh, you know, the training I went to, uh, other districts are, have the same concerns
we do.
And I've been in, Felicia, our attorney has done a lot of training for others on it.
So she's provided a lot of training for us, for me as well.
And, um, there's also a lot of like interpretation.
So I'm just working with her to make sure that the interpretation we're using is correct,
but also I don't, I don't want one school to interpret it this way.
And one school group, we're all have to interpret it the same way.
Okay.
Um, and that is coming from her.
We'll make a note for August.
August.
Do me in July.
I don't know if that's too early.
Yeah.
Um, we might be able to.
Um, I'll, I'll, it's on my first thing on my to-do list for the summer.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
And we go back to the elementary scheduling.
We can go back to our final agenda item for the night, which is, uh, as we report
about end of year district goals, this will be an elementary scheduling working group update
with the co-chairs for Betsy and Lyon here for an hour on work.
And Ronnie's going to pull up our slides for us.
Welcome.
I spent the last hour in a dump tank, so if I don't put a little-
You're probably cooler than the rest of us.
Yeah.
Our PE teacher's doing a great job teaching kids how to throw out.
And AIM.
Sorry.
So, um, Ryan and I are going to share, um, with you our, kind of report out on our progress
with our scheduling.
And we'll start, um, by sharing our plan.
So we'll give you a brief overview of the process that we've gone through, um, talk about
the recommendations from the committee, um, share a pilot idea, and then talk about some
next steps.
So, um, one of the elementary school goals across all three elementary schools was to
really dig into the schedule, um, and look at the master schedule based on kind of the
need to maximize student learning.
There's been some dissatisfaction through the years.
Um, we've had a number of years of, um, scheduling surveys that, you know, some consistent issues
have come up, particularly as we've added, um, new HQIMs, our high quality instructional materials
that we've adopted, and, and finding sort of the, the necessary time to do that work well.
So, our plan was to create a committee, um, a working group, uh, kind of look at our time
on learning, gather feedback, and research best practices.
We'll talk a little bit about that whole process.
I really wanted to thank the working group.
We had, you can see a number of folks here that were very dedicated to this work, um, that
really, uh, had different sort of stakes and perspectives in the conversations.
Um, so there were, there were a number of folks who, who joined us.
We really began with this notion.
This is a quote from, um, someone I worked very closely with for many, many years.
John Kavaleski was a, the middle school principal, he was an assistant principal for over 20 years,
and he did the master schedule for many, many years.
And he talked to, talked about the fact that you can schedule anything, you just can't schedule everything.
And so, there are real tensions that exist in the scheduling process.
Um, because there's perceived winners and losers.
There is, you know, people want their time and, um, and autonomy.
Lots of different things kind of come up when you, when you talk about this.
So, here's our, our big picture timeline.
Um, we convened our team in October.
We came up with some community agreements of how we wanted to interact with each other, each other.
We started with a big picture carousel brain cell, uh, excuse me, brainstorm right from the start.
What were the strengths of our current schedule?
What were some of the pinch points?
What ideas did people have to start?
Um, we then invited in, uh, uh, an expert.
Another person who spent lots of years in scheduling, who had worked in multiple districts.
Um, one that was similar to Wayland in a, a number of aspects.
Um, and sort of heard some big ideas from, from her.
Um, you know, one of the things that she really emphasized was using a five-minute scheduler,
which we hadn't done consistently.
Um, she talked a lot about, uh, the importance of, uh, kind of putting in your, um, your big chunks of time,
so you don't end up with, like, fragmented, say, literacy blocks.
Some of those things.
Um, we then, um, read an article that was based on, um, a scheduling best practices book, uh,
that the whole committee read, discussed, and actually then principals brought back to their faculties to read and discuss.
So, the, there was a similar kind of starting point around some of the, um, best practices recommendations.
In January, um, we worked with a group to develop some guiding principles, which we'll, we'll share with you shortly,
around how we'll begin to make some decisions.
Um, we, in February, developed some new survey questions to get, um, feedback on last year's schedule as well.
As I mentioned, we had a number of years of data, but really wanted to look at some specific things about the past year's schedule.
Um, in March, we analyzed that data and, you know, made some suggestions about ideas we wanted to kind of mock up in some different schedules.
In April, we, um, we reviewed those mock-ups and then came to consensus about what, you know, at the end of this process here,
what do we want to recommend to the principals who will ultimately be responsible for, you know, implementing and create,
working with schedules to create the master schedules for this upcoming year.
Um, so we did that. We met, um, for a whole day in May, and that was a major topic of our conversation.
And now we're sharing recommendations with you, and then we'll begin our scheduling process.
And I will say, we, we don't feel done and finished.
Um, I think we, we, we've, we've certainly come to some agreements about things that we want to work on.
And we think there's still other ideas that are worthy of exploration that we'll continue to look into next year.
So, uh, that was the book. In case anybody was looking for something to read this summer, um, that, that is where our article came from.
Um, so the guiding principles that we developed as a team was to, um, really kind of fell into four big buckets.
There's a link in there just to kind of see the details. Um, but the big ideas were to have things be both student-centered and developmentally appropriate.
For example, we know that, um, transition time for our youngest learners is different than it is for our older learners.
And, you know, putting on snowsuits for, for kindergarteners takes longer than your older, older students.
Um, and so we wanted to be mindful of that when creating schedules.
Um, we wanted to really think about instructional integrity and equity.
Um, you know, how are we making time for all of the different subjects and really honoring each of those?
Um, and how are we also trying to stay, uh, true to what, what our programs are recommending to, to the best that we can.
Um, thinking through professional wellness and collaboration.
Where is there time for, for our educators to meet?
And how do we create our schedules so that we can, um, maximize, say, um, common planning time for teachers of similar grades?
And then, um, operational efficiency and sustainability.
How can we create something that we don't have to completely remake from year to year?
Obviously, um, there are changes that happen from year to year.
For example, in some years you may have three sections, um, in a school, in a, in a grade.
In other years you might have four, just depending on fluctuations in enrollments.
