Welcome to the October issue of WPS in Brief. This month covers realignment, digital bathroom passes, graduation requirements, staff absences, and more from two School Committee meetings and four subcommittee meetings. There’s a lot here, so if you only have time for one thing, please read the realignment section. These decisions will affect students and families across the city for years, and now is the time to pay attention and give feedback.

Subscribe now

Let’s dive in:

Realignment.

Realignment is the most important School Committee issue to pay attention to right now. The decisions being considered will shape where students attend school, their pathways through middle and high school, and access to programs across Worcester for years to come. I’ve put together a realignment reference guide to help families understand the proposals and what they could mean for their schools. Please take a look and give feedback: email alignment@worcesterschools.net or attend one of the public forums. Tell the district what works, what concerns you, and what questions still need answers before the committee votes.

Securly Hall Passes.

The October 8 School Committee discussion about digital hall passes being piloted at Worcester Tech (and perhaps Burncoat and South, although there was some confusion about that) left me wondering what problem we’re trying to solve, at what cost, and whether the benefits justify handing over more information about our students. The vendor, Securly Pass, gives principals a dashboard showing who is out of class, their destination, and how long they’ve been gone. Reports identify patterns, including which students are out at the same time. Superintendent Brian Allen said he did not see the system as “Big Brother,” describing it as supporting administrators and climate and culture staff. The discussion included using patterns, like a student going to the bathroom every period, to understand what is happening with a child.

The phrase “high flyers” came up, and all I kept thinking about was a student on a heavy day of her period who needs the bathroom more frequently. Is she going to show up as a “high flyer”? What about a student with a health issue who would prefer not to explain it to every adult with access to their bathroom history? The stated purpose of a program is one thing; how it’s implemented is just as important. I understand why staff should know who is out of class, but what happens between identifying a pattern and deciding what it means? Will staff approach a student’s bathroom data with curiosity, concern, or suspicion?

Bathroom records could reveal personal information about a student’s health or gender identity. Does the system identify the specific bathroom? Who can access those records, and how long are they kept? What information is shared with the vendor? Are photos? Have students and families been told?

Securly is owned by Golden Gate Capital, a private equity firm based in San Francisco. Its student privacy policy permits aggregated or de-identified student data to be used and shared with third parties for research and analysis. How does information collected from our children help build a private company’s products and business? What limits has WPS placed on that data mining in its contract?

Member Maureen Binienda (at-large) described using student IDs to monitor students in the hallway at South High a decade ago. What platform did it use, and could WPS meet this need internally without another subscription and another third party holding student information? Binienda also mentioned students stealing paper passes and forging signatures. But students will find workarounds for digital passes, too. (They already have.)

It also raises the question of how it fits with our staffing investments. The current year’s budget includes 46 climate and culture assistants and 11 deans of students across middle and high schools, alongside principals and assistant principals. The climate and culture assistants alone are budgeted at $1.92 million in salaries. Eight were added for 2025–26 specifically to take duties like bathroom and lunch coverage off teachers’ plates and allow more common planning time. Do we not have enough people to manage the halls? What gap remains, and why does filling it require another subscription and another company collecting student information?

Member Jermaine Johnson (district F) also expressed frustration that his earlier request for a vaping-detection pilot lacked funding. I’ve covered that discussion before. His budgetary questions could not be answered at the meeting. But it raises questions about how the district decides which technologies are worth trying. (These small meeting moments also show budget priorities taking shape: a bathroom-pass subscription here, a discussion about flag football there. By formal budget debate time, most commitments are already determined and those conversations are happening now.)

I’d like to hear from the students, and what they think about their trips to the bathroom becoming data tied to them individually. Students have asked the School Committee for better bathroom facilities over and over. There’s something ironic about paying to track how long students spend in bathrooms when students have had to ask to have bathrooms that work.

Gender support for students.

The gender support plan petition returned to the full School Committee on October 8, with more public comment following the September discussion I covered last month. Students had described being outed without permission, repeatedly having to explain their names and pronouns, and feeling unsafe at school.

Deputy Superintendent Marie Morse said WPS uses the DESE gender support form as a resource and works individually with each student. She said the district meets state requirements and apologized for the experience the students described. The discussion also referenced Safe Schools training at all high schools.

Member Sue Mailman (at-large) asked about consistency across high schools and how the district evaluates whether its approach is working. Morse pointed to training across all high schools and feedback from students. Member Molly McCullough (district A) also moved to bring the requested report on which parts of DESE’s approach WPS has implemented back to the full committee, rather than provide it through a Friday Letter (which is essentially an email from the Superintendent and a way in which school committee members can request information back from administration without having it come to another school committee meeting).

An individualized approach and a consistent process should be able to coexist. Each student may need something different, but they should all know who can help, how their privacy will be protected, and how their wishes will be communicated safely to staff. Students have already provided feedback about where those systems failed them.

Graduation requirements.

The October 8 Report of the Superintendent touched on the Massachusetts graduation requirements, which was scheduled with the expectation that the state’s new requirements, following the removal of the MCAS graduation requirement, would be clearer by now. But they’re still being developed. The proposed framework includes MassCore coursework, which WPS already requires; state-designed, administered, and scored end-of-course assessments in specific subjects; a postsecondary plan through My Career and Academic Planning (MyCAP); and a culminating capstone project or portfolio. Under the proposed timeline discussed at the meeting, MassCore would become a statewide requirement beginning with students entering ninth grade in 2027–28—current eighth graders. The remaining requirements, including a MyCAP plan, would begin with students entering ninth grade in 2028–29—current seventh graders. WPS is waiting for more guidance, including details about those assessments.

Member Alex Guardiola (district D) asked what measures WPS will use to determine whether graduates demonstrate college and career readiness, and whether the committee could review clear metrics annually. Accountability is an important role of the committee, but college and career readiness are not the entire purpose of public education. Schools also prepare students to participate in democracy, understand the world, build relationships, and contribute to their communities. WPS’s own Vision of a Learner reflects that broader purpose: students should become problem solvers, curious learners, empowered individuals, effective communicators, and engaged community members. How will the School Committee ensure that the graduation requirements reflect that vision?

Staff Absenteeism.

At the October 22 school committee meeting the committee received another staff sick-day report, requested by Guardiola. The percentage of instructional staff using 15 or more sick/family medical days declined from 14% to 11.4%, while cafeteria and custodial staff had substantially higher rates, at 26.4% and 24.9%. The report also explains that employees using more than 15 days may still be within their accumulated sick leave allowance.

Guardiola’s questions about substitute coverage, differences between schools, and the impact on other teachers sounded familiar: I asked them in my July 2025 brief. Perhaps he’s a reader. I’m glad he raised the questions, but he left them as questions. He didn’t request a report or ask the administration to come back with answers.

When Superintendent Brian Allen acknowledged that some schools struggle to find day-to-day substitutes, there was an opening: What has WPS done to try to recruit more? What are the barriers? Is it pay, working conditions, or something else? I’m a licensed teacher who occasionally works as a day-to-day substitute in WPS (I started last month). At $18.33 an hour, I’m not willing to do it regularly. Is compensation one of the barriers the district has examined? The district could also consider having central-office administrators cover classrooms, as El Paso ISD is doing, to reduce substitute costs and reconnect administrators with classroom life. That’s a perspective you don’t get from a walkthrough.

School Committee members could have requested a report on substitute recruitment, barriers to coverage, and options they could fund or address through policy. I agree with Guardiola that staffing gaps have serious consequences for students and staff. But when does the committee move from monitoring to action?

MCAS.

The October 22 report on MCAS and state accountability showed a mixed picture. High school achievement declined in English, math, and science for the second consecutive year. But elementary and middle school students showed improved growth in English and math, and English learners in grades 1–8 exceeded the state’s target for progress toward English proficiency. Four schools—Columbus Park, McGrath, Midland Street, and Worcester Arts Magnet—were named Schools of Recognition.

