ABRSD Reorg Slides for Community Feedback

The Comprehensive Budget Binder for the Superintendent's Preliminary Budget for FY2026.

Strategic Planning and District Reorganization AB Forward

District Re-organization Options for Focus Groups

October 10 th , 2025

DRAFT

The process for gathering community feedback and refining options for re-organization will have many steps over the next two months.

Process for Refining Re-organization Options

Oct 7: Refine Options & Confirm Engagement Plan with SteerCo

Gather Feedback from the Community

Distill Community Feedback into Key Themes

Nov 18: Review Feedback and Prioritize Options with SteerCo

Dec 2: Finalize Options with SteerCo for Sharing

DRAFT

Focus Groups are critical to help us understand the trade-offs facing the Acton Boxborough community as well as fully understanding the benefits and drawbacks with each option.

Objectives of Focus Groups

Understand the tradeoffs, priorities, and support the community’s needs.

Capture additional benefits & drawbacks.

DRAFT

Focus Group questions will include the following.

Focus Group Questions

What Matters Most - Identifying key values, priorities, and concerns. •What factors matter most to you when thinking about a potential reorganization? •What are your greatest concerns about possible changes to both facilities and schools? •What would you most want the district to protect or preserve, no matter what changes happen?

Understanding Trade-offs - Explore benefits, drawbacks, and priorities. • Each option has trade-offs - things that may be gained or lost . What kinds of trade-offs do you think are hardest for your community? (Ex. increased class sizes, bigger schools, grade-level banding, longer commutes) • When you think about the big picture, what do you think should guide how the district balances those trade-offs? •What would a successful reorganization look like for your community? •Are there drawbacks or challenges that you think haven’t been fully addressed yet?

Preserving Belonging & Supporting Change - Surface ideas to maintain identity and stability during change. •How can the district support families, students, and staff through a transition? •What could the district do to help preserve a sense of belonging even with change?

Closing and Thoughts •If you could give one message to district leaders as we move through this process, what would it be? •Is there anything else you would like to share?

DRAFT

As ABRSD explores options for re-organization, a few key provisions will help add greater clarity to the final decisions that will be made.

District Re-organization Provisions

Student Placement and Minimizing Disruption

Approach to Closing or Merging Schools

School Closure Ideology / Reasoning

• It is likely that any option for reorganization will involve student movement between schools one or more schools, even if a school continues in its current form . Efforts will be made to minimize disruption for students and families.

• If the district determines that school closures or mergers are necessary during reorganization. In that case, it may be practical to consider schools based on age/condition or schools with lower enrollment and less community preference. • Based on ABRSD analysis, the schools identified in this plan are: • Closure based on age/condition of building: Conant School • Closure based on less selected open enrollment preference: Merriam School • Potential Merger based on less selected open enrollment preferences: Merriam and McCarthy-Towne Schools

• If schools are closed , all

students and staff in that school would be distributed to other schools. • If schools are merged , ABRSD would plan how to bring the school communities together. It is likely that some students and staff may need to be distributed to other schools based on space availability.

• District enrollment policies may be modified based on

reorganization and will inform student placement decisions.

DRAFT

Merging schools requires thoughtful planning to ensure students, staff, and families can grow a strong school culture in the new community—several approaches exist for consideration.

Understanding School Mergers

Under a merger, there are a variety of approaches ABRSD could take to build a new school community. Several approaches to consider for merging include:

Integrate into One Approach by absorb Merriam practices into McCarthy-Towne practices, or vice versa

Create a Combined Approach by taking the best practices from each of Merriam and McCarthy-Towne

Develop a New Approach using stakeholder input from both school communities

If the decision to merge two schools is made, the immediate next step would be to build a thoughtful plan for how to design the merger of the two school communities, using feedback from each.

DRAFT

DMGroup used three dimensions to develop a comprehensive set of possible options for ABRSD to consider for re-organization; approaches to enrollment policies will be handled separately.

Dimensions of Re-Organization Options

Facilities

Schools & Programs

Grade-Levels

Maintain 4 elementary buildings (Short Term vs. Long Term Renovations)

Keep the design of schools & programs the same (i.e. 6 distinct elementaries)

Keep grade-levels K-6

Shift from 4 elementary buildings to 3 buildings (Close a building)

Maintain 6 individual schools but allow for varying enrollment levels by sharing staff and resources within common buildings

Organize schools by smaller grade-level bands (i.e. Grades K-3 and 4-6) Convert elementary schools to grades K-5, and move all 6th graders to Junior High to make a Middle School

Shift from 6 schools to 5 schools by closing down 1 school

Expand the District

Shift from 6 schools to 5 schools by merging 2 schools together Shift to 5 schools, organized by grade bands

Options for reorganization for the district may be any combination of these three dimensions . Considering which of the three dimensions to prioritize can help to inform choices or options for remaining dimensions.