But, but, to have a good base to start from each year and not feel like you're starting from scratch.
Um, I just wanted to give you the flavor of some of the teacher feedback that we saw.
Um, you know, there was, there was a lot of conversations about, about recess.
You know, many, many districts have fewer recess minutes than we do.
Um, there was a, uh, I, I would say, uh, allowed, um, priority to ensure that we still could, could continue to have recess time.
Um, we know that kids need to practice some of their new found SEL skills in, in, in nature, in the real world, or their real world.
Um, things like working, you know, we, when we were trying to make more efficient schedules, we talked about ideas like working snack.
That's a lot harder to do with the real younger students.
Um, we all agreed that we needed more time for social studies and, and science.
That, that had been, had felt kind of pushed out to, to make room for other things.
Um, kind of students, uh, by age, again, this is developmental appropriateness.
More math in the upper grades.
You can do it for longer, longer periods of time.
Um, instrumental pullouts, sort of feeling disruptive, was a theme.
Um, a problem with recess, abutting intervention.
So, kids might come back late, if they only had, you know, 20 minutes of intervention time,
that they really needed every single one of those minutes that they were late coming back in.
That, that was, that was tricky.
Um, and one of the big things was the big, greater the block scheduling,
the more time I'm learning you they have.
So, so really trying to look for the places in our schedule, we can capitalize on that.
Thank you, Betsy.
Um, so, once it's, there are a lot of important statistics from all the,
I'm Brian Jones, by the way, from the local, I don't know if I've met you both.
Um, and, um, but once it's a lot of really, like, important statistics that came out of this committee,
but one that really kind of stood out to us, is that essentially 72% of teachers,
I feel like our schedule prevents us from providing the support for all students.
And so, when you really think that three quarters of our teachers are not feeling good about our schedule,
and that there are limitations within our schedule, I just think that's very powerful.
Um, in fact, it's, you know, 67 teachers.
So, building off of that, um, the math, the scheduling.
So, um, obviously we have a shorter day on Wednesday.
Um, and I am a math geek, so I love these minutes and try to adding all these things up.
Um, but basically, if we look at the course of a week, we have 1,835 minutes available.
Um, and, what we're trying to do is fit 1,995 minutes into 1,835.
Now, you don't have to be a math major to realize that that doesn't fit.
And, at some point, we have to really look at what we're doing here.
Um, because it's just isn't feasible.
And now you add in a new reading program that might even increase some of that ELA time.
The number could be higher than 19.
Um, so, what I would say, what is up there is aspirational.
Like, it says science and social studies, for example, is 4 times 45.
We're lucky if it's twice a week, combined.
Um, so, just kind of, basically, over the years, in order to make the schedule we currently have,
we have had to cut in different areas.
Um, math, for example.
We're supposed to be doing 60 minutes of instruction plus 20 minutes of number corner.
We're only doing 50.
Um, you guys talk about science and social studies.
Wayfinder.
Pretty much every classroom teacher who talks about Wayfinder would tell you,
they need 40 minutes to do a lesson.
We're just barely giving them 30.
Um, another thing that we learned about scheduling is that it's important to build in transition time.
Bless you.
Um, and so, within these minutes, um, we've tried to build a transition so the actual minutes of whatever,
whether the lesson or subject matter was, um, accurate to the extent we can.
What specials, Ryan?
What specials?
Specials are, um, like, PE, music, art, um, librarianship.
Um, so just, you know, our goals, um, and I think the committee did a really good job with this.
Um, is to make sure that we all basically shared the air.
Um, so to speak, that one group or one person didn't kind of dominate the discussion.
Um, and so those were kind of the things that we worked towards, um, in order to kind of get to,
you know, somewhat of a consensus with some recommendations that were made through the elementary principles.
Um, and then we kind of voted on a fist to five, um, kind of within those areas.
Um, and the recommendations came out when there was, you know, four or five thinkers.
So the recommendations, um, that came out of our committee, um, schedules are done centrally by school
to maximize efficiency of intervention and sped services.
Um, the, one of the most important lessons that we learned through that article is that we need to,
as Betsy was saying before, we, it's not micromanaging if we are looking at a schedule and putting everything in.
Um, and because things are lost and deep down inside, many teachers want this.
They want us to schedule for them, um, because it's, it's hard to fit everything in.
Um, having a common template across schools.
Five minutes, um, um, for every single time.
Um, alignment of schedules.
So trying to have the entire grade level have ELA at the same time, have math at the same time,
have science at the same time.
Um, kind of within like a block scheduling within that.
Um, we know that CKLA, um, we need 120 minutes, um, including intervention.
Um, if you actually follow the program, it really is two and a half hours that you need.
It really should be 150 minutes.
Um, we're finding a way, once again, to implement a program and not fully implementing it,
just like we were doing for Bridges.
So, the recommendations of the committee.
So, and then fourth and fifth grade Spanish immersion requires an additional 30 minutes of skills practice.
Um, number corner, um, is that extra 20 minute block where, um, they look at calendars,
and they're looking at, um, different concepts.
Um, it's often times like a repetition of what they're learning in the core instruction.
So we would use that for math intervention.
Um, our math coaches have done a really nice job of balancing their roles of being a coach
and an interventionist this year.
Um, and so that's a 20 minute block where they've been able to kind of pull out
because the, um, students won't be missing anything necessarily other than just kind of practice.
Um, we thought it was really important to include transition times as I said before.
Um, screen time, right?
That is something that we're all thinking about.
Um, I think it's only going to become more prominent as we move forward.
Um, we got in some bad habits during COVID, we know.
And, um, we learned that screen time is not necessarily nearly as effective.
Um, as we thought it might've been at one point.
Um, and so we're always looking at ways to kind of minimize that.
Um, we have something called skills lab at the youngest grades.
Um, where kids are on an iPad, essentially.
And they're doing, um, either iReady math or they're doing, like, Lexi reading.
But they're spending 30 minutes on an iPad.
Um, when, what do younger students need?
Yes, they need academic practice and repetition and Lexi and iReady are really strong programs.