What caught my attention was Member Maureen Binienda’s emphasis on students meeting standards rather than focusing on scores. I agree. But that emphasis stood out given her opposition to removing MCAS as a graduation requirement in 2024, when she argued that education had improved after MCAS was introduced and questioned how standards would be assessed without the requirement. Bill Shaner covered that discussion here. I’d like to hear more about how she distinguishes the two now. What evidence of student learning should the school committee prioritize beyond test scores, and will they apply that same perspective consistently when evaluating our schools?

Bits and bobs.

• Career Technical Education program admission. The Operations and Governance subcommittee approved updates to the CTE admissions policy on October 13, which went to the full committee’s October 22 agenda. The changes

  • remove sibling preference under the state’s admissions rules.

  • eliminate the extra lottery entry tied to a recommendation letter.

  • count Worcester Dual Language Magnet eighth graders toward the Worcester Tech seat allocation for the middle school associated with their home address.

  • remove language preventing students from enrolling unless they passed their previous year’s English and math courses, following updated DESE guidance.

• Communicating to families when assessments are happening. Member Jermaine Johnson asked that parents be informed when their children will take assessments. Deputy Superintendent Marie Morse said schools typically provide that information. This is especially important for fifth and sixth graders taking Star assessments, because those scores determine admission to Goddard Scholars and Hanover Insurance Academy of the Arts. As I’ve explained before, these tests have consequences beyond measuring classroom progress. Families should know when they’re happening and how many times their children can take them to qualify for those programs.

• Less federal funding. The October 21 Finance subcommittee’s first-quarter budget report shows WPS receiving about $423,500 less in Title I funding and $193,600 less in Title II funding than budgeted—roughly $617,000 combined. The district says the Title I reduction will directly affect its ability to provide summer and after-school programming, while the Title II reduction affects professional development. These are cuts to services and support, even if they don’t appear as cuts in the district’s general operating budget.

Also.

One more reminder to make time for the upcoming realignment meetings: Monday, October 26 at 6 p.m. at Forest Grove Middle School, and Saturday, November 7 at noon at Goddard Elementary School. An additional Operations and Governance meeting has been added for Monday, November 16, with the time and location still to be announced. The October 26 meeting will be devoted to public feedback, with no presentation. If you’re trying to make sense of the proposals, read my realignment reference guide. You don’t have to understand every detail to share what matters to your family. Come with questions, concerns, and ideas. If you can’t attend, email alignment@worcesterschools.net, and check the realignment website for updated meeting details.

Thanks for reading! These briefs take many hours of watching meetings, reading reports, and tracking down answers. If they help you stay informed, please share them, consider a paid subscription, or buy me a coffee. And as always, I appreciate questions, corrections, and tips about what’s happening in your schools. See you next month!

Subscribe now

Share

I’ve heard from many families, teachers, and community members that it’s difficult to understand what realignment would mean for their specific school. So I’ve tried to break it down school by school in an understandable way. This isn’t meant to be read straight through. Think of it as a reference guide: each school follows the same format so you can find your school, see a map, compare the scenarios, and understand the proposed changes. It’s too long to include it all in one post, so here’s the link (https://bit.ly/wpsinbrief).

This took a lot of time and work to put together. If you find it helpful, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to Worcester Sucks.

Subscribe now

Share

Subscribe now

The third redistricting scenario is out, ahead of the Operations and Governance subcommittee meeting this coming Tuesday, Oct 13. If you’ve been following along, the elementary boundaries look pretty similar to the second scenario and seem somewhat settled. The big question in this scenario is what to do about middle and high schools. The consultants drafting these scenarios are trying to balance enrollment while keeping students on predictable pathways. But differences in building capacity and how seats in specialized programs are distributed make that difficult. Some solutions include proportional lotteries, split feeder pathways, and a new proposal: flex zones. Each comes with tradeoffs. And we need to be clear about which school communities would be asked to carry them. Let’s dive in.

Get caught up.

If you’re new to this process—or have understandably lost track of which proposal did what—start with my March overview of why WPS is redistricting, then my explainers on Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. My March meeting recap also covers what families asked for at the first community forum, which I’ll return to at the end.

You can also review the Scenario 3 presentation, the school-by-school enrollment, capacity, and demographic spreadsheet, and the interactive boundary map.

What changed from Scenario 2?

The elementary map looks basically the same, but there are some important changes in the assumptions and options behind it:

• The preschool goal now acknowledges that some elementary buildings cannot accommodate a pre-k classroom.

• Rice Square is modeled with additional classrooms so sixth graders could remain there.

• The secondary model back tracks from Scenario 2’s suggestion to reserve seats in each program by quadrant, and instead uses historical enrollment patterns to predict where students are coming from.

• Split feeder pathways for McGrath or Nelson Place and a new flex-zone proposal are being considered to help balance secondary enrollment.

  ---

Elementary boundaries.

There aren’t huge changes to the elementary boundaries between Scenarios 2 and 3. But compared with the boundaries we have today, some school communities would look very different. The proposal still includes a neighborhood zone for Jacob Hiatt, a new Granite Street elementary school, a future elementary school at Greendale, and changes to the pockets of neighborhoods assigned to schools outside their immediate area.

Some notable examples: all of Plumley Village would be assigned to City View, rather than split between City View and Belmont. Great Brook Valley would no longer send students to Thorndyke, with students instead divided among Burncoat Prep, Clark Street, and Norrback. Lincoln Village would also be consolidated to Thorndyke rather than divided among multiple schools.

The chart below shows the change in the number of students living within each elementary attendance zone. Rice Square and Chandler would see the largest reductions in the number of students living within their attendance zones—293 and 250 fewer, respectively. May Street, Belmont Street, Elm Park, and Grafton Street would also have substantially fewer students in their zones. Roosevelt, City View, Clark Street, and Goddard would see the largest increases. These are changes in neighborhood-zone resident counts, not current school enrollment or the number of children who would change schools. A small net change can also hide a significant boundary shift if a school loses one neighborhood and gains another. The chart excludes the two magnets and the new Jacob Hiatt, Greendale, and Granite Street neighborhood zones, which have no current-zone baseline.

What does this mean for racial and economic diversity?

On this question, the consultants’ own analysis raises concerns. Using a range of 15 percentage points above or below the district’s approximately 25% white student population, five elementary schools fall outside that range today. Under Scenario 3, eight would. The share of students in those schools increases from 16% to 24%. (These figures exclude WAMS and Worcester Dual Language Magnet.) This is the consultants’ comparison measure, not a state designation of racial imbalance, but even using their relatively broad range, the proposal moves in the wrong direction.

The economic picture changes less. The share of students in schools outside the consultants’ low-income range—56% to 86%—falls slightly, from 38% today to 35% in Scenario 3, while the number of schools outside that range remains eleven. The presentation acknowledges that the same demographic extremes largely persist across the drafts.

I understand that boundaries have to account for buildings, walkability, and enrollment. But at the initial March community forum, families raised socioeconomic diversity and historical inequities as a top concern. If the elementary map is becoming fixed, we should be asking now whether these outcomes are acceptable.

New start times and longer elementary school days.

The proposed school start times generally puts high schools first, elementary schools second, and middle schools last, but there’s exceptions to each one as you’ll see below. Along with changes to start and dismissal times, the proposal includes a longer elementary school day. The move to three tiers is intended to make transportation more efficient.

The second scenario had put elementary schools on the 9 a.m. tier, but elementary families raised concerns about how a 9 a.m. start would affect their work schedules, and nonprofit providers raised concerns about their ability to run after-school programs if students didn’t get out until 3:30 p.m. So that’s why the proposal has most elementary schools starting at 8:15 a.m., although some start at 7:15 a.m.

