The Comprehensive Budget Binder for the Superintendent's Preliminary Budget for FY2026.
Supplemental Information for District Reorganization
School Committee December 18, 2025
Contents Contents Executive Summary: Analysis of Elementary School Reorganization Options 1.0 Strategic Overview 2.0 Foundational Parameters: 3.0 Comparative Analysis: Impact and Strategic Alignment of Reorganization Options 4.0 Option Profiles: A Deeper Look at Each Pathway 4.1 Option 3v2 (Close Merriam School) 4.2 Option 4 (Merge Merriam & McT Schools) Option 5v2 (Hybrid Grade-Band Model) Option 6 (Create 3 Large K-6 Schools) 5.0 Pivotal Decision Point: Enrollment Models for Option 5v2 6.0 Conclusion: The Central Strategic Choice Displacement, Disruption, and Operational Impact Across Reorganization Options 1. Introduction and Purpose 2. Defining a Framework for Disruption 3. Overview of the Four Final Options Disruption and Displacement Matrix 4. Detailed Analysis of Disruption and Displacement Option 3, v2: Close Merriam School (395 students); Conant Community Relocated Option 4: Merge Merriam & McT; Conant Community Relocated Option 5, v2: Hybrid Grade-Band Model (5 Schools) Option 6: Create 3 Large K–6 Schools 5. Operational considerations 5.1 School Schedules 5.2 Specialized Programs 5.3 Access to Specials (Unified Arts) 5.4 Lunch 5.6 Recess 5.7 Extended Day 5.8 Parking 6. Conclusion
APPENDIX A - Sample Grade 3 Weekday Schedule Models Financial and Staffing Implications of Reorganization Options 1.0 Introduction: Context for Reorganization 2.0 The Foundation: Understanding the Class Size Models 3.0 Comparative Analysis: Staffing and Financial Impact
3.1 Staffing Reductions 3.2 Financial Savings 4.0 Conclusion and Next Steps
Enrollment Policy and Process Options PLAN FOR OPTION 3 - CLOSURE OF MERRIAM PLAN FOR OPTION 4 - “MERGE” OF MCT AND MERRIAM PLAN CHOICES FOR OPTIONS 5 and 6 - THREE CHOICES TO CONSIDER Choice I: Shift to a Geography-Based Student Placement Framework With Flexible Assignment Zones Conceptual Map of Geographical Student Assignment Model with Flexible Zones Choice II: Initiate a one-time complete re-lottery of all elementary-aged students Choice III: Re-Assignment of Conant Students (and staff) to PDB, Boardwalk, and Blanchard Leadership Strategic Assessment of Options
Strategic Priority Evaluation Matrix Summary of Leadership Consensus
Detailed Commentary on Strategic Alignment 1.0 Student Academic Outcomes & Wellbeing 1.1 Equity and the "Collective Reset.”
1.2. Targeted Instruction and Resource Efficiency 1.3. Concerns Regarding "Mega Schools" (Option 6) 1.4. Short-Term vs. Long-Term Trade-offs 2.0 Responsive Support for Staff 2.1. Enhanced Collaboration and Targeted Professional Learning 2.2. The "Collective Reset" vs. Division 2.3. Leadership Viability and "Mega Schools" (Option 6) 2.4. Short-Term Disruption vs. Long-Term Efficacy 3.0 Welcoming & Inclusive Communities 3.1. The "Fresh Start" vs. The "Newcomer" Dynamic 3.2. Avoiding Resentment and "Targeted" Harm 3.3. Scale and the Feeling of "Being Known" (Option 6) 3.4. Opportunity for Shared Identity 4.0 Sustainable District Systems 4.1. Strategic Resource Allocation and Flexibility 4.2. The "Leadership Sustainability" of Option 6 4.3. Structural Shifts vs. Short-Term Trims (Options 3 & 4) 4.4. Option 5, v2 as a Strategic Bridge
Executive Summary: Analysis of Elementary School Reorganization Options 1.0 Strategic Overview The district is undertaking a reorganization of its elementary schools to most strategically address the evolving needs of its students, better support staff, and achieve long-term financial sustainability and operational efficiency. The core objective is to consolidate the district's footprint from four elementary buildings to three. This summary synthesizes the comprehensive analysis presented across four foundational documents—covering enrollment processes, operational impacts, financial implications, and leadership assessment—to provide the School Committee with a clear, integrated framework for its final decision. This analysis is grounded in the foundational financial and structural constraints that shape all proposed solutions. District leadership will present a detailed analysis of each option on Teaching & Learning structures, and Special Education services and programs at the school committee’s January 8, 2026 meeting. These topics are not discussed in depth in this informational packet in order to allow for leadership to communicate directly with impacted stakeholders prior to public presentation of the information. 2.0 Foundational Parameters: To effectively evaluate the four final reorganization options, it is important to first understand the universal constraints that apply to all of them. These parameters establish the baseline for comparison and underscore that the final decision rests more on qualitative and strategic trade-offs than on significant financial differences between the options. The following realities are the non-negotiable starting point for any path forward. ● Building Closures: All four final options require the closure of the Conant building and the Merriam school . ● Staffing Model: All financial projections are based on Model C , a staffing plan that requires a district-wide reduction of 11 K-6 classroom sections . This action will increase class sizes to the upper end of School Committee guidelines, and 1 student beyond guidelines at 3 grade levels . ● Financial Savings: The total projected annual cost savings are nearly identical across the primary options. Options 3v2, 4, and 5v2 each yield 1,874,000** in savings. Option 6 yields a slightly higher **1,928,000 , though this minor difference would likely be offset by adjusted administrative salaries required for its very large school structure.