But they need to interact with one another.
They need to be able to, um, learn how to play.
They need to learn how to navigate challenging circumstances.
So we're proposing that the skills lab at the youngest grades, um, our skills lab teachers really focus on SEL.
And having, giving kids choice time, um, and things along those lines.
Um, wanting to, again, thinking about educating the whole child.
Um, we've also talked a lot about, um, exploring the idea of band, chorus, and orchestra becoming the fifth special.
Um, we know that's a really important program, the instrumental music program that we have here.
Um, and technology and library, if you look at most districts, um, it's one or the other.
Or, or it's combined into something called media.
Um, we have, we're so fortunate to have the technology and library teachers that we have here in Wayland.
Um, and one of the things, feedback we've heard from library teachers is they don't have much time to, like, monitor the collection.
Like, I can tell you with Loker, we have an amazing library teacher, Ann Powell.
There are books in there from the 80s, to be honest.
Um, she does a great job updating the collection every year, but there are books that have been there for a long time.
Um, within the 20,000 books that we have.
Um, technology, teachers have often said, I don't have time to go into classrooms, I don't have time to push in, I don't have time to do co-teaching.
And so, as a committee, we talked about, well, what if in fourth and fifth grade, we're scrambling for minutes.
If we put band, strings, and chorus all into the fifth special, and then library and technology kind of are combined.
Um, and so, like, half the year fourth grade might have library, the second half of the year they'd have technology.
Fifth grade, kind of vice versa, the fifth grade would have technology, fourth grade would have library.
And when the teachers were not teaching classes to fourth and fifth grade, they could push into the classroom and they could work on resource projects.
They could be co-teaching, it could be a math lesson, it could be a variety of things, as well as the library teachers working on the collection.
So, trying to be responsive to feedback, understanding that it's so important, both of these areas are obviously very crucial in what we do every day.
Um, and trying to be strategic within this.
As well as, honestly, protecting instrumental music.
Um, you know, one of the things that you often hear from teachers and from families,
is, um, is instrumental music going to be cut?
Is it going to be cut?
Um, you're struggling for science, you're struggling for math, you're struggling for minutes.
Are you cutting that?
And I think it's a program that means the world to our district.
Um, I'm, to, by left are two people that I think are the most, two of the most talented educators that I've ever worked with,
and Susan Emily and Whitney Tandon.
And I would also add Tristy Keenan and, um, Kim Piscolo to that list.
Is people that are very deeply valued within our committee.
What?
Okay.
And Rachel and Carol as well.
And Bernadette.
And Bernadette.
Okay, sorry.
I'm facing this on it.
I didn't see it.
I saw Susan and Whitney when I wanted it.
Um, but it, you know, we have amazing educators.
And so, the goal of this idea was to kind of protect it if we lock it into a fifth special and we are more strategic with technology and library,
classroom teachers get another 45 minutes back if we do this to do instruction.
Um, so that was kind of the motivation behind that.
Now, about two weeks ago, um, we had a training for CKLA and Caminos, um, and with School Kid.
And they came to Loker and they really broke down the minutes of what each program would look like.
And within Spanish Immersion, um, in fourth and fifth grade, we wanted to, um, English skill developments.
Um, as we've reflected on our Spanish Immersion program for, you know, we're now in about to start year nine in the fall.
Can't believe it's been that long. Um, we feel like we could have done a better job with some of our English skills developments.
And CKLA offers this where kids can actually work on English spelling.
They can work on grammar.
You know, the, the things that kids who are not in Spanish Immersion should pick up and aren't necessarily transferable.
And so in order to do that, and this is Sarah Sontag's recommendation, you know, we need to have up to about 30 extra minutes in Spanish Immersion in fourth and fifth grade so those kids will get those skills.
Now, where do those minutes come from?
So, I already told you that, you know, with math, we're already not meeting the minutes we're supposed to with the program.
With reading, we're talking about not doing all the units because we just don't have time.
We're barely getting by with science and social studies with maybe twice per week.
And honestly, I, with science in particular, I don't think we're doing our jobs with science.
I really don't. We're not getting enough minutes in.
SEL, we're not fulfilling what we're supposed to be fulfilling there.
So, I look at all the different areas that we've cut back out.
We're talking about kind of combining library and technology in fourth and fifth grade.
And so, pretty much every other aspect has been cut in some way or modified.
And so, as I looked at this report with the fifth grade Spanish Immersion, I went to my school council.
And we have parents of students who play instruments.
We have classroom teachers, including one at the fifth grade level.
And they said to me, they said,
Brian, if I'm reading the schedule correctly, fourth and fifth graders who play an instrument are doing 120 minutes of music every week.
And you're telling me that combined science and social studies, you're lucky if you get 80 or 90 minutes.
And they said, my kid enjoys playing an instrument.
They love learning it.
But how do you allow this to happen?
How is the district allowing music to be 120 minutes in fourth and fifth grade?
And we're struggling to fit in basically any science or social studies.
You're not fulfilling your math minutes.
We're worried about fitting in our ELA with our new program.
So, and this is really hard.
This is something where, you know, the people behind me, I, again, I'm going to say it again.
The immense respect that I have for all of them.
This has been one of the hardest things to even come to.
I don't know what else to do.
I don't know what else to do.
And I appreciate that Nicolette and Marie are here as support.
This is not local going rogue.
This is something that's vetted across the elementary team that we want to try a pilot.
And so, basically, right now music is a 45-minute ensemble and a 30-minute lesson.
Both are really, really important.
In reality, the 45-minute ensemble block is 55 minutes.
By the time kids pack up their instruments, they come back to class.
The 30-minute lesson is more like a 40-minute period.
So, remember I said 120 minutes of music?
It's more like 130 minutes or 140 minutes of music when you think about transitions.
So now we're almost double of what science and social studies is combined.
So, at some point, we have to look at how much music we're doing.
And it's an uncomfortable conversation, it's a brutal conversation, and one I hoped I never would have to have.
I'm not looking to cut anything, but I don't know what else to do.
And so, Betsy and I met with the music department on Monday.