All re-organization options maintain the integrity of special education and multilingual programs and provide appropriate levels of space in the adjusted district configuration.

Shift from 6 schools to 3 schools (either K-6 or mix of grade bands)

DRAFT

DMGroup identified nine potential, feasible options for reorganization for consideration.

Re-Organization Framework

Option Level

Facilities

Schools & Programs

Grade-Levels

Elementary Level Options Elementary Level Options Elementary Level Options Elementary Level Options Elementary Level Options Elementary Level Options Elementary & Secondary School Options Elementary & Secondary School Options

Keep the design of schools & programs the same

Maintain 4 buildings

Keep grade-levels K-6

Shift from 4 buildings to 3 buildings Shift from 4 buildings to 3 buildings Shift from 4 buildings to 3 buildings Shift from 4 buildings to 3 buildings Shift from 4 buildings to 3 buildings

Maintain 6 individual schools

Keep grade-levels K-6

Shift from 6 schools to 5 schools by closing down 1 school Shift from 6 schools to 5 schools by merging 2 schools together Shift to 5 schools, organized by grade- bands

Keep grade-levels K-6

Use grade-level bands to distinguish schools

Shift from 6 schools to 3 schools

Keep grade-levels K-6

Convert elementary schools to grades K-5, move all 6th graders to Junior High to make a Middle School and/or move 8 th graders to the High School. Convert elementary schools to grades K-5, move all 6th graders to Junior High to make a Middle School, and/or move 8 th graders to the High School. Consider reconfiguring grade bands across a wider array of schools

Keep the design of schools & programs the same

Maintain 4 buildings

Maintain 6 individual schools and programs (or use any of the above re- configurations of elementary schools) Theoretically expand school portfolio by expanding the region

Shift from 4 buildings to 3 buildings

Long-Term Options

Expand the District/Region

DRAFT

Each possible reorganization option was evaluated against a specific set of criteria.

Criteria for Assessing District Reorganization Possibilities

❑ Projected Cost: What are the upfront versus ongoing costs? What potential cost savings or efficiencies exist? How do short-term costs align with long-term financial sustainability? ❑ Implications for Curriculum, Materials & Support: Will new programs, courses, pathways, or curriculum be required? What materials or resources may need to be added, replaced, or updated? What professional learning may be needed to support educators? ❑ Summarized Strengths and Drawbacks: What are the strengths or benefits of the reorganization option? What are the drawbacks? ❑ Impact on Staffing: How will staffing needs change in terms of the number and type of positions needed for each school and program? What effect will change have on staff workload? How might recruitment or retention be affected? ❑ Impact on Students & Families: How many people will be impacted? Which families or groups will experience disruption? How equitable is this impact across student/family populations? How will these changes strengthen or challenge community trust?

Less Sustainability

Medium Sustainability

Greater Sustainability

•

Limited ability to achieve long-term financial sustainability. Highly vulnerable to resource depletion and budgetary cuts.

•

Provides some financial stability but may not fully address long-term needs. Partial ability to re-direct resources, with trade-offs required.

•

Strong ability to achieve long-term financial sustainability. Strong ability to re-direct resources to support district priorities.

•

DRAFT

Re-organization Option 1 – Maintaining Existing Structures

Sustainability Scale

Option 1: Maintain the existing structure of all buildings, schools, and grade levels.

Features

Benefits

Drawbacks

Cost Implications

• 6 elementary schools remain in 4 buildings .

• No disruption to students, families, or staff.

• Some students benefit from new facilities while others do not, raising equity concerns.

• Short-term: Minimal investment required, with no immediate changes. • Continued vulnerability to district budget constraints leading to ongoing staffing reductions. • Long-term: Significant renovation costs will be deferred ($17.5M estimated at Conant , with the potential to increase over time). • Resources remain tied up in maintaining existing structures in lieu of innovating with new solutions.

• Grade levels stay K – 6.

• Maintains existing school communities .

• Staff morale could suffer in buildings that require significant renovation.

• Programs and open enrollment remain unchanged .