These universal parameters confirm that the fundamental questions facing the committee are not if change will occur, but how that change will be managed and experienced by students, staff, and the community.
3.0 Comparative Analysis: Impact and Strategic Alignment of Reorganization Options While the four final options achieve similar financial goals, they represent fundamentally different approaches to managing change, each with distinct consequences for students, staff, and the community. The following table provides a high-level comparison of these critical trade-offs, synthesizing the human impact of each model with the strategic assessment provided by the district's Senior Leadership Team.
Criterion
Option 3v2
Option 4
Option 5v2
Option 6
Core Concept
Targeted School Closure
Targeted School Merger
2 large buildings banded into smaller K-3 and 4-6 grade-level schools, plus Blanchard as a K-6 school. Creates an "equitable disruption" by structurally reorganizing all Acton schools. All students are disrupted, with 16-70% displaced depending on the enrollment model.
Consolidation into 2 large K-6 schools, plus Blanchard as a K-6 school.
Primary Human Impact (Displacement & Disruption)
Concentrates high-intensity
Concentrates high-intensity
Creates an "equitable disruption" by structurally reorganizing all Acton schools. All students are disrupted, with 16-70% displaced depending on the enrollment model.
displacement on the Merriam community (395 students; 15.8%). The relocated Conant community is highly disrupted, and the majority of remaining schools (65.5% of enrollment) are impacted by absorbing students.
displacement on two communities (826 students; 33.1%), which are dissolved and merged into a new school. 350 of these students are dispersed to other schools.
Leadership Team's Strategic Assessment
Overwhelming top choice. Praised as an "equitable reset" that provides a "fresh start," enhances long-term instruction,
Ranked low-to-last. Concern for targeting a single school, risking "lasting harm" and "resentment."
Ranked in the middle-to-low tier. Seen as preferable to Option 3v2 but still criticized for "singling out" communities for disruption.
Ranked last. The very large school model was strongly deemed the "least optimal choice" for student wellbeing, staff support, and
and fosters community.
sustainable leadership.
This analysis presents the committee with a central philosophical choice: concentrate high-intensity disruption on a small number of school communities to preserve stability for the majority, or embrace systemic reorganization that disrupts everyone equitably to build a new, unified foundation. 4.0 Option Profiles: A Deeper Look at Each Pathway To fully grasp the strategic trade-offs, it is essential to understand the unique narrative and rationale behind each of the four final options. The following profiles distill these distinct approaches, clarifying their intended outcomes and inherent challenges.
4.1 Option 3v2 (Close Merriam School)
This option represents the most direct approach to consolidation, concentrating the entire burden of student displacement on the Merriam school community. Its 395 students would be dispersed across the five remaining schools, causing significant enrollment changes (e.g., +92 students at Gates, +70 at Douglas). The Conant community is relocated intact to the former Merriam building, experiencing a high degree of disruption from the move. The district's leadership team expressed significant concern that this targeted approach risks creating "lasting harm" and "resentment" by singling out one community to bear the primary cost of the district's reorganization.
4.2 Option 4 (Merge Merriam & McT Schools)
This model proposes a targeted consolidation where two school communities, Merriam and McCarthy-Towne, are formally dissolved and reconstituted into a single new school entity. This approach concentrates the most intense displacement and disruption on those two communities while preserving stability for the majority of the district. While seen as slightly preferable to closing a single school, this option was still ranked in the middle-to-low tier by district leadership due to the inherent risk of "singling out" specific communities, thereby creating division.
Option 5v2 (Hybrid Grade-Band Model)
Framed as a "systemic reset," this is the overwhelming preference of the district's senior leadership. The model reorganizes the Acton schools into K-3 Lower and 4-6 Upper schools across the Boardwalk and Parker Damon (PDB) campuses , while Blanchard remains a K-6 school. Leadership's rationale is that this is the most "equitable disruption," as it creates a "fresh start" where all communities are rebuilt together. This structure is seen as the most instructionally sound path forward, allowing for targeted instruction, enhanced staff collaboration, and the creation of new, inclusive communities free from historical divisions.
Option 6 (Create 3 Large K-6 Schools)
This option represents the most extreme structural change, dissolving all six existing school identities to create three large K-6 schools. Two of these schools would approach 1,000 students each. While acknowledged for its high financial efficiency, district leadership reached a strong consensus that this "mega school" model is the "least optimal choice." It was viewed as detrimental to student wellbeing, destructive to the small-school community connection valued by families, and unsustainable for building-level leadership. Each of these pathways leads to a viable three-building configuration, but the transformative grade-band model—Option 5v2—requires a secondary decision regarding student enrollment. 5.0 Pivotal Decision Point: Enrollment Models for Option 5v2 For the systemic reorganization proposed in Option 5v2, a secondary but critical decision is required to determine how students will be assigned to the new grade-banded schools. This choice significantly influences the level of district-wide disruption. The source documents present three competing implementation choices for this option: 1. Geography-Based Framework: This model would establish primary attendance areas and "flex zones" to balance enrollment, promote walkability, and maintain district flexibility. Student assignment would be guided primarily by residency. 2. One-Time Complete Re-Lottery: This approach would require all current K-5 (or K-4) students to re-enroll and participate in a district-wide lottery. Families would rank their school preferences, and placement would be determined by a lottery that accounts for specific priorities like specialized programs and residency. 3. Re-Assignment of Conant Students: This model is the least disruptive enrollment path for Option 5v2. It limits the scope of reassignment by having only students from the closed Conant building participate in a lottery for placement in the new schools, while other school populations are largely kept whole within their new grade-banded structures.