She was in Memphis on Monday.
I met with my local teachers on Monday as well.
And we talked to them about this pilot idea that having an additional 30 minutes,
which is essential to pull off a brand-new program in 4th and 5th grade Spanish immersion,
and to try to get some time back for science and social studies, or SEL,
I am recommending that we go from 75 minutes of instructional minutes for instrumental music
to 45 minutes for a year.
And I know what that impact is.
I know that that is probably going to mean that local instrumental music players
will probably not have the same skill set as Happy Hollow and Clayfit this year.
It may not be evident in the December concerts, it will probably be more evident in the June concerts.
And this is like a brutal choice.
Like, do you look at this and say, okay, they're not going to be playing quite as well.
And then you also think about the trajectory of the program,
the long-term of the instrumental music program, which we all value.
And our kids are begging us for more science.
When we do drop everything and create days at Loker and other places,
it's their favorite day of the year.
And so, if we're educating the whole child, yet we're devoting so much time to music,
as great as it is, I have a hard time looking in the mirror
and saying we're educating the whole child if those minutes are the way they are.
And so, getting those 30 minutes back with the potential, basically, 40 minutes,
this 30-minute lesson is really 40 minutes.
So, when you think about 40 to 45 minutes, that's like 27 hours.
Imagine what classroom teachers could do with 27 hours.
In addition, that 30-minute lesson block.
Anyone who doesn't play an instrument is left back in the classroom.
So, the classroom teacher is there with five or six kids, or in some cases,
like Loker's fifth grade, I think one of them has like 10.
They can't move forward with the curriculum.
So, it's kind of, yeah, you can do some intervention, you can do some things,
but you can't move forward, so it's not time that's effective in many ways.
And so, you know, thinking about trying this for a year,
when I talked about my school council, they 100% vetted this.
I've talked to my fourth and fifth grade classroom teachers,
who all said, who all refer to that time as lost time,
and they all believe very strongly getting that time back will make a very big impact.
And I know that this has, this will have a negative effect on band and orchestra,
and it's something that I don't take lightly,
but I'm also, the point is, I don't know what else to do.
So, I want to share kind of the context of that,
and the considerations, I've already kind of said them.
At Loker, we're going to have less performing music time
and Happy Halloween Play Pit this year.
We're going to have more classroom minutes,
and we're looking at kind of the fee structure,
and that's just kind of an estimate.
If Loker are getting about 40% less percentage of lessons,
you know, would they only pay 60% of the current $150 fee?
So, those are things to all talk about.
So, yeah, that's kind of where we're at,
and that's what we're hoping to pilot in the fall at Wilker.
I can imagine this is a really, really, really hard thing for you all to bring to us,
so I appreciate just this conversation, because it's really hard and uncomfortable.
I'm assuming this will impact band more than orchestra.
I've sent kids through band and orchestra, but you start orchestra in third grade.
So, if you have that foundation for orchestra in third grade, you go to one, fourth, and fifth.
I'm assuming it will impact band more.
But, for your band students, what percentage of band students are doing practice partners?
Like, you can get a high school student to help support you.
And what percentage are coming in with private lessons as well?
Is there more invisible support there than maybe we're thinking about?
Like, yes, we're losing in-school time, but we have all these invisible supporters
that just can help them as they're learning.
I would be happy to look into that.
I don't have the percentages offhand.
I do worry about private lessons.
I think there's a huge inequity there.
Those who can afford it, pay it.
And those who can't, do not.
And so, I don't want to rely on private lessons for this.
But, having a one-on-one with high school students, that's great.
I'm just really curious, because I'm concerned about that equity piece,
but I also know we want to learn science, and we're investing in these quick ones.
There's just not enough time.
Did you discuss piloting it across all three schools?
Like, why only do it with one?
Because it does create a year where there's a real disparate training.
So, I'm curious.
Because this could be a trade-around.
Yeah.
This may not be a good thing.
To be very honest, I mean, you know, we've spoken.
I have way more confidence than all of you.
I'm just trying to be super transparent with everything.
I think that we talked about it, and we felt like trying this at one school to see the impact,
and then being able to report back to you next spring, the pros and cons of this decision.
You know, we're doing something we haven't ever done before.
We're taking away instrumental music lessons.
And I'd rather it be a train wreck of one school than all three if this ends up not being a good pilot.
And I'm going to use the word pilot for a reason.
It's not a pilot of instrumental music.
I think when you use that word with instrumental music, you're talking about maybe it's quality.
We're talking about a schedule pilot.
So, I want to really distinguish those two things.
This is a schedule pilot for what we might be able to do to try to have a more well-rounded educator.
Did that answer your question about the adult three schools?
It did.
Yeah.
I mean, I'll be honest.
I mean, this is hard.
There's a comment in here about change is difficult and it's a loss.
Personally, I also champion music.
My students are in music.
I play an instrument.
We do a second instrument outside of school because we think it's incredibly important.
Frankly, not just to them learning a musical instrument and having that cultural opportunity,
but I think it drastically improves neuroplasticity at young grades.
And so, I think there's a tremendous correlation between academic achievement and music.
That said, I don't want to only talk about the recommended pilot because I am really alarmed at your math of scheduling slide.
I haven't been able to stop going back to it since I champion all of the working group that did this.
It's incredibly, incredibly informative to the district, to the committee, to the community.
Like, time is our absolute scarcest resource and how we use that time is the massive lever of how much impact we can have for the limited hours a day that you all have our students.
Even if we do the pilot, it's still only 45 minutes looking at a delta of 160.
And, you know, it doesn't sound good to be launching new curriculums knowing that we can't do so with fidelity.
I mean, everyone really worked incredibly hard to do that with Bridges and found it to be very challenging.
We made very difficult trade-offs with other areas of the curriculum.
I just think it's really important for the community to hear that, like, this tension is going nowhere and the limiter is time.
We're not going to get to a point where kids need to learn less.
We're not going to get to a point where suddenly six-year-olds don't need to move their bodies.
We're not, like, this is a community challenge for all of us to try to face.