That change comes with a tradeoff, though. The presentation says putting elementary schools in the second tier does not provide as much transportation capacity as putting them at the third. I’d like to see those numbers, just to have an idea of how many students could receive transportation under each option. Because access to transportation is the number one issue that has come out of the community forums so far.

Pre-K, but not at every school.

One of the original goals was to put a full-day preschool classroom in every neighborhood elementary school. Scenario 3 acknowledges that some smaller buildings don’t have room for that alongside their existing grades and specialized programs. Granite Street, Wawecus, Heard Street, May Street, Midland, and Lincoln Street are identified as schools without enough space for pre-k.

New schools and classrooms.

The elementary plan depends on opening new schools and adding classrooms. That’s an exciting prospect, but also a big commitment when WPS is facing budget constraints next year and beyond.

Greendale is proposed to help accommodate growing enrollment in the Burncoat quadrant. The presentation projects average elementary utilization of approximately 95–100% as Curtis Apartments fills, if WAMS remains as it is and no other portfolio changes are made. But Greendale would not open immediately. Head Start would remain there until the conversion, which the presentation places around 2032. It also acknowledges that the building in its current condition is not ideal for Pre-K through sixth grade. We need to understand the renovations and costs, when crowding would occur, and how students would be accommodated before Greendale opens—or if it is delayed. The consultants also considered moving WAMS outside the Burncoat quadrant, but set that aside to maintain quadrant alignment with the middle and high school arts programs. Opening Greendale also involves potentially moving Head Start to the University Park Campus School building while exploring a merger or co-location between UPCS and Claremont.

In the north quadrant, Granite Street would reopen as a neighborhood elementary school in the current Gerald Creamer Center building. That would mean potentially relocating the GCC to the Fanning Building.

At Rice Square, Scenario 3 is modeled with four additional classrooms so sixth graders could go back there (they are currently at Worcester East Middle). The district’s capital plan already lists a $1.6 million modular replacement for 2028–29, but it’s unclear whether the additional classrooms would be part of that project or something separate. Are we replacing existing space, adding capacity, or both—and when would those classrooms be ready? Several other modular replacements are included in the district’s five-year capital plan. If redistricting better distributes students across existing buildings, could it reduce the need for some of those projects? I’d like to understand how the boundary plan and facilities plan fit together. If the school committee approves boundaries that depend on these projects, what are they committing to fund—and what happens if they don’t follow through?

Utilization.

The consultants identify 80–90% as ideal building utilization, leaving room for enrollment changes and balancing class sizes. Scenario 3 brings elementary schools into a range of 71–90%, with districtwide elementary utilization around 81%, excluding magnets but including the future Greendale school. These numbers have been revised to account for preschool classrooms, specialized programs, and how buildings are actually used, including substantially separate classrooms.

Several schools would still be below the consultants’ ideal range and that concerns me. We have heard over and over again that birth rates are declining, as are school enrollment trends, so what would utilization look like five or ten years from now? We’re proposing to open new schools while some existing schools would already be below the ideal range. Could that leave us discussing consolidations or closures a few years later? I’m not saying that’s inevitable, but I want to understand how this plan holds up under the district’s enrollment projections.

Balancing Middle Schools and High Schools.

The bigger unresolved question is how to balance middle and high school enrollment. The buildings don’t have matching capacities within each quadrant, and where students attend specialized programs affects how much room is available for everyone else. Scenario 2 proposed proportional seat allocations by quadrant for districtwide programs. Scenario 3 steps back from applying that across all programs, instead assuming historical enrollment patterns. That has consequences, with models showing Worcester East Middle would be at approximately 98% utilization, while Burncoat High would be at 56%. Doherty High would be at 91%.

Something has to give. If we cannot have districtwide programs with lotteries by quadrant, the other options are sending an elementary school community to a different high school than its middle school classmates, or use flex zones to adjust assignments as enrollment changes. These options can be combined, but they put the responsibility for balancing enrollment in different places. I did appreciate this slide in the presentation that outlines some of the things that were explored by the consultants before they put these ones forward:

Split feeder pathways.

One option for balancing middle and high school enrollment would have students attend middle school in one quadrant and high school in another. Their elementary school community would stay together, but they would leave some of their middle school classmates behind when they moved on to high school.

That is what the presentation proposes as an option for Francis McGrath: students would attend Forest Grove Middle, but then go to Burncoat High instead of continuing to Doherty with other Forest Grove students. This would raise Burncoat High’s utilization from approximately 56% to 69% and lower Doherty’s from 91% to 85%. The presentation offers Nelson Place as an alternative: sending its students to Burncoat High would bring Burncoat’s utilization to approximately 75% and Doherty’s to 82%.

These options would improve the balance between Burncoat and Doherty. But they would do so by making an exception to one of the original goals of redistricting: keeping school communities together through elementary, middle, and high school. For the most part, this scenario preserves that continuity. But McGrath or Nelson Place would be asked to give it up so other school communities could keep it.

Flex zones.

Scenario 3 introduces another option to manage middle school and high school enrollment: flex zones. The proposed zones are Nelson Place, Belmont, Lake View, Vernon Hill, Columbus Park, Jacob Hiatt, and Elm Park.

These elementary neighborhoods could have their middle or high school assignments adjusted to adjacent quadrants to balance enrollment. Lake View could go to Burncoat or Worcester East Middle, for example, or Columbus Park could go to South or Doherty. The proposed rules would apply to incoming seventh graders, incoming ninth graders, and students newly enrolling. Students already enrolled would stay at their school, and once a student starts at a school, they could not be flexed again. The district would ask for volunteers first, then potentially use a lottery if there are not enough volunteers. This gives the district flexibility, but it asks families in particular neighborhoods to live with uncertainty. What criteria would trigger a need to flex, and who would make that decision? Worcester is notoriously opaque about this stuff (cough, cough, voluntary transfer), so the School Committee would need to lay out clearly in policy how this would work before the scenario gets approved.

One of the original goals of redistricting was more predictable pathways. So while flex zones could help balance buildings, school committee needs to acknowledge the tension between those two things. And if they’re reluctant to move programs or distribute seats through proportional lotteries, they’re choosing to put more of that uncertainty on neighborhood school communities.

Dual language.

The scenario does not identify where the dual language high school program would be located, even though families have already been told at the Burncoat building meetings that it will not continue at Burncoat like it is now. Since the district is using quadrant alignment to justify keeping the arts magnet programs together, it should apply that same standard to dual language. Locating the dual-language secondary pathway in the Doherty quadrant—and moving Woodland into that quadrant—is one way to provide that alignment. If the district proposes a different approach, it needs to explain how it would preserve the same program continuity it has prioritized for the arts magnet. Families deserve to know how their children’s dual language education will continue through high school, and that should have been part of this scenario, not something figured out afterward. Dual language students deserve the same attention to program continuity that the district has given to other programs.

What happens next.

We have one more scenario to come before the School Committee decides which changes to move forward with. As we get closer to that decision, it’s worth returning to what families asked for at the initial community forum: more access to transportation, more equitable access to academic opportunities, consistent enrollment policies, and less disruption to students and their school communities. Do we feel like it’s moving in that direction? Where the proposal falls short, there is still time to ask for changes.

The process is also moving into the specifics of implementation—the decisions that will turn a hypothetical map into real changes for children, families, and schools. Would new boundaries apply to all students at once, or only to incoming classes? Who could remain at their current school, and what would happen to younger siblings? How would transportation work for students staying at a school outside their new assignment? If students are grandfathered into their current schools for five years, how much would that cost and how long would it delay relief for overcrowded schools? Which changes could happen in existing buildings, and which would depend on funding, construction, or program moves? Who would be responsible for carrying out these transitions, and what happens if those plans change? Clear implementation and enrollment policies need to be in place before the School Committee takes a final vote.