• Low short-term costs.

• Does not alleviate overall staffing needs, with a level of resourcing that the district cannot support long-term. • Lacks long-term sustainability as 4 buildings limit consolidation efficiencies and issues with facilities remain largely unresolved. • Any future budget reductions further deplete school-based resources with likely further staffing reductions over time.

• No changes to curriculum, materials, and support required.

• Renovations deferred in the short term ; eventual significant capital improvements will be required.

DRAFT

Re-organization Option 2 – Shifting from 4 to 3 Elementary Buildings

Sustainability Scale

Option 2: Shift from 4 to 3 elementary buildings, maintain 6 individual K – 6 schools.

Features

Benefits

Drawbacks

Cost Implications

• Consolidates 4 physical buildings down into 3 , closing the Conant Building.

• Removes reliance on the Conant facility , avoiding a costly renovation. • Preserves school choice and individual identity , even if facilities change.

• Families at Conant or from lower- enrolled schools may resist relocation due to loss of school culture, learning quality, or perceived inequities since other schools remain largely undisrupted. • Parker Damon and Boardwalk Campus may feel crowded and shared resources may be stretched. • Transportation adjustments and school culture integration could cause friction in the community . • Staff may face adjusted schedules or changes to workload due to denser populations.

• Short-term: Shuttering the Conant facility avoids costly renovation; other buildings may require modifications to expand space for additional students. • Long-term: Shuttering a building reduces operational costs (utilities, maintenance, custodial, operational costs); fewer administrative & support staff may be needed. • Potential savings from staff resources could be reallocated to specialist roles or other district priorities.

• Maintains 6 separate K–6 schools .

• Reassigns one or more school communities into existing twin- school buildings: V1: Relocate the Conant community into either the Parker-Damon or Boardwalk Campus and build out modular classrooms to address spatial needs. V2: Adjust school enrollment levels to match the desired enrollment levels of parents/families/students, allowing for varying enrollment levels between schools.

• Students gain access to better- quality facilities .

• Staffing structures mostly remain the same given that 6 schools stay intact.

DRAFT

Re-organization Option 3 – Consolidation to 5 Schools

Sustainability Scale

Option 3: Shift from 4 to 3 elementary buildings and shift from 6 to 5 schools by closing down 1 school.

Features

Benefits

Drawbacks

Cost Implications

• Consolidates 4 physical buildings down into 3 , closing the Conant Building.

• Fewer schools allow for more efficiency as administrative,

• Closing only one school disrupts a single community rather than having the full ABRSD experience change; • Developing consensus around how to make a decision to close a school would be challenging and can be controversial. • Closing schools may erode trust and risk a perceived loss of individual school identity. . • Schools may need modifications or repurposed spaces to accommodate increased enrollment , unless class size targets are increased. • While classroom roles are largely maintained, changes in support staffing or class sizes could affect staff workload and morale.

• Short-term: Lower capital costs than renovation; possible expenses for expansions to space or transitions. • Long-term: $400K – 500K savings in operational costs and reduced administrative overhead from closing a building and a school. • $700K -$800K in potential savings could create financial capacity for reallocation to specialists or district-wide initiatives. • Capacity investments may be required, but overall option is more efficient than maintaining existing structures.

custodial, and operational costs are lowered compared to maintaining six schools.

• Reduces the number of schools from 6 to 5, maintained as K – 6.

• Ability to staff schools with limited resources aligned to district priorities.

• Two Possible Approaches:

V1: Close Conant and distribute students into remaining schools, given that the Conant building would be shuttered. V2: Close the school with the fewest primary choices (Merriam) and distribute that school’s students across other schools and move the Conant school community into the open space.

• Closing a smaller or under-enrolled school can help maximize space utilization and equalize class sizes. • Students have a better experience as they are moved into higher-quality facilities.

DRAFT

Re-organization Option 4 – Consolidation through Merging Schools

Sustainability Scale

Option 4: Shift from 4 to 3 elementary buildings and shift from 6 to 5 schools by merging 2 schools together.

Features

Benefits

Drawbacks

Cost Implications

• Consolidates 4 physical buildings down into 3 , closing the Conant Building.

• Shifting to five schools creates operational efficiencies (administration, custodial, etc.) • Preserves a high-performing school community by relocating Conant into a higher-quality facility.