And so thank you for the creativity.
Thank you for the willingness and open-mindedness to try it.
But I, you know, I see that as really step one to a problem that is not going anywhere.
And one of the, you know, we talked about, as we look into next year, also looking at, like, when we look at a six-day rotation,
where, you know, that six-day might have a real long science block where, you know, you can really get into some of the FOSS kits in a deeper way.
And just think about other ideas that we might want to explore.
You know, obviously there's concerns if it's a six-day rotation, you know,
the kids are never going to remember to bring their instrument on the right days because it's hard enough for middle schoolers.
Let's be clear, Betsy, who is remembering to bring the instrument?
Not perfectly, but...
Easier when it's a Tuesday versus a C-day.
One would hope, but...
But there are some other possibilities to explore.
And, you know, we weren't sure if we'll be able to pull off the combining of technology and library, too, in such a short time.
You know, we were thinking it would be further out, but the committee really thought it was worth trying to explore to get some of those minutes back for this year.
So we're meeting with the team on Tuesday again.
All the principals have talked to their librarians and, you know, and technology teachers to just, you know, see what creative ideas we have to make it really a value-add and not just a loss of minutes, but how can we unsilo some things and be more strategic.
So, sorry.
Is there a general understanding that if this is successful, and I don't know what successful really means, and I don't know how you measure that success, that in the following school year the other two elementary schools will follow suit?
And that Loker won't be the only school who has made this hard and permanent choice.
You know, I...
I just don't...
When we talk about equity, I don't want us to have to make that decision and then we have two other schools.
Um...
I don't want to speak for this here.
Yeah.
And I don't want to be on the spot, but...
discussing a pilot and what it would be, um, we were open to reflecting as a collective group and what would our decision be.
So, um, do we then all do the same model?
I feel like for the conclusion of all of our elementary students, the three of us are always talking about
make sure that we're locking steps so that all of our elementary learners have the same experiences and employees.
So we would have to collaborate and make a decision where all three schools are having the same instruction and experiences.
Yeah.
There would need to be alignment there in some forms.
I think from my perspective, um, these are really complicated, um, choices, right?
And as Betsy said, the minutes are the minutes.
And so there will be loss no matter how we shift.
And both the, the idea of combining library and tech and the local pilot involve loss for a wide range of stakeholders.
You know, I, as an instructional leader in my building, I've got biases based on, like, my background, right?
So we talk about math and Betsy and Brian will say I get really salty about the, the 50 minutes versus the 60 minutes, right?
Um, I had an interesting conversation, um, with a music educator recently, you know?
It comes at it from a different vantage point.
And her thought was, like, there's an awful lot of ELA in the schedule.
Might we cut back on that?
And that, like, made my ears hurt.
But, like, we all come at it in a different lens.
And I think that what Betsy said, for me, is the most important thing.
Like, if we go forward with this pilot, there'll be things to learn.
We'll take those learnings and try to, you know, look at other options.
Um, you know, look at, like, the things that we didn't like about this pilot, the losses that we can't live with.
We'll get other options, um, whether it be a six-day rotating schedule or something else.
Um, and do something equitable across the three buildings.
I think that that is definitely a priority of the three of us.
To, to come out with something, um, that all of us can live with and endorse.
Including our educators whose opinions and passions we value deeply.
Um.
So, is there a current, oh, sorry, go ahead.
Oh, no, I was just saying any decision.
Maybe it's hard, but we're always talking about the whole child
and how we provide the most fraternity experiences.
Um.
So, what I heard, and I want to make sure I got it right.
There's an openness to looking at the results of this and considering this model or another change.
But the goal is to land at consistency across the schools.
We wouldn't be okay with coming away with, like, this is how we're going to do business at one school.
Okay.
That would not be accountable for us.
Okay.
And I don't want to, for a minute, make you think that, like, our music educators are totally on board with this idea.
Right?
At all.
That it's, you know, they've built something beautiful and the idea of cutting back and potentially tarnishing that in any way is, is, is so much to consider.
Mm-hm.
I just wanted to be clear.
Yeah.
When we're thinking about scheduling, scheduling is so complicated.
I'm assuming you've thought of this and talked about this, but that instrumental could not be, could not replace the music for those students, right?
Because they're still getting a music special.
Rather, if I'm up in the band, instead of going to my music class, I couldn't go to my flute class.
Could I?
We did talk about, I don't know, about would you have kids either go to, um, general music or lessons or, like, lessons for half an hour and then, you know, 15 minutes of general music.
Um, which might, might be possible in pockets for certain places.
Whether we could pull that up across all of the sections.
Um.
It's a staffing constraint, I assume.
Yeah.
Okay.
You gotta move people between buildings.
Yeah.
Okay.
And, and as you know, we share specialists between buildings.
Right.
Like, and sharing specialists often drives this, you know, it is a major schedule constraint.
Um, and, you know, artists.
Definitely artists.
In an ideal world, we'd have, you know, full-time people in every building and, um, but, but, but that's not, that wouldn't be fiscally responsible.
It wouldn't, you know, their days wouldn't all be full in certain places and, um, you know, we have very different sized schools too, as you know.
The first thing we do with scheduling is we put in the shared specialists.
So instrumental music often comes first and then we look at, um.
Library tech.
Library tech.
And now they're shared.
A little bit.
Which is not what is recommended in the best practices.
Well, that's a pretty good arm wrestler.
I don't know.
She's a pretty good arm wrestler.
I don't know.
She's a pretty good arm wrestler.
That might be best practices.