These enrollment choices add a crucial layer of detail to the strategic decision facing the committee, directly shaping how the systemic change is experienced by families.
6.0 Conclusion: The Central Strategic Choice The final decision before the School Committee is not primarily financial, as the cost savings are comparable across all viable options. Instead, the committee faces a philosophical choice between two fundamentally different paths for managing necessary change. The first path, represented by Targeted Disruption (Options 3v2 & 4) , preserves stability for the majority of the district by concentrating a high-intensity, disruptive impact on one or two specific school communities. This approach carries the significant risk of creating long-term division, resentment, and a perception of inequity among those most affected. The second path, Systemic Reorganization (Option 5v2) , embraces broad disruption as an opportunity for an equitable "collective reset." It is the option overwhelmingly endorsed by the district's Senior Leadership Team as the most strategic, sustainable, and instructionally sound path forward. Leadership views this model as the only way to create truly inclusive, high-functioning school communities by creating a unified "fresh start" that avoids the "lasting harm" of targeting specific communities. While Option 6 is also systemic, it was largely dismissed by leadership as operationally and humanly unsustainable due to the extreme scale of the proposed schools.
Displacement, Disruption, and Operational Impact Across Reorganization Options
1. Introduction and Purpose
The School Committee requested this memorandum to detail the student and community disruption and displacement caused by the four final elementary school reorganization options. These options were developed by the AB Forward Steering Committee after extensive data review and community engagement over several months. The purpose of this analysis is to establish a clear, consistent framework for evaluating the specific human and structural consequences of each proposed path. A crucial first step is to define the key terms used in this analysis to ensure a shared understanding of these impacts.
2. Defining a Framework for Disruption
To fairly compare each choice, we need to use clear, shared definitions for how they might affect our students and schools. The following words are used throughout this report:
● Displaced: A student having to move to a new school because their current school is closing or merging with another. In these cases, the student's original school community is dissolved and reformed.
● Disrupted: A change that alters a school's makeup or how it operates, but the school stays open and keeps its main identity. An example is a school building that closes, but the school community moves to a new building and stays together. ● Impacted : A change that leaves a school largely intact without disruption, but recognizes that there will be an impact on how the school has historically operated. For example, a school might receive a new group of students from a closed school. This changes the size and makeup of the school but doesn't end the existing community.
Also, the "Rubric for Evaluating Options" created during the AB Forward process gives us two important ways to judge the size of the change:
● Breadth: This measures how much an option affects a small, contained group versus most or all students, staff, and families across the district. A narrow breadth means the change is focused on a small group, while a wide breadth means it's spread out. ● Intensity: This measures whether the impact is a small adjustment or a change that fundamentally alters the experience, routines, and programs for the people affected. High intensity means the change is significant and deeply felt by the communities involved.
● Duration: This refers to how long a community is expected to feel the effects of the change. A community that feels targeted may feel the negative effects for a longer time, which could show up as more resentment and distrust of the system. Duration can also mean the need to reorganize the school again in the future because the current model is not flexible enough to adapt to new circumstances. This analysis does not include information about the duration of disruption because it requires significant judgment from each school committee member about how much time a decision on each option would likely impact the community. For example, committee members may weigh differently how long a broad disruption impacts the community versus a narrower, more intense disruption that leaves a single school community with a higher degree of resentment.
This framework allows us to make a more detailed comparison of how each of the four final reorganization options would be experienced by our students, staff, and families.
3. Overview of the Four Final Options
The AB Forward Steering Committee has presented four different plans for the School Committee to make a final decision on. It is important to know that all four remaining plans mean the Merriam school and the Conant building will close . This will change the district's elementary school setup from six schools in four buildings to a new configuration located in only three buildings.
The table below summarizes the key features of each option.
Option Number
Brief Description
Resulting School Structure
Reorganization Approach (Traditional/New)
Option 3, v2
Shift to five K-6 schools by closing the Merriam school and relocating the Conant school community into the available space.
Five K-6 schools
More Consistent Approach
Option 4
Shift to five K-6 schools by merging the Merriam and McCarthy-Towne school communities and relocating the Conant community into the space created by the merger.
Five K-6 schools
More Consistent Approach
Option 5, v2
Shift to a hybrid model with five schools: Blanchard remains K-6, while the Boardwalk and Parker Damon
One K-6 school and four grade-banded schools (two K-3, two 4-6)
Broad Structural Change
campuses are organized into K-3 Lower Schools and 4-6 Upper Schools.