• Merged schools may lose individual traditions, culture, and community recognition, and families may feel displaced or overlooked in favor of preserving Conant. • Building modifications (modular classrooms, reconfiguring shared spaces) may be required to handle increased student population. • Adjustments in transportation and routines could cause short-term instability.

• Short-term: Lower capital costs than renovation; possible expenses for expansions to space or transitions. • Long-term: Avoids major renovation costs ($17.5M) and creates operational and administrative savings ($400K - $500K). • $700K -$800K in staff resources can be reallocated to specialist roles or other district priorities. • Stronger long-term efficiency but capital investment may be required for possible space expansion.

• Maintains grade levels K – 6.

• Reduces the number of schools from 6 to 5 by merging two schools together: • Merge two schools with the fewest primary choices (Merriam & McCarthy-Towne) and move the Conant community into the vacant space.

• Shuttering Conant will avoid major renovation costs.

• Reduces administrative overhead freeing up resources for specialists or district needs.

• Ability to staff schools with limited resources based on district priorities.

• Staffing shifts may be required as class sizes adapt, with some

administrative and support positions being consolidated.

DRAFT

Re-organization Option 5 – Reconfiguration through Grade-Level Bands

Sustainability Scale

Option 5: Shift from 4 to 3 elementary buildings, shift from 6 schools to 5 or 3 schools, organized by grade-level bands.

Features

Benefits

Drawbacks

Cost Implications

• Consolidates 4 physical buildings down into 3 and reduces 6 schools to 5 schools by closing Conant.

• Allows for targeted instructional models, specialized staff, and resources tailored to narrower grade bands. • Allows for enhanced collaboration and grade level planning to serve students. • More efficient use of resources ; All students get to experience new facilities. • Same progression for students (everyone attends the same K-3, 4- 6, etc.) reducing inequities in programming or facilities. • Aligns buildings with developmental stages , reducing duplication of resources across schools.

• Increased transitions can disrupt continuity and relationships and be challenging for students. • Families may resist losing the traditional K-6 model and school identities. • Busing and commute times may increase (though transportation costs are reimbursed by the state). • Modifications may be required to balance enrollment across grade bands (i.e., reconfigured space, modular classrooms). • Staff may need retraining, reassignment, or additional professional learning to adapt to grade-banded structures.

• Short-term : Avoids $17.5M renovation; investment in

curriculum resources aligned to grade-band model & PL for staff.

• Moves from K–6 schools to grade- banded schools:

• Long-term : Fewer buildings results in reduced operating costs and administrative overhead ($400K -$500K). • Allows for stronger sharing of staff and potential consolidation of admin/support positions ($700K –$800K) .

V1 Full Grade-Band Model: • Blanchard becomes early childhood center: PreK – K • Douglas/Gates: Grades 1 – 3 • McT/Merriam: Grades 4 – 6 V2 Hybrid Model: • Blanchard remains K –6 • McT: K –3; Merriam: 4 – 6 • Douglas: K – 3; Gates: 4 –6

• Can lead to long-term financial sustainability due to stronger sharing of resources.

DRAFT

Re-organization Option 6 – Consolidation to 3, K – 6 Schools

Sustainability Scale

Option 6: Shift from 4 to 3 elementary buildings, shift from 6 schools to 3 K – 6 schools.

Features

Benefits

Drawbacks

Cost Implications

• Consolidates 4 physical buildings down into 3.

• Lowers operational costs and administrative overhead through shared resources. • Fewer schools streamline communication, operations, and may strengthen school identities. • Preserves K-6 model, maintaining continuity of learning and relationships. • Accommodates enrollment fluctuations and optimizes use of space and staffing. • Supports more diverse programming, extracurriculars, or specialist staff.

• Families tied to their unique school identities may strongly resist consolidation. • Reassigning students and staff creates significant short-term upheaval. • Some families may feel larger K-6 schools are less personal or nurturing. • Shifts to staffing, assignments, and workloads, may affect staff experience.

• Short-term: Avoids high-cost renovations even with possible facility adjustments to accommodate larger single-school populations. • Transition costs for merging schools as well as reconfiguration of spaces and materials. • Long-term: Reducing from 6 to 3 schools provides significant operational and administrative savings ($700K - $800K). • Stronger long-term savings and efficiencies create financial capacity for reallocation to specialists or district-wide priorities.

• Reduces from 6 schools to 3 K–6 schools:

➢ Blanchard remains K – 6. ➢ McCarthy-Towne/Merriam becomes the Parker Damon school. ➢ Douglas/Gates becomes the Boardwalk school.