Back to your point, Kay. What, what is the indicator we're tracking for the success to play? For me, you know, kind of three things come to mind. One is, um, looking at kind of unit completion. And we're able to do those science and social studies units that we haven't in the past. Um, number two is, I think, we would be looking at assessment scores, um, for end of unit assessments along those lines, depending on which subject we were looking at. Um, and then I think something that probably wouldn't be quite as, um, quantitative is just looking at the kids' level of engagement and thinking about, um, if we're adding that extra 30 to 40 minutes of science, is that what kids really want? And I think surveying the kids at the end of, and asking them, um, is this, is this a good change? Now, the rising third graders aren't going to know any difference, because right now they have 45 minutes of music, and that's, it's going to feel the same as this year. Um, it would be the rising fifth graders that will see the loss. It's going to be a music major as well. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, and obviously we're going to look at what's lost, you know, within music, and, yeah. Can our music teachers have a great way also, and if I can just bring you as an example, with, um, the karate belts, um, to see the progression of students and the challenges they do, because there's ways for us to keep a level of competition within their music program as well, and kind of look at the whole child and their experience with the class, and have those vehicle for conversations. So, in addition to sort of acquisition of proficiency in the instrument, I'd also love to understand if you can measure, like, interest in continuing for the student. So, I think there is some value to frequency at these ages, and so I just want to make sure that we also aren't seeing a drop off as kids matriculate, that if we remove that frequency, and again, maybe that goes into the bucket of, we trade off a shorter time, multiple times a week, and we don't get the bigger block. I mean, it is hard. I, looking at the math, the 120 minutes when you compare to where socials and science, like, I understand the school council conversation you had. It's hard when you're not, when you're looking at that. Um, but I certainly want to also be mindful that we're not, um, negatively impacting the sort of pipeline of performers moving through our, our curriculum trajectory. And we certainly talked to Susan about, you know, the, the big picture losses may not show up after one year, right? It's, it's when you're five years out, you know, what players have you lost, what proficiency, what repertoire are they able to engage with at, you know, seventh grade now, based on having less in the early years. And are we less likely to produce scientists, if we don't have science? 100%. It's weighing all those factors, and these are brutal things to be weighing. I don't want to weigh any of them. Right, we all want it all. Yep. We've been trying to do it all. I wonder, you know, as we, as families are registering for next year, um, if I had an orchestra child, and now they're rising to fourth grade, and ah, I want to try band, but oh, do we need to keep getting to families if there's a shift in the program? 100%. Um, I, I worry about the band to orchestra ratio, um, because if I'm a parent and they already know violin, why wouldn't we stick in? It's keeping the violin, and then not getting as much instruction, but I hear you, and this feels like an impossible, you know, conversation. And we came to you first, but we are, I'll be communicating to families. I also just want to name a more immediate downstream challenge is when these students rise up to the middle school, right, then are, we're going to be combining students at ultimately different levels, right? And so there could also be, again, just something to think through around, like, the retention persistence, right? Like, you're, you're going to see some students who are going to feel potentially more frustrated at either end of the spectrum, um, because of their experience. And then also, you know, our educators are going to have to balance, uh, a broader spectrum of, you know, student needs when those groups are being mixed, this first cohort that you're piloting, right? Like, if it doesn't, um, continue on. I just wanted to give one perspective of the change with this, too, is putting chorus back into the school day, um, doing that because instrumental music is, you know, fourth and fifth grade is just band and orchestra, and chorus was always outside of the school day. It wasn't always like that. When I started 25 years ago, it wasn't the school day, and chorus was taken out. And so now you're also talking about a fee that parents are paying, so they're paying a fee for band and orchestra, but they're not paying a fee for chorus? Today. I'm just saying right now, they don't, they don't have the chorus, right? So I'm saying that when you put it back in, these are questions, I just say it's because of my years of, you know, and I helped to do the after school WSC program, you know, to help get the instrumental lessons going in vocal lessons, too, but it's primarily instrumental lessons, you know, that it is, it is expensive, and it's not just expensive, it's an issue of space, as we sit here and we talk about schools that we'll get in 32 years. So, but, you know, having the lessons. Not 56, 32. It's not 10, I heard, eat the 10. So, it's just, it's layered, you know, it's not just in, and having been in this, teaching in this town for 25 years, when one school does something different than the others, in this kind of way, that affects, you know, a certain group financially, or in some kind of equality piece, you know, our Boston resident students, it's already been a little, because they try, we've been trying to work on this issue for years. I mean, I used to do the scheduling at Clay Pitt myself, and help with the other schools as well. And one of the things that has come out of it is to try to bump it, like, a little earlier in the day, so now it starts at 745. So, it's, it's a little, like, chipping away a little bit, a little bit at a time. And I just know, I just, you know, wanted to say that, and I understand priorities can change over time, and I agree, they need it all, right? And, but, so, but, and for those kids that, they need that music class, too, during the day. During the day, there are those kids, you know, and of course, yeah, and they need science, and they need, right? So, it's all about what state, we always talk about what state is going on the ground first, you know? And I think sometimes when, when new initiatives come up, some of it needs to be taught, it needs to be talked about how much time needs to be, you know, allotted for the new initiatives. Even if they're great, you know what I mean? But it's like, we gotta figure out how you can do it all. And I think that's a really good point, Bernadette, and I, and I think, for the last 12 years as an elementary principal, I've been part of a team that's always tried to protect instrumental music, and we cut back in every other area. I would love a longer school day, that would solve this. Can we, can we do that? No. Um, I mean, in all reality, like, but, cut everything else, I don't know what else to cut. I don't know where else to go. I don't want to do this. You know? Sometimes I think it's to the, if cutting, or is it that we're not taking something off the plate. You know, we just keep, we keep adding things. That's what teachers say a lot, too, you know? We keep adding what they have to do, you know? It's like our legs. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's right. Like, we didn't have, you know, we didn't have technology where they had that time, you know, so they had that time, right? To do the, whatever, you know, but now that's not our world. Do you know there's other things that have to be? Going out of order, because I know we've been on music for a bit, the only other thing I did want to comment on that came out of the scheduling group was the skills time on the iPad in the younger grades. And I personally am very supportive of making that an SEL choice time. I'd actually love to get an update now that we are so many years past COVID on screen usage generally outside of technology and how much in classrooms at different grade levels we're currently incorporating. So that's a sort of future. We'll assess that as we develop goals for next year. Yeah, I think that'd be great. I think that would certainly fit in that bucket. I think it came up last time when Jen was doing the leasing and we sort of touched on it and then tonight it came up. So it's feeling like anytime things percolate up to the table a few times, it feels like maybe we need to understand better. It's timely to get an assessment and it's relevant to some skills in the library and how is the time used and structured. In the short time I've been here, I've seen an improvement and we're not all the way there yet. You know, there's been, like we are shifting. That's helpful anecdotal though actually. Yeah, I actually, there's definitely a positive shift in work to do. And I'm very proud of the hard things that we're choosing. The CKLA, the bridges, it really, really values more of the collaboration between students rather than being on any type of device. And so it's a great way for students to practice those SCL skills. And so I agree. Definitely we're looking to do improvements and I see that. Where we get a little stuck is that our little learners, third graders, fourth graders, fifth graders have to take the MCATs. They're going to have to write. They have to, you know, generate a piece of text that is lengthy in nature. And they have to be able to type. And it feels like we need to put them on a computer to practice that scale. Otherwise, even if they're a beautiful writer, they're not going to be able to show what they're able to do. Or we could lobby to put that by being handwritten. I mean, that would be phenomenal. Blue books are back. Developmental inappropriateness of an eight-year-old typing an essay is shocking to me. I'm sure it's not my field. But, like, isn't that even good for our developing little fingers? I don't know. I don't know if other people have things to say. I think this is a very hard conversation. I give all of you tremendous, tremendous kudos for tackling it. I don't know if this is the answer. You know, I'm supportive of your recommendation. I would like to understand. I think there was a question of we're voting on fees. I would like to understand a little bit more of the wrinkle of the instrumental fee versus the chorus fee. We may not be. Okay. We'll get that. Okay. I figured we might not be ready for that. There's a couple things. More about content. We'll get that down the road. Sorry. That's okay. We'll get that down the road. No problem. Yes. To the consent agenda. I need a minute on minutes. I apologize if you didn't get time. Thank you all. And we do not have May 4th, so we can begin. But we do have May 27th. Yes. Diane? Yes? The minutes for May 27th, under item 7, sub B, indicate that we did approve the May 4th, but we didn't have them, so do we need, does that stay listed as a consent agenda or should the minutes reflect that we, the motion to approve the consent agenda removed the May 4th? Oh, you have it. Okay. So that's just keeping what was originally on? Correct. Okay. Thank you. The consent agenda. Oh, with the exception of the May 4th minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have tonight. To, through 10 minutes, as permitted by MGL chapter 7et Section 22 from May 27th, 2026, as a note we approved executive session, May 4th, in our previous meeting . We will be joined by Superintendent David Fleischman and Assistant Superintendent Betsy and Betsy Devron. The school committee will adjourn an executive session and will not reconvene an open session. Do I have a second? A second. Betsy? Yes. Okay. Yes. Jessica. Rashaan? Yes. Thank you.
Back to your point, Kay. What, what is the indicator we're tracking for the success to play? For me, you know, kind of three things come to mind. One is, um, looking at kind of unit completion. And we're able to do those science and social studies units that we haven't in the past. Um, number two is, I think, we would be looking at assessment scores, um, for end of unit assessments along those lines, depending on which subject we were looking at. Um, and then I think something that probably wouldn't be quite as, um, quantitative is just looking at the kids' level of engagement and thinking about, um, if we're adding that extra 30 to 40 minutes of science, is that what kids really want? And I think surveying the kids at the end of, and asking them, um, is this, is this a good change? Now, the rising third graders aren't going to know any difference, because right now they have 45 minutes of music, and that's, it's going to feel the same as this year. Um, it would be the rising fifth graders that will see the loss. It's going to be a music major as well. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, and obviously we're going to look at what's lost, you know, within music, and, yeah. Can our music teachers have a great way also, and if I can just bring you as an example, with, um, the karate belts, um, to see the progression of students and the challenges they do, because there's ways for us to keep a level of competition within their music program as well, and kind of look at the whole child and their experience with the class, and have those vehicle for conversations. So, in addition to sort of acquisition of proficiency in the instrument, I'd also love to understand if you can measure, like, interest in continuing for the student. So, I think there is some value to frequency at these ages, and so I just want to make sure that we also aren't seeing a drop off as kids matriculate, that if we remove that frequency, and again, maybe that goes into the bucket of, we trade off a shorter time, multiple times a week, and we don't get the bigger block. I mean, it is hard. I, looking at the math, the 120 minutes when you compare to where socials and science, like, I understand the school council conversation you had. It's hard when you're not, when you're looking at that. Um, but I certainly want to also be mindful that we're not, um, negatively impacting the sort of pipeline of performers moving through our, our curriculum trajectory. And we certainly talked to Susan about, you know, the, the big picture losses may not show up after one year, right? It's, it's when you're five years out, you know, what players have you lost, what proficiency, what repertoire are they able to engage with at, you know, seventh grade now, based on having less in the early years. And are we less likely to produce scientists, if we don't have science? 100%. It's weighing all those factors, and these are brutal things to be weighing. I don't want to weigh any of them. Right, we all want it all. Yep. We've been trying to do it all. I wonder, you know, as we, as families are registering for next year, um, if I had an orchestra child, and now they're rising to fourth grade, and ah, I want to try band, but oh, do we need to keep getting to families if there's a shift in the program? 