Let me know in the comments what makes that scenario your preference, and what would you still change.

There are still opportunities to weigh in. The next public meetings are October 13 at 6 p.m. at Vernon Hill Elementary and online, October 19 at 3 p.m. at Chandler Elementary, October 26 at 6 p.m. at Forest Grove Middle and online, and November 7 at noon at Goddard Elementary. You can share feedback at those meetings or email alignment@worcesterschools.net and school committee members. The district’s project website has the proposals and additional information. Whether you support a change, oppose it, or need more information, now is the time to say so. Think about what it means for your own children, but also what will make WPS better for children across the city—including those who haven’t started school yet.

Thanks for reading. Have a great week.

Writing about Worcester Public Schools while also advocating within the district has always been complicated. I have relationships with many of the same people whose decisions I sometimes question publicly, and I would be lying if I said I never calculate the consequences of what I write. But I keep coming back to the belief behind this newsletter: knowledge is power. Families deserve to understand the systems shaping their children’s education, and they should not have to be quiet, agreeable or endlessly collaborative to be heard. Advocacy does not become less legitimate simply because it is persistent, uncomfortable or inconvenient.

That feels especially important right now, as Worcester makes decisions that could shape our schools for years to come: redistricting. Another scenario is expected in October, with final recommendations in December. These decisions could shape school assignments, specialized programs, transportation, preschool, integration and feeder patterns for years. Now is the time to pay attention and I strongly encourage you to look at what is proposed for your neighborhood and for neighborhoods beyond your own. If you know someone with kids, even if they’re not school-aged yet, share this with them!

Share

Welcome to the September issue of WPS in Brief. Lots to cover, so let’s get to it.

Breaking News! Please read Tracy Novick’s blog post about the City trying to scare us into thinking a new Burncoat High School and Middle School will be too expensive. She writes, “I am, frankly, angry that all of this concern over fiscal capacity was nowhere to be found when we suddenly were using local resources to build a ballpark to earn money for those who already have much. When we need funding to meet the needs of local students, a constitutional obligation, suddenly we have scary memos.”

Meeting Moment.

Every so often there’s something that happens at a meeting that I think is worth watching, and this is one of them, which is why I’m starting out with the meeting moment. At the September 3 School Committee meeting, a public petition asked the district to restrict the flags displayed in schools primarily to the United States, Massachusetts, City of Worcester and POW/MIA flags. While Pride flags were never explicitly named in the petition, that was very clearly where much of the public conversation went.

This is one of those moments when I think it is important to stop listening to the adults for a minute and listen to the students. Konstantin Kibe, a senior at Burncoat High School, told the committee what visible support means for transgender and queer students: “A pride flag in a classroom can be the difference between a graduation and a suicide.” That is an extraordinarily stark thing for a teenager to have to explain to a room full of adults. His words are worth a listen.

The agenda recommendation was to send the petition to the Operations and Governance subcommittee. Instead, after public comment, the School Committee took it up that night and voted to “reject” it. Technically, “reject” is not an option available to the committee; if members did not want to advance the petition, the proper action was to file it. But whatever procedural language was used, I was glad to see the School Committee stop the petition in its tracks.

Gender Support Plan Petition.

At the September 24 Teaching, Learning and Student Supports meeting, the subcommittee finally heard a Burncoat High educator’s 2024 public petition asking WPS to consider using DESE’s gender support plan. During public comment three trans students relayed their experiences: of being outed by teachers without their permission, about repeatedly having to come out to adults because systems like attendance sheets still do not reflect a student’s chosen name, and about being bullied and feeling unsafe. They spoke directly to the fundamental question underneath the petition: What happens after a student tells one trusted adult their name and pronouns? How does that information follow the student appropriately and safely so they do not have to start over in every classroom?

When the item came up for discussion, Tom Toney, administrative director of positive youth development, essentially said ‘as it reads’ and not one single school committee member asked a question. Maureen Binienda (at large) moved to file the item, and asked for a written report about what the district currently does. I’m not sure why she didn’t ask the question to the people in the room? In the end, they spent just two minutes on this item, and most of that time was on a procedural question.

What makes me the most livid, though, is that not a single adult in that room publicly thanked the teenagers for coming to speak, in what I imagine was a really hard thing for them to do. It’s unacceptable.

The good news is that the gender support plan item is not dead. The subcommittee did vote to file it (2-1, with Guardiola [district D] and Binienda voting yes, and Alvarez [district B] voting no), but it has not completed the full School Committee process yet. There is still an opportunity for the full committee to ask those questions and change course at the next school committee meeting on October 8.

Girls Flag Football.

Also at the September 24 TLSS meeting was a proposal to start girls flag football as a club or intramural sport, with up to two paid coaches at each high school. Coaching stipends would cost up to $12,180, and the department asked to increase its daily bus allocation from 10 to 14. Uniforms, equipment, officials and other costs would have to fit within its existing budget.

I love flag football. Twenty years ago, I played weak side linebacker on my college intramural team. It was the biggest women’s sport on campus, and three times we reached the finals and got to play in Notre Dame Stadium. Some of my teammates are still my closest friends. I would love for WPS girls to have that kind of experience. But I’m hesitant to add costs when existing teams are fundraising for proper equipment and uniforms, and WPS cannot fully fund its academic needs. Community fundraising and volunteers seem like the right way to get this started.

The athletic director also pointed out that, because flag football would be a club sport, students could play it alongside another spring sport. Technically, perhaps. But when is a high school student supposed to play two sports in one season, keep up with schoolwork and sleep? The phrase is “student-athlete,” with student first, for a reason.

What struck me the most from that September 24 TLSS meeting, though, was that the committee spent ten minutes asking questions about flag football and no time asking questions about the proposed gender support plan. This is called bikeshedding, which is the tendency of groups to spend disproportionate amounts of time debating relatively simple or familiar issues while giving far less attention to complicated, consequential ones. This was a painful example.

Democratic City Committee Chair hired by WPS.

On September 18, WPS announced that former City Councilor Sean Rose, who is also the current chair of the Worcester Democratic City Committee, had been appointed the district’s new Chief of Access, Opportunity and Equity. The Cabinet-level position is focused on opportunity gaps, family engagement, recruitment and equity. The job oversees areas including Family and Community Engagement, student and family advisory councils, the Parent Information Center and community outreach.

Rose has most recently served as president and CEO of Thrive Support & Advocacy, which provides services to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The district’s announcement said Rose has more than two decades of experience in “education” and “diversity, equity and inclusion,” but provided few details about that work. When I asked WPS specifically about his experience working within a public school system and leading academic-equity initiatives, a district spokesperson declined to answer.

The posting listed a salary range of approximately $192,000 to $197,000, which would be a significant pay cut for Rose, with Thrive’s most recent nonprofit filing listing his compensation at $296,231. The posting also required a Massachusetts administrator license. Rose holds initial licenses as a principal/assistant principal, issued almost 13 years ago. Initial licenses are valid for five years of employment, not five calendar years; the clock begins only when someone starts working in a position requiring that particular license. Rose therefore holds the required credential, but the licenses themselves do not demonstrate prior experience as a public school administrator.

Rose has also long been a public figure in Worcester. He served three terms on the City Council from 2018 through 2023, becoming the first Black councilor elected to represent District 1. Rose credits current School Committee member Molly McCullough, his cousin-in-law, with encouraging him to run. As Bill Doyle—no relation to me—reported in 2023, Rose married into a family with deep roots in Worcester politics:

“His father-in-law, Tom White, was a longtime state senator, state representative and city councilor. School Committee member Molly McCullough is a first cousin to Rose’s wife. James O’Brien, his wife’s grandfather, used to be mayor of Worcester. His wife’s uncle, also named James O’Brien, served on the Governor’s Council.”

