PowerPoint Presentation

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

Strategic Planning and District Reorganization AB Forward

Steering Committee Meeting

October 7 th , 2025

DRAFT

Today’s Objectives

Share process update with progress to date

Review stakeholder feedback and updates to strategic plan language

Review options for district re-organization to be shared with the community for feedback

Align on next steps for stakeholder engagement

DRAFT

Agenda

Process Update

Strategic Plan Update

Options for District Re-organization

Next Steps for Stakeholder Engagement

Closing

DRAFT

Our current focus is to gather feedback on the proposed re-organization scenarios in order to identify two to three actionable options to bring to the School Committee in December.

Process and Timeline Design

Implementation

Develop Action Plans for Implementation (TBD)

Gather Feedback on Proposed Scenarios (October - November 2025)

Share Final Plan & Recommendations (December 2025)

Conduct Diagnostic (June - September 2025)

Convene Steering Committee (May 2025)

• DMG convenes the

• DMG gathers quantitative data for needs assessment • Conduct initial focus groups & interviews • Collect community & stakeholder input • Analyze data and share findings • Workshop & propose plan updates • Create initial draft of strategic plan • Generate district reorganization scenarios

• Gather community &

• DMG delivers final draft of strategic plan • DMG and Steering Committee presents reorganizational recommendations to ABRSD School Committee

• ABRSD Steering

Strategic Plan Steering Committee, with support from ABRSD leadership

stakeholder feedback on proposed scenarios

Committee and School Committee determine reorganizational plan • Develop action steps, goals and specific timelines based on reorganization decision • Identify educational goals, initiatives, and action steps

• Synthesize feedback • DMG distills scenarios into 2-3 actionable options

DRAFT

Since our last Steering Committee meeting on September 9 th , we gathered additional feedback on the strategic plan, updated the language, and identified possible options for re-organization.

Process Update

Created Detailed Re-organization Options

Refined Strategic Plan Language

Conducted Focus Groups

Gathered feedback from 70+ Stakeholders across Acton-Boxborough Regional School District including staff, students, and families.

Identified a robust list of re-organization options for consideration, leveraging capacity, building, and enrollment data.

Updated the drafted Theory of Action and priority areas language based on Steering Committee and focus group feedback.

DRAFT

Agenda

Process Update

Strategic Plan Update

Options for District Re-organization

Next Steps for Stakeholder Engagement

Closing

DRAFT

In our last Steering Committee, several key themes emerged related to improving the drafted strategic plan language.

Summary of Feedback – Steering Committee

Steering Committee Key Themes

• Student needs are evolving, and the school system must be flexible and responsive to those needs. • The district must build adaptive structures and supports that account for socioeconomic and learning differences and are ready to pivot as needs change over time.

Ensuring Adaptability and Equity in Schools

• Need for a clear definition of staff and student success, using appropriate tools and metrics. • Identifying effective ways of communication is essential in fostering shared visibility and collaboration amongst all stakeholders which will lead to overall system success.

Defining Success and Effective Communication

• Supporting staff members requires more specialized staffing, not just collaboration and professional learning, to meet students’ diverse learning and development needs. • A district strategy must highlight authentic ways for supporting staff members.

Clearly Articulating How to Support Staff

• General language like “all students” loses the emphasis on individual needs of students; a more personalized focus on “each student” would highlight the district’s commitment to addressing the full range of students’ social-emotional and learning needs.

“All Students” vs. “Each Student”

DRAFT

We also met with a range of ABRSD stakeholders including staff, students, and parents, to gather their thoughts on the drafted Theory of Action and priority areas language.

Summary of Feedback – Focus Groups

• Standardized solutions and a “one-size-fits-all” model for teaching and support will not meet the diverse needs of students or staff. • Stakeholders want a greater differentiation in instruction, curriculum, and support systems driven by the pillars of the ABRSD Vision of a Graduate. Focus Group Key Themes • Educators reported that while their feedback is collected, it doesn’t lead to change, or increased support especially regarding professional development, workload, staffing, and curriculum needs. • Parents and central office stakeholders expressed the desire for more transparency and action on shared concerns. • Educators, parents, and leaders shared concerns that the district’s goals are not matched by adequate staffing, resources, or infrastructure, highlighting needs in areas like mental health support, instructional technology, collaborative time, and professional development. • Students highlighted the need for greater funding in extracurricular programs such as clubs, electives, and sports to enhance their overall experience. • While equity and inclusion are seen as critical values, stakeholders noted inconsistent understandings, and a lack of clear, actionable steps to ensure every student, including students from all ability levels, not just multilingual and neurodiverse learners, are supported.