Option 6
Shift from six existing elementary schools to three larger K-6 schools located at the Blanchard, Boardwalk, and Parker Damon campuses.
Three large K-6 schools Broad Structural Change
Disruption and Displacement Matrix
Students displaced from their current school
Students disrupted or impacted by change
Option
Description
Students Displaced (School Closed/ Merged/ Dissolved)
Percentage of Total K-6 Enrollment
Students Disrupted or Impacted
Percentage of Enrollment Disrupted or Impacted
Option 3, v2
Close Merriam School (Displacement). Relocate the intact Conant community into the available facility.
395 (Merriam enrollment)
15.8% (High Intensity)
410 (Conant community relocated intact) + ~1,688 (Impacted by students and staff joining school community) 410 (Conant community relocated intact) + ~1,257 (Impacted by students and staff joining school community)
16.4% (Disrupted elocation of Conant) + 65.5% (Impacted by students and staff joining school community)
Option 4
Merge Merriam and McCarthy-Towne (McT) into one school (Displacement/ Reconstitution). Relocate the intact Conant community.
826 (Merriam + McT enrollment, dissolved and reconstituted as a single new school) 350 Displaced from the combined enrollment dispersed into
33.1% (High Intensity)
16.4% (Relocation of Conant) +
50.5% (Impacted by students and staff joining school community)
remaining schools
Option 5, v2
410-1700 Displaced - All 5 Acton K–6 school communities ( range is highly dependent on enrollment model selected by school committee) 410-1700 Displaced - All 5 Acton K–6 school communities ( range is highly dependent on enrollment model selected by school committee)
~16.4 - 70% Displaced
2,493 (Disrupted by broad structural change)
100% (Disrupted by broad structural change)
Hybrid Grade-Band: Blanchard remains K–6. Acton schools restructured into Lower Schools (K–3) and Upper Schools (4–6) operating within the same campus facility.
( range is highly dependent on enrollment model selected by school committee)
Option 6
~16.4 - 70% Displaced
2,493 (All students experience redistribution and relocation into a new, significantly larger structure)
100% (District-wide structural change)
Create 3 Large K–6 Schools (Blanchard, Boardwalk K–6, PDB K–6).
( range is highly dependent on enrollment model selected by school committee)
The following sections provide a more detailed analysis of the disruption and displacement associated with each of these final options.
4. Detailed Analysis of Disruption and Displacement
Option 3, v2: Close Merriam School (395 students); Conant Community Relocated
This option preserves the K-6 model for the five surviving school communities but focuses the displacement burden onto the Merriam community. The resulting operational disruptions stem from the remaining schools collectively accommodating the dispersed Merriam students. ● Displacement: This option results in the direct displacement of the Merriam school community. The school itself closes, and its students are redistributed across the remaining four Acton-based elementary schools.
● Disruption: The Conant school community experiences a high degree of disruption by being relocated as an intact group into the former Merriam building. The four other K-6 school communities (Blanchard, McCarthy-Towne, Douglas, and Gates) will also be disrupted by absorbing the displaced Merriam students, which will alter their size and composition. ● Synthesis: This option concentrates high-intensity displacement on one school community (Merriam) and high-intensity disruption on another (Conant), while creating a lesser, but still notable, degree of disruption for the four receiving school communities.
School (K-6)
FY26 Enrollment (Sections)
FY27 Projected Enrollment (Sections)
Enrollment Change
Section Change
Potential Grade-Level Disruption
Blanchard
+33 students
0
469 (22)
502 (22)
Disruption involves minor internal section balancing (e.g., Grade 5 drops from 4 sections to 3; Grade 6 increases 3 to 4). Significant absorption of students requires 1 additional section (Grade 3 increases 3 to 4 sections; Grade 2 reduces 3 to 2). Experiences the largest proportional enrollment growth, requiring 2 additional sections (e.g., Grade K increases 3 to 4 sections). Requires 1 additional section (e.g., Grade 1 increases 3 to 4 sections; Grade 4 drops 2 to 3 sections). Merriam School is closed, and all students and staff are redistributed to remaining schools. Primarily disrupted by the physical move of the entire school program to the vacated facility. The community gains 2 sections and must adjust to the new building and absorbed student population.
Douglas
+70 students
+1
408 (20)
478 (21)
Gates
+92 students
+2
380 (19)
472 (21)
McT
+46 students
+1
431 (20)
477 (21)
Merriam
-395 students
-17
395 (17)
0 (0)
Conant (Relocated)
+62 students
+2
410 (19)
472 (21)
Option 4: Merge Merriam & McT; Conant Community Relocated
This option requires the dissolution and reconstitution of two school communities (Merriam and McT, with a combined FY26 enrollment of 826 students) into a single entity, allowing the Conant community to relocate intact to the new available space. The remaining schools absorb some portion of the former McT/Merriam population. ● Displacement: This option involves the highest intensity of displacement for specific communities. The minutes from the December 2nd Steering Committee meeting specify that under this option, both the Merriam and McCarthy-Towne school communities are displaced, as they "cease to exist and are reconstituted as a new school community." This language underscores that the change is not merely a combination of existing communities but a full displacement and creation of a new school identity. ● Disruption: The Conant community is disrupted by being relocated as a whole group into the space made available by the merger. The remaining three K-6 schools (Blanchard, Douglas, and Gates) experience minimal disruption in this scenario, as they do not receive new student populations. ● Synthesis: This option concentrates the most intense displacement and disruption on three specific school communities (Merriam, McCarthy-Towne, and Conant), thereby preserving stability and minimizing change for the majority of the district's students and families.