• Students reassigned to the 3 larger K – 6 schools.

• Option to run each large

elementary as a lower school and upper school (as specified in Option 5, version 2), but with greater flexibility as one unified building.

DRAFT

Re-organization Option 7 – Secondary Consolidation Options

Sustainability Scale

Option 7: Make all elementary schools K – 5, shifting students to the secondary level.

Features

Benefits

Drawbacks

Cost Implications

• Maintain 4 elementary building and 6 individual elementary schools.

• 6th graders aligned with a true middle school model which can be more developmentally appropriate. • Relieves crowding in elementary schools creating improved space distribution. • May align better with peer districts that likely follow similar grade configuration. • Expands opportunities for 6th graders who can access middle school electives, extracurriculars and specialized teachers.

• Facilities pressures at Junior High or High School to handle influx of 6th graders; moving 8th grade to High school requires rethinking capacity, culture, and supports for younger adolescents. • Unresolved facility concerns as Conant will require eventual renovation. • Families and students must adjust to an earlier middle school transition which could create difficulties for siblings closer in age. • Grade-level re-configuration may shift some teacher positions between elementary and middle levels.

• Short-term: Potential costs for space modifications at the Junior High and/or High School.

• Reconfigure elementary grade- levels to be K – 5.

• Curriculum adjustments and professional learning required.

• Re-configure remaining grade- levels:

• Long-term: Renovation needs persist at Conant, operational costs are maintained at the elementary level . • Possible staffing and resourcing opportunities to reallocate funds towards specialists or district- wide priorities.

V1 Middle School Model: Move 6 th graders to Junior High, creating a 6 – 8 Middle School. V2 Expanded Upper School Model: Move 6 th graders to Junior High and 8 th graders to High School (creating an 8 – 12 High School).

• Preserves all 6 elementary school identities and programs.

DRAFT

Re-organization Option 8 – Elementary & Secondary Consolidation Options

Sustainability Scale

Option 8: Make all elementary schools K – 5, shifting students to the secondary level.

Features

Benefits

Drawbacks

Cost Implications

• Consolidates 4 physical buildings down into 3.

• Facilities pressures at Junior High or High School to handle influx of 6th graders; moving 8th grade to High school requires rethinking capacity, culture, and supports for younger adolescents. • Families and students must adjust to an earlier middle school transition which could create difficulties for siblings closer in age. • Grade-level re-configuration may shift some teacher positions between elementary and middle levels.

• Short-term: Potential costs for space modifications at the Junior High and/or High School.

• Use any elementary re- configuration options 1 – 6 .

• Curriculum adjustments and professional learning required.

• Reconfigure elementary grade- levels to be K – 5:

• Long-term: Avoids costly renovations if an elementary building is closed, allows for increased operational and administrative savings when combined with an elementary reconfiguration option. • Likely more sustainable staffing and resourcing opportunities to reallocate funds towards specialists or district-wide priorities.

• Allows for flexibility at the elementary level.

DRAFT

Ultimately, the nine possible options for re-organization fall into five main buckets.

Summary of Options

Facility Consolidation Shift from 4 to 3 elementary buildings, maintaining schools as K – 6.

Grade-Level Bands

District Expansion

6 th Grade Shift

Status Quo

Make no changes to the existing structure of schools and buildings.

Shift from the K – 6 model to a grade- banded model to distinguish between schools.

In combination with any elementary re- configuration option, make elementary schools K – 5, moving 6 th graders out.

Expand the district to include some other surrounding towns.

While this option would create more space for students and offer greater variety for enrollment, it would require a longer timeline and substantial planning.

DRAFT

DMGroup identified 4 potential options for a reimagined enrollment policy to support the reorganized Acton-Boxborough district, each of which could be applied to all options for re-organization.

Options for a Reimagined Enrollment Policy

Restrict Open Enrollment to Buildings, Not Schools Families rank their preferred school building (i.e., Boardwalk, Parker-Damon, etc.), and ABRSD would use the lottery to determine enrollment.

Geographic Zone Assignments ABRSD would assign enrollment based on geographic zones.

District Assignments Using Internally Designed Placement Methodology

Maintain Open Enrollment Lottery, Entertain Modest Procedural Changes

District uses its own methodology (lottery,

Families rank their preferred schools, and ABRSD uses a lottery to determine enrollment.

combined with intentional placements) to establish enrollment for each school.

DRAFT

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19

Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software