None of that establishes that McCullough or Rose’s other relatives played any role in this appointment. But it illustrates that Rose has extensive political relationships in Worcester, which makes transparency around the hiring process particularly important.

Still, a district spokesperson declined to answer every follow-up question I submitted about its press release. That included who represented parents and the community during the multistep hiring process. The district has been similarly vague about the funding. Its June press release said the new position would be paid for through “an upcoming vacancy in another administrative position,” but did not identify that position. The director of the Office of Innovation subsequently left the district, and WPS did not refill that job, making it appear likely that the vacancy is funding Rose’s position, but the district declined to confirm that as well.

None of this establishes that Rose cannot do the job. His nonprofit leadership, human services background, political experience and extensive relationships across Worcester may all prove valuable. But an office charged with building trust should not begin by asking the public to take its hiring process on faith. That is especially true when the appointee is a prominent local political figure and the district refuses to answer basic questions about his relevant experience, who participated in his selection or how the position is being funded.

Superintendent’s Goals.

The School Committee approved Superintendent Brian Allen’s goals for the 2026–27 school year this month. If they sound familiar, that’s because most are continuations of work he started last year. Each fall, the School Committee approves goals for the superintendent and then uses them as part of his evaluation.

For the most part, you can see Allen’s progression. The student-achievement goal picks up almost exactly where last year’s left off: WPS got the percentage of students meeting or exceeding Star benchmarks in reading and math from 33% to 35%, just short of the 36% goal. This year, the target is 38%.

The collaborative teaming goal moves from establishing the practice to making it consistent across more schools. Last year, 84% of meetings reviewed included all four expected practices, but only 38 of 49 schools met the overall fidelity standard. This year, the goal is for 85% of schools to consistently implement the model. And last year’s Grow Your Own teacher pipeline, which enrolled 41 students against an initial target of 15–20, has a counterpart this year aimed at developing WPS’s own instructional coaches, deans, assistant principals and principals.

Redistricting also moves from analysis to implementation. Allen’s goal is to carry out the School Committee’s eventual boundary decisions, reduce overcrowding in at least 85% of schools currently over capacity and bring under-enrolled schools to at least 85% utilization. It explicitly includes feeder patterns, program placements and magnet/ citywide designations, which, once again, is why you need to pay attention to redistricting.

The genuinely new goal is around “strategic coherence.” Allen is participating in Harvard’s Public Education Leadership Program and plans to use that work to examine whether structures, systems and spending actually support what happens in classrooms. By June, he is supposed to present a revised strategic-coherence plan.

Taken together, there’s a pretty clear theme here: systems, structures and implementation. But that’s also why I was surprised by what’s missing. In his own 44-page self-assessment last year, Allen repeatedly identified communication and stakeholder engagement as areas where WPS needed to improve. He acknowledged problems around the Nelson Place principal selection, the proposed Worcester Alternative/ACT merger, and the equity reorganization. He talked about improving transparency, stakeholder engagement and the district’s advisory structures. There is no measurable goal asking whether families feel better informed and meaningfully involved in decisions—or, more simply, whether the district is just hearing the community or actually listening to it.

And there was very little School Committee discussion about any of this. Just one member asked any questions about the Superintendent’s goals (Sue Mailman). And there’s something to be said for having those conversations in public.

Too Much Testing?

The TLSS committee received a report on district assessments this month and depending on grade level, students may have roughly 30 to 50 (!) district assessments scheduled during the year, in addition to state testing and regular classroom assessment by the teacher. Parent Shawna Sylvia looked through the assessment calendar and counted 49 assessments for her third grader, who is reading below grade level. She told the committee:

“As a parent it’s hard to hear the district say there isn’t enough time in the day for teaching, and then to see how much of his time is being spent on assessments instead of learning.”

Maureen Binienda (at-large) pushed back on the idea that common assessments necessarily consume enormous amounts of time, explaining that they generally take part of a class period rather than days or weeks. Vanessa Alvarez (district B) captured an important part of this tension: families aren’t raising these concerns because they don’t care about academic progress. They’re raising them precisely because they do pay attention to their children’s education.

As an elementary parent, I have asked repeatedly for access to my child’s common assessments. Parents still cannot simply log in and see the questions their child was asked, how they answered or what the assessment supposedly tells the district. If these assessments are useful for understanding my child’s progress, I would like to see the results and understand what they mean, just like I would if they took the test on paper and brought it home.

Alex Guardiola (district D) framed the issue even more clearly: Does every assessment have a clear purpose? Are students taking too many? Do families know what assessments are happening? Are teachers getting results quickly enough to actually use them? And can the district demonstrate what it is doing differently because of the data it collects?

All great questions. Will we get the answers?

What happens if WPS gets hacked?

Sue Mailman (at large) requested a report on what systems the district has in place to make sure school could continue if it experienced a cyberattack. It’s not a theoretical question, as this month a severe cyberattack on Springfield Public Schools by an organized criminal group blocked access to systems the district needs for basic operations, including student medical information. Springfield lost four days of school while staff prepared to operate with limited technology. When students returned, some systems still required paper-and-pencil workarounds. The Boston Globe confirmed that the hackers stole student and staff data. As a parent, it’s hard to see what can happen when a district’s systems are breached, knowing how little control families have over the data collected about our children, where it is stored and who can access it.

Upcoming dates.

All school committee meetings have virtual options with Spanish translation, see the school committee site for more information.

• Citywide Parent Planning Advisory Council October 6, 6-7 p.m. at the Fanning Building

• School Committee meetings are October 8 and October 22, 6 p.m.

• Finance is October 21 p.m., time TBD at the Durkin Administration Building

• Operations and Governance is October 16, 5 p.m. at Vernon Hill

• Teaching, Learning and Student Support is October 16, 5 p.m. at Durkin Administration Building

  ---

Also.

Believe it or not, next year is another municipal election year. But the race I’m most interested in watching isn’t necessarily the School Committee, it’s mayor. (Remember Worcester’s mayor also chairs the School Committee.)

Mayor Joe Petty has served as mayor since 2012 and is currently in his eighth mayoral term. There is already political chatter about whether he’ll run again in 2027, but Petty has been rumored to be done before, so I would put approximately zero dollars on any rumor until he says something himself.

What is interesting is the possibility of School Committee members becoming part of that conversation. I’ve heard the names Sue Mailman, Molly McCullough and Maureen Binienda floated locally, although none has publicly announced a mayoral campaign. A mayoral race involving people with substantial School Committee records would put public education much closer to the center of Worcester’s citywide political conversation.

In terms of who runs for School Committee itself, my read of where parent organizing in Worcester right now is we may see more parents of younger children decide to run—people experiencing WPS day-to-day and navigating all the little systems you don’t fully understand until you’re trying to navigate them for your own kid. And that would be a great thing.

Thanks for reading, see you in October.

Scenario 2 tells us a lot about what the district heard after the first proposal, and which tradeoffs it is now willing to make.

Let’s dive in.

What changed?

The biggest change is that the new scenario backs away from several of Scenario 1’s most controversial proposals.

• Worcester Arts Magnet will remain in its current building.

• Francis McGrath will continue as a neighborhood elementary school.

• The area where a parent spoke about how they had purchased a home specifically for access to Nelson Place and Forest Grove was moved back to Nelson Place. The revised boundary also returns School Committee member Molly McCullough’s neighborhood to Nelson Place after she advocated for an alternative boundary to keep it from being moved to Norrback.

• Belmont Street will remain in the North Quadrant instead of moving to Burncoat.

• Columbus Park will remain in the South Quadrant instead of moving to Doherty.

• Jacob Hiatt will still become a neighborhood school, but it will remain in the Doherty Quadrant rather than moving to South.