School (K-6)
FY26 Enrollment (Sections)
FY27 Projected Enrollment (Sections)
Enrollment Change
Section Change
Potential Grade-Level Disruption
Blanchard
+33 students
0
469 (22)
502 (22)
Absorbs students from the merger's dispersal. Section balancing required (e.g., Grade 6 increases 3 to 4 sections). Significant absorption requiring 1 additional section (e.g., Grade 3 increases 3 to 4 sections). Largest proportional growth, requiring 2 additional sections (e.g., Grade K increases 3 to 4 sections). Community is physically disrupted by relocation and absorbs a population increase, gaining 2 additional sections (e.g., Grade 1 increases 3 to 4 sections).
Douglas
+70 students
+1
408 (20)
478 (21)
Gates
+92 students
+2
380 (19)
472 (21)
Conant (Relocated)
+62 students
+2
410 (19)
472 (21)
Merged McT/ Merriam
-349 students
-16
Highest organizational disruption: Two historical communities are dissolved and formally replaced by one new school entity. Experiences a major reduction in sections (-16 sections compared to the original combined total). Note that staff reductions cross all schools based on contractual obligations.
826 (37 total sections)
477 (21 total sections)
Option 5, v2: Hybrid Grade-Band Model (5 Schools)
This option fundamentally alters the operational model in Acton, adopting a hybrid approach where Blanchard (Boxborough) remains K–6 to preserve community continuity. The other five schools in Acton are reorganized into four grade-banded schools (two K–3 and two 4–6) across the two large buildings (Boardwalk and PDB). Key Clarification for Option 5, v2: Although the elementary education structure is disrupted by introducing a compulsory transition at Grade 4 (from Lower School to Upper School), this system keeps the students on the same physical campus (Boardwalk or PDB) for their entire K–6 span. The disruption is driven by the formal change in school identity, administration, faculty, and peer cohort, but preserves cross-grade benefits like "book buddies" or older student role models. ● Displacement: In this model, the existing K-6 structures of all five Acton elementary schools are eliminated. Therefore, the Conant, Merriam, McCarthy-Towne, Douglas, and Gates communities are all displaced , as they are reconstituted into new K-3 Lower Schools and 4-6 Upper Schools on the Parker Damon and Boardwalk campuses. ● Disruption: This option has the widest breadth of disruption , as it fundamentally alters the elementary school experience for nearly every student and family in Acton by creating new grade configurations and school structures. The Blanchard community in Boxborough is the only school not subject to the grade-banding change and thus experiences the least disruption. ● Synthesis: This option distributes disruption across the entire district (with the exception of Blanchard) rather than concentrating it on specific schools. It represents a fundamental change to the elementary educational model for the town of Acton.
School/Campus (Grade Band)
FY26 Enrollment (Sections)
FY27 Projected
Enrollment Change
Section Change
Potential Grade-Level Disruption
Enrollment (Sections)
Blanchard K-6
+8 students
-1
469 (22)
477 (21)
Minimal impact. Disruption comes primarily from minor reorganization and a loss of 1 total section.
Boardwalk K-3 / 4-6
+162 students across 7 grades
+3
High Structural Disruption to Acton students. Students change schools and primary peer groups at Grade 4, losing the valued K-6 continuity, even though the transition occurs within the same physical campus facility . The number of sections per grade increases significantly (up to 7 sections per grade). * full analysis of disruption is highly dependent on school committee enrollment policy decisions. For example, if the committee leaves students at their current buildings, and distributes Conant students and staff, the displacement is approximately 410 (16.4%) of students. If the school committee opted for a wider distribution of students through neighborhood schools or another open enrollment option, the disruption would likely be between 50-70% of students across all schools (accounts for some students remaining at current Acton schools, and most Boxborough students remaining at Blanchard). High Structural Disruption to Acton students. Students change schools and primary peer groups at Grade 4, losing the K-6 model. Sections increase significantly in size (up to 7 sections per grade).
408 (20) Douglas 380 (19) Gates
K-3: 532 (25) 4-6: 418 (17)
PDB K-3 / 4-6
+148 students across 7 grades
+3
431 (20) McT 395 (17) Merriam
K-3: 531 (25) 4-6: 443 (18)
* full analysis of disruption is highly dependent on school committee
enrollment policy decisions. See additional comments above.
Option 6: Create 3 Large K–6 Schools
Option 6 entails the greatest systemic upheaval, dissolving all six original K-6 school communities to form three large K-6 institutions within the existing three permanent buildings (Blanchard, Boardwalk, and PDB).This model imposes the greatest breadth of disruption by requiring the universal reorganization of all students and staff, creating two elementary schools approaching 1,000 students each. This dramatic increase in scale drew criticism regarding the ability of a single principal to provide adequate support and visibility, potentially undermining community expectations. ● Displacement: This option results in the displacement of all six existing elementary school communities: Blanchard, Conant, Douglas, Gates, Merriam, and McCarthy-Towne. All six communities are dissolved and fully reconstituted into three new, much larger K-6 schools. ● Disruption: The disruption in this model has the maximum possible breadth and intensity . It affects every elementary student, family, and staff member in the district by creating entirely new and significantly larger school communities, eliminating all existing school identities. ● Synthesis: This option is a complete and total reorganization of the elementary system. It creates the most widespread and fundamental change of all the final options by replacing the entire existing structure with a new one.