Differentiated Approaches to Instruction Grounded in the Vision of a Graduate

Increased District Responsiveness

Clarity on How Equity and Inclusion Improves Outcomes for Each Student

Appropriate Systems, Staffing, and Resources

DRAFT

Using the feedback from the Steering Committee and additional stakeholder engagement, we updated the Theory of Action language.

Theory of Action – Updated Language

Theory of Action

If we… • Enhance how we support each of our students to meet their evolving needs, leading to improved instruction for all students, by: o Using our Vision of a Graduate to drive improvements to our curriculum, materials, and instruction, investing in research-based programs that are specifically designed to meet the needs of students, including students with disabilities, English learners, and students with social-emotional needs; o Building a system-wide approach to understanding and supporting the diverse learning needs of all students PK-12+, so each student can access necessary supports; o Providing ongoing support, opportunities for collaboration, and professional learning for our educators that are specific to the needs of our students; • Design schools and programs that inspire a community of learners and empower educators to meet the individual needs of all students; • Rethink how we use our resources to create educationally effective and financially sustainable systems that allow the community to invest in its people and expand offerings to deeply engage students in innovative ways...

Then ABRSD will… •

Improve outcomes for each of our students from all backgrounds and educational needs; • Maintain a strong sense of belonging, safety, and support for students and staff in all ABRSD schools; • Ensure that every student experiences developmentally appropriate, rigorous, engaging, and inclusive instruction that helps them reach their fullest potential; • Nurture a thriving community of educators and maintain the finances and operations necessary to deliver excellence for students now and into the future.

DRAFT

DMGroup also updated the drafted priority areas for ABRSD to consider for the strategic plan.

Priority Areas – Updated Language

• High-quality instruction and districtwide systems of support driven by our Vision of a Graduate and designed to maximize learning for each student, responding to their unique learning and development needs.

STUDENT ACADEMIC OUTCOMES & SOCIAL- EMOTIONAL WELLBEING

• Support for staff, including opportunities for collaboration and professional learning, that is specific to the evolving needs of students and fosters a culture of continuous learning.

RESPONSIVE SUPPORT FOR STAFF

• Intentional, inclusive school communities that welcome students, families, and educators from all backgrounds and create a sense of belonging for each member of the school community.

WELCOMING & INCLUSIVE SCHOOL COMMUNITIES

• Educationally effective and financially sustainable district operations and systems that invest resources in areas that will deliver the strongest outcomes for students and the community.

SUSTAINABLE DISTRICT SYSTEMS & OPERATIONS

DRAFT

We will re-visit the updated strategic plan language during our next steering committee meeting on November 18 th once community feedback has been gathered on re-organization options.

Proposed Next Steps with Strategic Plan Language

1. DMG to incorporate any additional Steering Committee or stakeholder feedback into the Theory of Action and Priority Areas.

2. During November 18 th Steering Committee meeting, DMG will share measurable goals and data sources aligned to Priority Areas, and Steering Committee will vote to confirm strategic plan language.

3. During final December 2 nd Steering Committee meeting, Steering Committee members will do a final review of strategic plan, ahead of sharing with the School Committee.

DRAFT

Agenda

Process Update

Strategic Plan Update

Options for District Re-organization

Next Steps for Stakeholder Engagement

Closing

DRAFT

We approached developing options for re-organization by conducting a detailed capacity analysis, developing a framework for re-organization options, and evaluating options against a set of criteria.

Approach to Developing Options for Re-organization

Analyze School & District Capacity

Determine Dimensions of Re-organization

Conduct Evaluation of Options

• Conducted a detailed review of each building and school

• Use of Facilities

• Strengths and Drawbacks

• Design of Schools & Programs

• Impacts on Staffing, Students & Families

• Incorporated square footage, class size guidelines, student enrollment, room function and utilization

• Configuration of Grade-Levels

• Implications for Curriculum, Materials & Support

• Approach to Student Enrollment

• Calculated current student and staff capacity of schools and buildings

• Projected Costs

Goal: Determine the maximum student capacity of each building.