• Instead of converting the current WAMS building into a neighborhood school, Scenario 2 proposes opening a new PreK–6 school in the Greendale Head Start building, largely by dividing the current Thorndyke school community—although the new zone would also draw from several surrounding schools. Head Start could then move to the University Park Campus School building, while WPS explores some kind of merger or co-location between UPCS and Claremont. None of that has been decided.

• City View sixth graders would go to Worcester East Middle, joining Rice Square and Grafton Street sixth graders. (Can we make every Worcester middle school grades 6-8? The grades 7-8 model feels increasingly outdated.)

• The proposed school-day order has changed, too. High schools would still begin first at the brutal start time of 7:15 a.m., but elementary schools would move to the 8:15 a.m. tier and middle schools would start at 9 a.m. Those times are still under consideration.

  ---

What stayed the same?

The central structure of the proposal remains. Every neighborhood elementary school would feed into one middle school and one high school and the district’s nine split pathways would be eliminated. Granite Street would reopen as a PreK–6 neighborhood school in the current Gerald Creamer Center building, and GCC would move to the Fanning Building. The district would work toward having a preschool classroom in every elementary school. Voluntary transfers still have to be addressed, because boundaries cannot balance enrollment if large numbers of students continue attending schools outside their assigned zones.

The proposal does a much better job of matching students to available elementary space. Today, elementary utilization ranges from roughly 57% to 113%. Scenario 2 narrows that range to approximately 73% to 90%, with no elementary school modeled over capacity. But I have questions about the low end of that range.

Nelson Place—the newest elementary school in the district—would be the least utilized at approximately 73%, while Lincoln Street would be the highest at 90%. Lincoln Street is in a part of the city where the consultants anticipate enrollment growth, which is one reason they originally proposed converting the WAMS building into a neighborhood school and moving the arts program elsewhere. To me, it does not make sense to leave the newest school in the district (which has AC! And is ADA compliant! etc.) so underutilized. Seventy-three percent leaves a lot of empty space.

In terms of individual attendance zones, the largest reductions would be at Rice Square and Chandler. May Street, Belmont Street, Elm Park, Grafton Street and Thorndyke Road would also have substantially smaller zones. On the other side, Roosevelt, City View, Clark Street and Goddard would receive substantially larger zones. Flagg Street, West Tatnuck, Vernon Hill and Quinsigamond would also serve larger areas.

The chart below shows the net change in the number of students living within each elementary attendance zone, not the change in current school enrollment. It excludes the new Jacob Hiatt, Greendale and Granite Street zones because they do not have current attendance zones to use as a baseline. In other words, the chart shows how many students would be added to or removed from each school’s geographic zone, not necessarily how many students would enter or leave the school.

Less disruption, but less integration.

Scenario 2 preserves more existing schools and neighborhood assignments. That makes it less disruptive, but it does not necessarily make it more equitable. Nelson Place, McGrath and Norrback are the clearest examples. Scenario 1 would have ended McGrath’s neighborhood program and incorporated much of its zone into Nelson Place. It also would have created a much more economically diverse Norrback zone. Under that proposal, Nelson Place would have been approximately 48% low income and 24% multilingual learners, while Norrback would have been 46% low income and 21% multilingual learners.

Scenario 2 keeps McGrath separate and largely restores the existing demographic divisions. Nelson Place would be only 31% low income and 13% multilingual learners. McGrath would be 69% low income and 38% multilingual learners. Norrback would also be 69% low income and 26% multilingual learners—almost identical to the demographics of its current geographic zone.

The racial differences are also significant. Nelson Place would be 53% white and 18% Hispanic. McGrath would be 31% white and 43% Hispanic, while Norrback would be 26% white and 39% Hispanic. The underlying group of children is not dramatically different, but Scenario 1 would have educated more of them together. Scenario 2 preserves three distinctly different school communities: a comparatively affluent Nelson Place and much higher-needs populations at McGrath and Norrback.

Something similar happens around Thorndyke Road. The new Greendale school, created so WAMS can remain in its current building, is formed largely by dividing the current Thorndyke community, although it also draws pieces from several surrounding zones. Greendale is projected to be 57% low income and 23% multilingual learners. The remaining Thorndyke zone would be 67% low income and 28% multilingual learners. Among students currently living in the Thorndyke zone, approximately 58% are low income and 22% are multilingual learners. Scenario 2 would therefore increase those shares by roughly nine and six percentage points, respectively.

West Tatnuck and (East) Tatnuck provide another example. Under Scenario 1, the two schools would have been very similar economically: West Tatnuck would have been approximately 48% low income and Tatnuck 51% low income. Scenario 2 moves them in opposite directions. West Tatnuck falls to 37% low income, while Tatnuck rises to 59%. In other words, a three-point difference between the two schools in Scenario 1 becomes a 22-point difference in Scenario 2. The racial changes are more mixed, and the multilingual-learner percentages remain relatively close, but the economic separation between two neighboring school communities becomes much larger.

Districtwide, Scenario 2 does not produce dramatically worse demographic numbers than Scenario 1. But districtwide averages can obscure that the revised map abandons some of Scenario 1’s limited opportunities for integration.

The quadrant lottery model.

At the middle- and high-school levels, boundaries alone cannot balance enrollment. Worcester’s buildings do not line up neatly: North and South have more students than their high schools can accommodate, while Doherty and the new Burncoat High have available space. Scenario 2 proposes addressing this through quadrant-based proportional lotteries for specialized programs, including career technical programs, Goddard Scholars, the Hanover Insurance Academy for the Arts and the Burncoat Arts Magnet pathway. I think this is one of the most important proposals in this second draft.

As an example, the current Burncoat Arts Magnet High School program enrolls 345 students. Of those, 211—61%—come from the Burncoat Quadrant. Only 12 students, or 3.5%, come from the South Quadrant. Burncoat Quadrant students are dramatically overrepresented in a program that is supposed to serve the entire city. If a program is intended for students throughout Worcester, its enrollment should reflect students throughout Worcester. Worcester Technical High School already uses proportional representation to ensure students from different schools have access. WPS should apply that same principle more broadly.

Goddard Scholars, for example, already selects students based on Star scores. If the program expands, seats could be allocated proportionally among elementary schools and offered to the highest-scoring eligible students within each school. That would preserve the existing academic criterion while ensuring that high-achieving students are identified throughout Worcester, not primarily in schools or neighborhoods that are already overrepresented.

As the parent of children attending a true citywide magnet school, I believe that if WPS says a program is available to all students, it needs to be genuinely accessible to all students. That requires transparent admissions, proportional access and public reporting on who actually gets the seats.

And where is dual language?

The presentation included a list of specialized middle- and high-school programs being considered in the lottery and capacity discussion. Dual language was not on it. When School Committee member Molly McCullough asked whether the high-school dual-language program would remain at Burncoat, the answer was essentially. ‘the district is still figuring it out.’

As a dual-language graduate and now a dual-language parent, I find that infuriating. Worcester has spent years building Spanish–English dual-language pathways at Worcester Dual Language Magnet School and Woodland Academy. In November 2025, the School Committee approved a district dual-language plan with goals for developing a strong pathway through high school. Less than a year later, WPS is redesigning feeder patterns and specialized programs across the city, yet dual language did not even appear in the presentation. Families still do not know what will happen after eighth grade. It is deeply discouraging, and speaks volumes about the district’s priorities, or, in this case, its lack of priority for dual language.

If you’ve been a longtime reader, you know I will shout this from the rooftops: research shows that dual language is one of the strongest educational models we can offer for ALL students, regardless of background. Worcester is uniquely positioned to provide robust dual-language programming. We have thousands of multilingual students, experienced multilingual educators, two established programs and a School Committee-approved plan. Bilingualism and biliteracy are academic assets, workforce skills and central parts of who Worcester’s students are. A strong districtwide plan should include a clear PreK–12 pathway, equitable access for students from both programs, transportation that makes participation realistic and opportunities that expand rather than narrow as students get older.