School (K-6)
FY26 Enrollment (Sections)
FY27 Projected Enrollment (Sections)
Enrollment Change
Section Change
Potential Grade-Level Disruption
Blanchard
+8 students
-1
469 (22)
477 (21)
Disruptions arise from absorbing dispersed populations and losing unique identity as it consolidates with other programs.
Boardwalk K-6
+162 students across 7 grades
+3
Universal Disruption/Highest Scale. The resulting school community is nearly 1,000 students (950) served by 42 sections. Significant concern over administrative capacity (one principal) and the loss of the traditional "small school community" feel. Grade sections significantly increase (up to 7 sections per grade). * full analysis of disruption is highly dependent on school committee enrollment policy decisions. See comments above for option 5v2. Universal Disruption/Highest Scale. Reaches nearly 1,000 students (974) served by 43 sections. Same concerns regarding administrative load, loss of small-school feel, and universal reorganization across the district. * full analysis of disruption is highly dependent on school committee enrollment policy decisions. See comments above for option 5v2.
408 (20) Douglas 380 (19) Gates
950 (42)
PDB K-6
+148 students across 7 grades
+3
431 (20) McT 395 (17) Merriam
974 (43)
5. Operational considerations
All four remaining options provide for approximately 21 classroom sections per school. This is within the design enrollment of all schools, and most of our current elementary schools have operated at or above this number in the past. The resulting impact on operations largely considers that there are more students in classrooms, but there is less significant impact on school schedules, lunch, recess, and access to specials.
5.1 School Schedules
There is minimal impact on our administrators’ ability to create school schedules based on 21 or 22-section schools. If an option is selected where Conant moves into the Parker Damion Building, the Conant schedule will likely need to be modified in order to share spaces appropriately.
5.2 Specialized Programs
Because all schools were designed to accommodate 21 sections per school and still provide access to specialized programs, all four remaining options provide an opportunity to maintain specialized programs for students with disabilities and English Learners.
5.3 Access to Specials (Unified Arts)
There is no impact on access to specials (Art, Music, PE, Library) as all schools will have a sufficient number of specials staff to provide services.
5.4 Lunch
Because the total number of sections falls within the design of our current operating model, the impact to lunch time is anticipated to be driven by a larger number of students eating lunch together. This will necessitate adding tables (repurposing from the Conant building) to each cafeteria. The Parker Damon Building has previously accommodated this higher student enrollment, and there is no impact on this capacity from a physical standpoint. At Boardwalk Campus, a higher number of students at lunch may necessitate clearing the storage out of the alternate performance area to add tables. There is no impact to Blanchard as the school enrollment previously exceeded the anticipated capacity. All options will likely require additional lunch supervision and the addition of a modest number of assistant hours to cover this.
5.6 Recess
The impact on recess will be largely felt with an increase in the number of students on the playground at any one time. (~20-25 students per grade at the larger buildings). This will require the addition of a modest number of assistant hours to help provide coverage. Parker Damon Building has previously accommodated this number of students at recess. Boardwalk Campus has had this number of students at recess before, but the design capacity of the school is consistent with the addition of students.
5.7 Extended Day
Currently, Extended Day has very few families on the waiting list (by this time of year, those who started the year on the waiting list have generally found other options). Our ability to offer seats in Extended Day is contingent upon staffing and access to sufficient, appropriate spaces. Presently, staffing and space across all six of our current schools is at maximum capacity. While it is possible to reallocate extended day staff to any of the options in the newly reconfigured schools, space may ultimately become a limiting factor in offering spots at extended day.
5.8 Parking
There is no impact on parking at either the Blanchard or Parker Damon Building, as there is sufficient space to accommodate parking for daily staff needs as well as special events. Parking at Bowardwalk Campus has been more limited and may necessitate increased use of the auxiliary lot. Staff parking impact should be relatively minimal, and there is only an increase of 3 sections (3 teachers and several part-time assistants). Parking for large special events may be more moderately challenged. This will necessitate increased use of the auxiliary lot and the possibility of rethinking the general operations of large-scale events. This change will likely be felt at the Boardwalk Campus by families attending events. It should also be noted that Boardwalk is currently operating under its capacity, and the resulting impact will move more fully toward its design capacity.
6. Conclusion
This analysis of disruption, displacement, and structural change is provided to support the School Committee's deliberations. By offering a clear and consistent framework for comparison, this information is intended to clarify the distinct impacts that each of the four final reorganization options would have on our students, families, and school communities. We hope that this detailed examination will aid the Committee in its vital work of charting a sustainable and educationally sound path forward for the district. This analysis has been revised to reflect the specific operational structure of Option 5, v2, clarifying that the change involves two separate schools sharing a single physical campus (Boardwalk or Parker Damon Building, PDB) to facilitate K-6 continuity within the same location, while eliminating the need for students to change physical campuses mid-elementary career. The financial pressure driving all four options is the need to move from four elementary buildings to three (by closing the Conant building) and concurrently eliminating 11 general education classroom sections (Model C) to achieve long-term financial sustainability.