Goal: Generate a full range of possible re-organization scenarios.

Goal: Identify which options are most viable and least feasible.

DRAFT

Options for re-organization rely on several key levers for deploying resources more strategically, which fundamentally make trade-offs around where to prioritize staff, funding, and time.

Resourcing Levers for Re-Organization

Levers of Re-Organization

Use Class Size Targets to Ensure Efficient Enrollment

Expand Reach of Specialized Positions

Reduce School Operational Costs

Align schedules and grade-level groupings so specialized staff can serve a broader range of students, which may limit school or classroom autonomy.

Increase class size targets across schools when appropriate, based on capacity and instructional needs of students.

Reduce underutilized physical space or invest in targeted facility improvements to consolidate operations, reducing long-term costs.

Action

Thoughtful reductions in operating costs can unlock resources for alternative uses (i.e., more specialized staff, materials, facility improvements, etc.)

Enable interventionists and specialists to reach more students with similar needs, increasing their impact and efficiency.

Free up staffing to create/expand specialized positions and/or align with budgetary constraints of the district.

Outcome

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

Your role as the steering committee is critical to help us refine the options before they are shared more broadly and customize our approach for gathering feedback from the community.

Role of Steering Committee

Provide feedback on the options for re-organization that should be incorporated before they are shared more broadly with the A-B community through focus groups, community meetings, and the survey.

Reflect on how to present re-organization options to the ABRSD community to clarify the options and trade-offs related to organizational decisions so that community members can provide direct feedback.

DRAFT

After today’s meeting, we will begin gathering feedback from the community through focus groups, community meetings, and a survey.

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

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 (based on preference trends from past 5 years and other enrollment data) 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 (based on preference trends from past 5 years and other enrollment data) 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 tailoredto 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) . • Can lead to long-term financial sustainability due to stronger sharing of resources.

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

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

We now want to gather your feedback on these re-organization options in two parts.

Framing for Activity

Part I

Part II

Feedback on Options for Re-organization • Are there any options for re-organization that are missing from this set? • Are there other relevant details that should be shared with the options to help with decision making?

Plan for Community Engagement • Gather feedback on detailed options or bucketed options? • Should we gather feedback on ‘levers’ for district reorganization, particularly class sizes? • Gather feedback on specific elementary enrollment policies?

DRAFT

Agenda

Process Update

Strategic Plan Update

Options for District Re-organization

Next Steps for Stakeholder Engagement

Closing

DRAFT

In October, DMGroup will conduct focus groups with stakeholder groups across the district that will help refine priority areas for the strategic plan and test reorganization options.

ABRSD will make translators available at community meetings and DMGroup will offer translated captions for focus groups.

Overview of Approach to Focus Groups

Stakeholder Groups

Approach to Ensuring Representative Engagement

Students

Checks for Representation: • Broad stakeholder groups (Students, Families, School Staff, Central Office, etc.) • Schools • Grade levels • Race/ethnicity or cultural groups • Student service types (e.g., Special Education, Multilingual Learners, 504 Plans) • Town Representation

Parents/Guardians & Families

School-based Personnel

Methods to Expand Engagement: • Arranging focus groups by school and grade level • Leveraging teacher and staff relationships to recruit participants

Central Office Personnel

• Embedding focus groups or listening sessions into existing community structures (e.g., PTO meetings, cultural affinity groups, faith-based gatherings, sports teams, clubs, other groups) • Virtual events to expand access and flexibility; translation services available • Additional tailored outreach as needed to reach underrepresented voices

Others Community Members

DRAFT

This phase of stakeholder engagement will involve multiple methods of engagements with virtual and in-person opportunities for the community to share their perspectives.