Our students’ multilingualism is an enormous strength. Why does WPS keep shelving dual language instead of developing it to its fullest potential?

What happens next?

Right now, the district is asking for feedback, and this is where your input can be especially helpful. Families can see their current and proposed assignments and submit feedback through the district’s Community Input Mapping Tool or email alignment@worcesterschools.net. Of course, look at what the proposal means for your own family. But also look at the bigger picture: Does it use our buildings more fairly? Keep neighborhoods together? Create clearer pathways for students? Expand access to programs and opportunities?

Final scenarios are expected to go to the School Committee in December, following public meetings and community forums throughout September, October and November (see below).

Share

If you found this explainer helpful, please share it with others to help keep our community informed. And if you appreciate this work and want to support more independent coverage of Worcester Public Schools, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, September 3, with an executive session at 5 p.m. The public meeting is set to begin at 6 p.m, but actual start time depends on how long executive session takes. See the full agenda. You can watch it via zoom or YouTube Live. Spanish translation is available on zoom.

Here’s what’s on the agenda:

Flags in Schools.
A public petition asks the School Committee to prohibit schools from displaying any flag other than:

• The United States flag

• The Massachusetts flag

• The City of Worcester flag

• The POW/MIA flag

The proposed exceptions would allow flags used temporarily for classroom instruction, school sports and spirit flags, and flags representing branches of the U.S. military. The petitioner, Michael Douglas, describes the proposal as a way to create “symbolic uniformity,” reduce division and maintain “educational neutrality.” Although the petition does not name the Pride flag, the practical effect seems fairly clear: It would prohibit schools from displaying Pride flags, along with flags recognizing cultures, identities or causes that are not on the approved list.

The contrast is especially interesting because another item on the same agenda, filed by Molly McCullough (district A), asks the School Committee to establish an annual recognition of June and September as Pride Months and encourage “appropriate recognition and acknowledgment” of Pride as a time for visibility, celebration, education and advocacy.

The petition will likely be referred to the Operations and Governance Committee.

Teachers don’t have a contract.
The committee will enter executive session to discuss contracts for four Educational Association of Worcester bargaining units.

The teachers’ and paraeducators’ contracts expired August 31, meaning the new school year will begin without successor agreements in place. Negotiations reportedly began last October, but union representatives told the School Committee earlier this month that they had not yet received a complete financial proposal and wanted Committee members to become more directly involved. According to state law the school committee is “the legal employer” when it comes to negotiating with employees. It’s not clear if the Mayor has appointed a negotiating subcommittee of the school committee.

Voluntary Transfer and Communicating Policy
The agenda includes a district response to a public petition requesting a review of the district’s voluntary-transfer policy, process and decision-making criteria. The response largely reproduces the voluntary-transfer language in the approved 2026–27 Student Policy Handbook, but the language is different from what the School Committee’s JCA policy currently says, which still contains the version approved on May 21, 2020.

So which one governs? Are families supposed to rely on the student handbook? I have done that before, only to be told later that the handbook contained an outdated policy the district no longer followed. Should families instead rely on the school committee policy manual, even though it apparently is not updated to reflect the rules the committee subsequently approved through the handbook process?

The school committee is also being asked to review several other policies specifically “to ensure that the policy manual and student handbook align.” But the purpose of the handbook should be to accurately communicate policies the School Committee has adopted, not to become a separate and potentially conflicting source of policy information. Families should not have to compare several district documents, search through years of meeting records and guess which version of a policy is actually being enforced. In this case, the confusion is not helping anyone understand how transfer decisions are made or whether the rules are being applied consistently.

Report of the Superintendent this week is about the Opening of Schools. No slide deck posted yet because school just started.

Preschool and literacy grants.
The Committee will also consider several grants, including:

• A $521,064 Commonwealth Preschool Partnership Initiative grant supporting partnerships between WPS and private early-education providers. The funding is intended to expand access to high-quality preschool while addressing barriers including cost and access to special education services. WPS staff will continue providing itinerant services to children with IEPs through community preschool partners.

• A high-dosage literacy tutoring grant for students performing below or well below benchmark, with first graders prioritized. The final amount will be determined through cost reimbursement, and the funding will pay stipends for tutoring staff working in elementary schools across the district.

  ---

A new policy under the PROTECT Act.
The Committee will consider developing a new policy governing interactions with law-enforcement officers in schools. The policy is required following passage of Massachusetts’ PROTECT Act and will likely be referred to Operations and Governance for review.

Have a good week! If you have feedback you can always get in touch: aislinn.doyle@me.com

Share

I spent the first two weeks of August on a glorious vacation in PEI with my family, so, in an attempt to have actually taken that time off, this edition of WPS in Brief looks a little different. I will not be covering the August school committee meeting in my usual play-by-play format. Instead, I am sharing a few reflections from Tuesday night’s redistricting meeting and linking to other local reporting on what happened at the one full school committee meeting this month.

Subscribe now

Let’s dive in:

Initial Redistricting Scenario.

If you missed my post about the initial redistricting scenario—including what would change and why WPS is undertaking this process—you can read it here.

The initial proposal is just that: a proposal. There are three more scenarios coming, with public forums and months of feedback before anything goes to the full school committee for a final vote. There are plenty of boundary lines that could change. But it’s important to keep the larger goals of this important work centered. Redistricting gives us an opportunity to ask not only, “What does this mean for my child?” but also, “How do we make Worcester Public Schools stronger and more equitable for every child?”

Nelson Place/Norrback Divide.

One issue that emerged during Tuesday night’s redistricting discussion probably would not surprise anyone who has followed Worcester’s real estate market or read the recurring “Where should I buy a house in Worcester?” posts on Reddit: Nelson Place is perceived as one of the city’s “better” elementary schools, and families want to remain within its attendance boundary.

That perception is not necessarily a measure of the education children actually receive inside the building. But it is real. Nelson Place is regularly mentioned alongside schools such as Flagg Street and West Tatnuck when people discuss where to purchase a home in Worcester. The $58 million building, opened in 2017, is the newest elementary school in the district and sees some of the highest requests for voluntary transfer from other neighborhoods. Real-estate listings sometimes identify the school as an amenity, and families have said they bought homes specifically so their children can attend the school.

Case in point, on Tuesday, a parent of a rising Nelson Place first grader whose home would be reassigned to Norrback told the School Committee, “I purchased my home with careful consideration of where my children would be receiving their education.” She said recommendations from lifelong Worcester residents whose children attended Nelson Place and Forest Grove influenced the family’s decision. After moving in and speaking with neighbors whose older children attended the schools, she said, “I knew I made the right decision.” The parent, who said she serves as Nelson Place’s PTO treasurer, asked the committee to pursue alternatives that would not “negatively impact my son and his friends’ education at Nelson Place.”

During Tuesday’s discussion, school committee member Molly McCullough (district A) also raised the new proposed boundary between the two schools and discussed alternatives she had previously suggested to the district’s redistricting consultant, including using Ararat Street instead of the railroad tracks as a dividing line. She said that her proposed “solutions” had so far “struck out,” but that she was “still working on it.”

That caught my attention because the alternative boundary McCullough discussed along Ararat Street would directly affect the school assignment zone for her own property, something she did not disclose during the discussion. Her home is currently assigned to Nelson Place, but would move to Norrback under the initial scenario. The alternative boundary she proposed would keep her home within the Nelson Place boundary.

The map below shows the general area McCullough discussed, highlighted in yellow.

The perception surrounding Nelson Place, that it’s one of the district’s better schools, is what makes McCullough’s advocacy for the boundary change worth flagging. The perception of a school can in turn influence how desirable, and potentially valuable, a home in its assignment zone is perceived to be. I cannot say whether the proposed boundary change would affect the value of McCullough’s property, and I am not making that claim. But Massachusetts conflict-of-interest law prohibits municipal officials, including School Committee members, from participating in a particular matter in which they have a financial interest, including when a matter could alter an official’s property “value, rights, or use.” The term “participating” encompasses more than casting a vote; it can include discussion, recommendations and advice.