APPENDIX A - Sample Grade 3 Weekday Schedule Models
McCarthy Towne Grade 3 Schedule
8:50-9:10 Morning Meeting
9:10-9:55 ELA - Fundations 9:55-10:05 Morning Break
10:05-10:55 English Language Arts / EL 10:55- 11:25 Flex Block (Tier ⅔ support) 11:30-12:20 Recess/Lunch 12:25-1:10 Unified Art/SPECIAL 1:15-1:20 Quiet Time 1:20 - 2:20 Math 2:20-2:30 Snack Break 2:30-3:15 Social Studies / Science
Merriam Gr. 3 Schedule
8:35-8:50 Arrival / Morning Work 8:50-9:15 Morning Meeting
9:15-10:15 Math 10:15-11:00 Unified Art/SPECIAL
11:00-11:50 Recess/Lunch 11:55- 12:05 Quiet Time 12:05-12:35 Flex Block (Tier ⅔ support) 12:35-2:05 English/Language Arts 2:05-2:20 Snack Break 2:20-3:05 Math 2:20-3:05 Social Studies / Science / Projects
3:05-3:15 Closing Meeting
Conant Grade 3 Schedule
8:50-9:20 Morning Meeting
9:20-9:55 English Language Arts 10:00-10:30 Social Studies / Science 10:35-11:35 Math 11:40-12:10 Recess 12:15-12:45 Flex Block (Tier ⅔ support) 12:50-1:15 Lunch
1:20-2:15 English Language Arts 2:20-3:05 Unified Art / Special 3:15 Dismissal
Financial and Staffing Implications of Reorganization Options 1.0 Introduction: Context for Reorganization Our school district is actively exploring several reorganization options designed to achieve significant cost savings and enhance operational efficiencies. As we navigate evolving budgetary realities, it is imperative to consider structural changes that will allow us to allocate resources most effectively while continuing to provide a high-quality education for all students. This summary provides a clear and accessible overview of the staffing and financial considerations of the four key reorganization proposals for community review. The following sections will first explain the foundational assumptions regarding class sizes that underpin all proposals. Subsequently, we will detail and compare each of the four reorganization options, providing a transparent look at the financial and staffing implications of each path forward. 2.0 The Foundation: Understanding the Class Size Models Any district reorganization plan is built upon a specific staffing model, which directly impacts the number of classroom teachers and, consequently, average class sizes. The administration considered four distinct models, each resulting in a different number of classroom section reductions. For the purposes of planning and financial projection, one model has been selected as the basis for the scenarios presented in this document.
CLASS SIZE GUIDELINES
CURRENT SCHOOL YEAR
2025-26 (OCT 1)
Guideline
Sections
Enrollment
Avg Size
K
18-20
17
322
18.9
1
18-20
16
306
19.1
2
20-22
17
368
21.6
3
20-22
16
350
21.9
4
22-24
17
380
22.4
5
22-24
17
353
20.8
6
22-24
17
384
22.6
117
2463
CLASS SIZE
MODEL A
MODEL B
MODEL C
MODEL D
2026-27 Upper SC Guidelines
GUIDELINES
2026-27 Same Staffing
2026-27SC Guidelines
2026-27 +2 SC Guidelines
Guideli ne
Secti ons
Chan ge
Enroll ment
Avg Size
Secti ons
Chan ge
Enroll ment
Avg Size
Secti ons
Cha nge
Enroll ment
Avg Size
Secti ons
Cha nge
Enroll ment
Avg Size
K
18-20
17
0 322 18.9
16
-1
322 20.1
16
-1
322 20.1
15
-2
322 21.5
1
18-20
17
0 322 18.9
16
-1
322 20.1
16
0
322 20.1
15
-1
322 21.5
2
20-22
16
0 306 19.1
14
-2
306 21.9
14
-3
306 21.9
13
-4
306 23.5
3
20-22
17
0 368 21.6
17
0
368 21.6
16
0
368 23.0
15
-1
368 24.5
4
22-24
16
0 350 21.9
15
-1
350 23.3
15
-2
350 23.3
14
-3
350 25.0
5
22-24
17
0 380 22.4
16
-1
380 23.8
15
-2
380 25.3
15
-2
380 25.3
6
22-24
17
0 353 20.8
15
-2
353 23.5
14
-3
353 25.2
14
-3
353 25.2
117 117 2401
109
-8 2401
106 -11 2401
101 -16 2401
Model C used for proposed reorganization options -
Based on anticipated revenues for the FY27 Budget, Model C has been selected as the foundation for all financial and staffing projections. This model, which results in a total reduction of 11 K-6 classroom sections , allows the district to analyze a path to significant cost savings. The following reorganization options are built upon this staffing model. This action will directly result in higher average class sizes. This represents a critical trade-off that the community must consider as part of this process. These projections provide a clear picture of the classroom environment under a reorganized structure. It is important to note with full transparency that these changes will, according to the model's projections, increase class sizes to the upper end of School Committee guidelines, and 1 student beyond guidelines at 3 grade levels. This impact on the student learning experience is a central element of the overall decision. 3.0 Comparative Analysis: Staffing and Financial Impact This section compares the four reorganization options across two critical dimensions: projected staffing reductions and total annual cost savings. Understanding these figures is essential, as they represent the primary levers through which the reorganization effort aims to achieve its financial and operational goals.