100%. Um, I, I worry about the band to orchestra ratio, um, because if I'm a parent and they already know violin, why wouldn't we stick in? It's keeping the violin, and then not getting as much instruction, but I hear you, and this feels like an impossible, you know, conversation. And we came to you first, but we are, I'll be communicating to families. I also just want to name a more immediate downstream challenge is when these students rise up to the middle school, right, then are, we're going to be combining students at ultimately different levels, right? And so there could also be, again, just something to think through around, like, the retention persistence, right? Like, you're, you're going to see some students who are going to feel potentially more frustrated at either end of the spectrum, um, because of their experience. And then also, you know, our educators are going to have to balance, uh, a broader spectrum of, you know, student needs when those groups are being mixed, this first cohort that you're piloting, right? Like, if it doesn't, um, continue on. I just wanted to give one perspective of the change with this, too, is putting chorus back into the school day, um, doing that because instrumental music is, you know, fourth and fifth grade is just band and orchestra, and chorus was always outside of the school day. It wasn't always like that. When I started 25 years ago, it wasn't the school day, and chorus was taken out. And so now you're also talking about a fee that parents are paying, so they're paying a fee for band and orchestra, but they're not paying a fee for chorus? Today. I'm just saying right now, they don't, they don't have the chorus, right? So I'm saying that when you put it back in, these are questions, I just say it's because of my years of, you know, and I helped to do the after school WSC program, you know, to help get the instrumental lessons going in vocal lessons, too, but it's primarily instrumental lessons, you know, that it is, it is expensive, and it's not just expensive, it's an issue of space, as we sit here and we talk about schools that we'll get in 32 years. So, but, you know, having the lessons. Not 56, 32. It's not 10, I heard, eat the 10. So, it's just, it's layered, you know, it's not just in, and having been in this, teaching in this town for 25 years, when one school does something different than the others, in this kind of way, that affects, you know, a certain group financially, or in some kind of equality piece, you know, our Boston resident students, it's already been a little, because they try, we've been trying to work on this issue for years. I mean, I used to do the scheduling at Clay Pitt myself, and help with the other schools as well. And one of the things that has come out of it is to try to bump it, like, a little earlier in the day, so now it starts at 745. So, it's, it's a little, like, chipping away a little bit, a little bit at a time. And I just know, I just, you know, wanted to say that, and I understand priorities can change over time, and I agree, they need it all, right? And, but, so, but, and for those kids that, they need that music class, too, during the day. During the day, there are those kids, you know, and of course, yeah, and they need science, and they need, right? So, it's all about what state, we always talk about what state is going on the ground first, you know? And I think sometimes when, when new initiatives come up, some of it needs to be taught, it needs to be talked about how much time needs to be, you know, allotted for the new initiatives. Even if they're great, you know what I mean? But it's like, we gotta figure out how you can do it all. And I think that's a really good point, Bernadette, and I, and I think, for the last 12 years as an elementary principal, I've been part of a team that's always tried to protect instrumental music, and we cut back in every other area. I would love a longer school day, that would solve this. Can we, can we do that? No. Um, I mean, in all reality, like, but, cut everything else, I don't know what else to cut. I don't know where else to go. I don't want to do this. You know? Sometimes I think it's to the, if cutting, or is it that we're not taking something off the plate. You know, we just keep, we keep adding things. That's what teachers say a lot, too, you know? We keep adding what they have to do, you know? It's like our legs. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's right. Like, we didn't have, you know, we didn't have technology where they had that time, you know, so they had that time, right? To do the, whatever, you know, but now that's not our world. Do you know there's other things that have to be? Going out of order, because I know we've been on music for a bit, the only other thing I did want to comment on that came out of the scheduling group was the skills time on the iPad in the younger grades. And I personally am very supportive of making that an SEL choice time. I'd actually love to get an update now that we are so many years past COVID on screen usage generally outside of technology and how much in classrooms at different grade levels we're currently incorporating. So that's a sort of future. We'll assess that as we develop goals for next year. Yeah, I think that'd be great. I think that would certainly fit in that bucket. I think it came up last time when Jen was doing the leasing and we sort of touched on it and then tonight it came up. So it's feeling like anytime things percolate up to the table a few times, it feels like maybe we need to understand better. It's timely to get an assessment and it's relevant to some skills in the library and how is the time used and structured. In the short time I've been here, I've seen an improvement and we're not all the way there yet. You know, there's been, like we are shifting. That's helpful anecdotal though actually. Yeah, I actually, there's definitely a positive shift in work to do. And I'm very proud of the hard things that we're choosing. The CKLA, the bridges, it really, really values more of the collaboration between students rather than being on any type of device. And so it's a great way for students to practice those SCL skills. And so I agree. Definitely we're looking to do improvements and I see that. Where we get a little stuck is that our little learners, third graders, fourth graders, fifth graders have to take the MCATs. They're going to have to write. They have to, you know, generate a piece of text that is lengthy in nature. And they have to be able to type. And it feels like we need to put them on a computer to practice that scale. Otherwise, even if they're a beautiful writer, they're not going to be able to show what they're able to do. Or we could lobby to put that by being handwritten. I mean, that would be phenomenal. Blue books are back. Developmental inappropriateness of an eight-year-old typing an essay is shocking to me. I'm sure it's not my field. But, like, isn't that even good for our developing little fingers? I don't know. I don't know if other people have things to say. I think this is a very hard conversation. I give all of you tremendous, tremendous kudos for tackling it. I don't know if this is the answer. You know, I'm supportive of your recommendation. I would like to understand. I think there was a question of we're voting on fees. I would like to understand a little bit more of the wrinkle of the instrumental fee versus the chorus fee. We may not be. Okay. We'll get that. Okay. I figured we might not be ready for that. There's a couple things. More about content. We'll get that down the road. Sorry. That's okay. We'll get that down the road. No problem. Yes. To the consent agenda. I need a minute on minutes. I apologize if you didn't get time. Thank you all. And we do not have May 4th, so we can begin. But we do have May 27th. Yes. Diane? Yes? The minutes for May 27th, under item 7, sub B, indicate that we did approve the May 4th, but we didn't have them, so do we need, does that stay listed as a consent agenda or should the minutes reflect that we, the motion to approve the consent agenda removed the May 4th? Oh, you have it. Okay. So that's just keeping what was originally on? Correct. Okay. Thank you. The consent agenda. Oh, with the exception of the May 4th minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have tonight. To, through 10 minutes, as permitted by MGL chapter 7et Section 22 from May 27th, 2026, as a note we approved executive session, May 4th, in our previous meeting . We will be joined by Superintendent David Fleischman and Assistant Superintendent Betsy and Betsy Devron. The school committee will adjourn an executive session and will not reconvene an open session. Do I have a second? A second. Betsy? Yes. Okay. Yes. Jessica. Rashaan? Yes. Thank you.