Detailed Approach to Stakeholder Engagement

Gather Feedback on Proposed Scenarios (October - November 2025)

Method

Desired Outcomes

• Add depth to the priority areas identified through earlier engagement and data analysis • Validate and refine emerging themes or options for reorganization to ensure they reflect a broad range of stakeholder perspectives • Gather community feedback on proposed strategic priorities and district reorganization options • Identify any concerns or adjustments needed before finalizing the plan • Build shared understanding and buy-in for the final strategic plan and path forward

32 Focus Groups with Representative ABRSD Stakeholders

Feedback Survey for Full ABRSD Community

3 Community Meetings (Acton 10/21, Boxborough 10/27, Virtual 10/30)

DMGroup will track stakeholder engagement and share updates with the Steering Committee to allow for a comprehensive and representative approach to engagement.

DRAFT

To achieve balanced representation across stakeholder groups, our sign-up process will follow a three-pronged approach.

Focus Group Logistics

Select Individuals We will first send invites to select individuals who had originally applied to be on the Steering Committee.

Random Selection We will send a preset number of invites to individuals from stakeholder groups through random selection.

Voluntary Participation We will send a general invite to

all stakeholders allowing for voluntary participation in an appropriate focus group.

DRAFT

Agenda

Process Update

Strategic Plan Update

Options for District Re-organization

Next Steps for Stakeholder Engagement

Closing

DRAFT

Our current focus is to gather feedback on the proposed re-organization scenarios in order to identify two to three actionable options to bring to the School Committee in December.

Process and Timeline Design

Implementation

Develop Action Plans for Implementation (TBD)

Gather Feedback on Proposed Scenarios (October - November 2025)

Share Final Plan & Recommendations (December 2025)

Conduct Diagnostic (June - September 2025)

Convene Steering Committee (May 2025)

• DMG convenes the

• Gather community &

• DMG delivers final draft of strategic plan • DMG and Steering Committee presents reorganizational recommendations to ABRSD School Committee

• ABRSD Steering

Strategic Plan Steering Committee, with support from ABRSD leadership

stakeholder feedback on proposed scenarios

• Synthesize feedback • DMG distills scenarios into 2-3 actionable options

DRAFT

We will reconvene on Tuesday Nov. 18 th to continue conversations around the strategic plan and options for district reorganization.

Steering Committee Calendar of Meetings*

Meeting No.

Date

Drafted Objectives

Length

• Introduce strategic planning framework • Discuss district mission/vision and theory of action • Confirm next steps for the summer

Tues. Jun 10 6:30 - 7:30pm

1 hour

Mon. Aug 25 6:30 - 8:00pm

• Review and discuss diagnostic findings • Discuss district mission/vision and theory of action

1.5 hours

• Confirm district mission/vision • Discuss the drafted theory of action as well as priority area themes that emerged from diagnostic analysis • Review preliminary options for district reorganization to be shared with the community for feedback • Confirm Theory of Action, priorities and measurable goals for the strategic plan • Confirm options for district reorganization to be shared with the community for feedback • Update on progress with stakeholder engagement • Review stakeholder feedback on options for district reorganization • Confirm elements of the strategic plan • Align on next steps to finalize options for presentation to the school committee • Final presentation of strategic plan and reorganization options ahead of sharing with the school committee

Tues. Sep 9 6:30 - 8:00pm

1.5 hours

Tues. Oct 7 6:30 - 8:00pm

1.5 hours

Tues. Nov 18 6:30 - 8:00pm

1.5 hours

Tues. Dec 2 6:30 - 8:00pm

1.5 hours

DRAFT

*Note: Calendar and agendas subject to change based on the needs of ABRSD; any changes to the plan will be publicized ahead of any meetings for public record.

Next Steps

• DMGroup to incorporate feedback from this conversation into strategic planning, drafting, and process.

• DMGroup to update materials based on today’s conversation and share a final version.

• DMGroup to conduct the 2 nd phase of stakeholder engagement, focus groups and a follow up survey.

• Steering Committee to reconvene on November 18 th from 6:30pm – 8:00pm to review stakeholder feedback on options for district reorganization, confirm elements of the strategic plan, and align on next steps to finalize options for presentation to the School Committee.

DRAFT

Q A &

DRAFT

If you have any comments or questions about the contents of this document, please contact District Management Group:

Tel: (877) 362-3500 Email: info@dmgroupK12.com Fax: (617) 491-5266 Web: www.dmgroupK12.com Mail: 133 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110

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 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

Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software