3.1 Staffing Reductions
The table below summarizes the key staffing changes under each proposal, focusing on roles with the most significant impact.
Proposed Staffing Reductions Through Reorganization
Role
Option 3v2
Option 4
Option 5v2
Option 6
Principal(s)
1
1
1
3
Asst. Principal(s)
1
1
1
-1 (Add)
Main Office Admin.
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Unified Arts (Specials)
4
4
4
4
Proposed Staffing Reductions based on Budget Constraints made available by Reorganization
Instructional Coach
1
1
1
1
Classroom Teachers
11
11
11
11
GenEd Assistants
7
7
7
7
A closer analysis of this data reveals several key points. First, the reduction of 11 Classroom Teachers and 7 General Education Assistants is identical across all four options. This consistency is a direct result of basing all scenarios on the Model C staffing plan. Second, the administrative staffing changes highlight a key difference between the proposals. Options 3v2, 4, and 5v2 propose identical administrative reductions. In contrast, Option 6 involves a more significant administrative restructuring, reducing three principal positions while necessitating the addition of one assistant principal to support the larger school populations.
3.2 Financial Savings
The projected annual cost savings for each option are outlined below. These totals are composed of savings from personnel (Costs avoided directly through reorganization and costs avoided through budgetary reductions that become available through reorganization) and building operations.
Projected Annual Cost Savings by Option
TOTAL AVOIDED COSTS
Option
Costs avoided directly by the reorganization
Avoided budget costs made available through the reorganization
Operating Expense Savings from closing the Conant building.
Option 3v2
1,874,000
$727,000
$1,054,000
93,000
Option 4
1,874,000
$727,000
$1,054,000
93,000
Option 5v2
1,874,000
$727,000
$1,054,000
93,000
Option 6
1,928,000
$781,000
$1,054,000
93,000
It is important to understand the distinction between the cost categories. "Costs avoided directly by Reorganization" savings are tied directly to reductions that are a clear consequence of reorganization (e.g., administrative positions in a closed school). "Avoided budget costs made available through Reorganization" savings, which include classroom teachers, are subject to the final discretion of the school committee during the budget process. The financial analysis shows that Options 3v2, 4, and 5v2 all yield identical total annual savings of 1,874,000**. Option 6 yields a slightly higher saving of **1,928,000 , a difference driven entirely by the net savings from its unique administrative restructuring. An important caveat to the additional perceived savings of Option 6 is that Principal salaries of the two large elementary schools will likely need to be adjusted based on increased responsibilities and school size. This would likely reduce savings to a level that makes all options yield similar savings. 4.0 Conclusion and Next Steps The reorganization options presented in this summary offer a viable path toward achieving longer-term significant and necessary cost savings for the district. These savings are primarily realized through reductions in staffing—both administrative and instructional—and are directly linked to an increase in average class sizes. The information detailed here is based on extensive modeling and is intended to serve as a clear basis for robust community discussion. It is a model for consideration, not a final budget proposal. The ultimate determination of class sizes, staffing levels, and resource allocations will be made by the school committee through the annual budget process, informed by feedback from all stakeholders.
Enrollment Policy and Process Options The following is a discussion of various enrollment options that may be available for each of the remaining reorganization options. There was a request from the school committee at its last meeting to explore additional enrollment options beyond those previously presented, which could be viewed as a more “fair” process. We have included three options for considerationfor options 5, v2, and 6.
PLAN FOR OPTION 3 - CLOSURE OF MERRIAM
STEP 1: Identify Available Seats by Grade at Conant, Gates, Douglas, Blanchard, and McT once additional sections have been redistributed to the remaining five elementary schools. STEP 2: Priority Placements Based on District Policy Students who meet “school walker” criteria for any of the schools, and whose families wish to utilize that priority, will be placed at those schools first. Additionally, students guaranteed placements with their parent who is a staff member at a particular school (and an Acton/Boxborough resident) will be placed at those schools. STEP 3: Transfer Waitlist Consideration: Students at Merriam who have been on the transfer waitlist prior to October 31, 2025, will be offered the opportunity to transfer to their requested school, subject to available space. Families must submit or confirm requests and accept placement offers by the deadlines provided. STEP 4: Lottery for Remaining Required Transfers: A lottery system will be used to assign remaining Merriam students to the other five schools. Families will be asked to share their preferences for the other five schools, and then a random selection process will be implemented to produce final placements. Families can place their child on a waitlist for other schools should there be openings that emerge before the start of the 26-27 school year. Kindergarten Enrollment for 2026–2027: Following the completion of the placement process for current students, the Kindergarten enrollment process for the 2026–2027 school year will be adjusted to reflect the new elementary school structure. Families will be invited to participate in registration and the Kindergarten lottery process once current student placements are finalized, allowing any sibling considerations to be identified and incorporated.
PLAN FOR OPTION 4 - “MERGE” OF MCT AND MERRIAM
STEP 1: Identify the number of students at Merriam and McT who will need to be transferred to one of the other four elementary schools.
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 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software