There is also a relevant precedent. In 2021, the State Ethics Commission advised a Natick School Committee member that she could not participate in a school-closing decision because of its potential effect on the value of her nearby home. The potential conflict arose not from where her children attended school, but from her ownership of property that could be financially affected by the decision—a principle that applies, for example, when an official’s property would be affected by a zoning change.

The Natick case does not mean every school boundary decision creates a conflict. Massachusetts law exempts some general policy decisions when an official’s financial interest is shared by a substantial portion of the community, and citywide redistricting may qualify. But Tuesday’s discussion moved beyond the broader plan to a specific boundary—and an alternative that would keep a small group of houses, including McCullough’s, assigned to Nelson Place. Only the Commission can determine whether a conflict exists, but the public should not be left to speculate. School committee members should publicly disclose potential conflicts, seek guidance from the State Ethics Commission before participating, and share the Commission’s determination. That transparency is essential to maintain public trust in the redistricting process.

How we talk about other schools.

This redistricting process is going to be long, complicated and, at times, emotional. Families should ask questions, scrutinize the maps and share what they know about their neighborhoods and schools. But as we do that, I hope we can remember that there are real children on every side of every boundary line. And keep that in mind as we have these conversations.

In 1994, when I was in fourth and fifth grade, my hometown of Framingham went through redistricting because schools on the south side were overcrowded. My elementary school had grown from 634 students to 822 in five years. By my fourth-grade year, there was so little space that the sixth graders were being taught in the town administration building.

My school was also more than 50% “minority”—the language used at the time—and the district was required to redraw boundaries to address the racial imbalance. What I remember most is the overwhelming sense that other families did not want their children reassigned to our school. They talked about buying homes specifically so their children would go to different schools. They emphasized how difficult the transition would be for their children. The message I heard was that our school, and, by extension, the children already attending it, were not good enough.

During Tuesday night’s public comment, I heard echoes of that same dynamic. Redistricting means some children may have to change schools or buildings, and families have every right to ask what those transitions will mean. My own child’s school closed suddenly in 2023, forcing them to move to a new school. I understand that transitions are hard and that the district must provide meaningful support to the children affected.

At the same time, there is a difficult line between advocating for our own children and speaking as though another school—or the children who attend it—is somehow less desirable. Children hear these conversations, too. They hear how adults describe another school building. They hear when attending school with children from a different neighborhood is framed as a loss. And they notice which programs and communities adults rally to protect.

None of this means families should stay silent about legitimate concerns. It means holding two questions at once: What does my own child need, and what would make the district stronger and more equitable for every child? The measure of this process should not simply be whether each of us gets the outcome we want, but whether every child in Worcester has access to a school worth fighting for.

What happened at School Committee.

I am not doing my usual play-by-play recap of the August 13 School Committee meeting, but several local outlets covered the major issues.

The School Committee unanimously rated Superintendent Brian Allen “proficient” in his first annual evaluation. The Telegram & Gazette covered the evaluation, while MassLive reported on concerns raised by some parents.

The Worcester Guardian reported on calls from union representatives for School Committee members to become more directly involved in negotiations. The current contract expires August 31.

Questions about enrollment at Nelson Place also came before the committee after parents described difficulties navigating the placement and voluntary-transfer processes. Two petitions seeking de-identified information about placement decisions were referred to the administration. The Guardian later published an explanation of the differences among neighborhood enrollment, voluntary transfers and special education placements.

You can also watch the full August 13 meeting here.

PSA: Download the updated school calendar.

WPS has posted an updated 2026–27 school calendar. Take note that there are four weekdays between October 9 and November 11 when students will not have school:

• Friday, October 9 — Professional development day

• Monday, October 12 — Indigenous Peoples’ Day

• Tuesday, November 3 — Election Day/professional development day

• Wednesday, November 11 — Veterans Day

Don’t forget to put those dates in your calendar now, especially if you will need to arrange child care!

Thanks for reading. Good, local journalism is essential to a healthy city. It leads to higher voter turnout and less political polarization. We don’t all have the same priorities, but in order to have productive conversations we need to be working with accurate information. Please support our work here at Worcester Sucks and consider a paid subscription. Happy back to school and see you in September!

Subscribe now

Worcester Public Schools released its first districtwide redistricting scenario ahead of Tuesday’s School Committee Operations and Governance meeting. You can review the meeting agenda, presentation, and administration’s report . Here is the interactive scenario map. For more background on why WPS is undertaking this process and how it began, read my initial redistricting overview from March.

Let’s dive in:

What problem is WPS trying to solve?
Districtwide, WPS has enough elementary school space. Elementary buildings are currently about 84% full overall, which is considered an ideal utilization rate. The problem is where those seats are located. Individual elementary schools range from 57% utilized to 113% utilized. Some schools are significantly overcrowded, while others have substantial unused space. Current elementary boundaries also include disconnected “satellite” zones, divide neighborhoods and send students from the same elementary school to different middle and high schools.

The initial scenario attempts to:

• Bring elementary schools into a narrower utilization range of approximately 77% to 92%.

• Eliminate split feeder patterns so students from the same elementary zone continue together to middle and high school.

• Remove disconnected satellite zones.

• Place at least one Pre-K classroom in every elementary school over time, as funding becomes available.

• Create districtwide access to magnet and technical programs rather than limiting access by quadrant.

• Address expected enrollment growth from new housing developments.

• Better align school enrollment with actual building capacity.

This is a complicated puzzle. Moving one boundary to relieve overcrowding can increase transportation time. Keeping students close to home can result in unequal building utilization. Expanding access to specialized programs may require moving those programs or changing how students are admitted. Many of these same tensions—including transportation, equity, school capacity and disruption to students—were raised during the district’s first community forum in March.

There is no scenario that maximizes every priority at once. We can do anything, but we cannot do everything. Still, many of these issues are successfully addressed in the initial redistricting scenario.

What would change?
Almost every single school geographic boundary has some change— you can look at them more closely here. The biggest change is that every elementary school would feed into one middle school, and every middle school would feed into one high school. No more kids getting split at transition years!

A quick breakdown of notable changes in the draft scenario include:

• Belmont Street would move from the North Quadrant to Burncoat.

• Columbus Park would move from the South Quadrant to Doherty

• Jacob Hiatt would become a neighborhood school in the South Quadrant.

• The Gerald Creamer building on Granite Street would become a neighborhood school again, serving Pre-K–6 and helping relieve Rice Square and Grafton Street. The GCC program would move to the Fanning Building.

• Rice Square and Grafton Street sixth graders would attend Worcester East Middle. Rice Square sixth graders began attending Worcester East last school year.

• The current Worcester Arts Magnet building would become a neighborhood school serving the growing Burncoat area.

• The arts magnet program could move to the Francis McGrath building, while the McGrath neighborhood zone would largely become part of Nelson Place.

• Plumley Village would be assigned entirely to City View instead of being divided between City View and Belmont Street.

• Worcester Dual Language Magnet would remain a districtwide, lottery magnet school.

In terms of individual school zones, some of the largest reductions would be at Chandler Elementary and Rice Square. May Street, Elm Park, Grafton Street, Heard Street, Thorndyke Road and Midland Street would also have smaller zones. On the other side, City View, Nelson Place and Goddard would receive substantially larger zones, while West Tatnuck, Roosevelt, Clark Street, Flagg Street, Quinsigamond and Vernon Hill would also serve larger areas.

The chart I made below shows the net change in the number of students living within each elementary attendance zone (not the change in current school enrollment!) For example, 732 students currently live within the Rice Square zone, but only 421 attend Rice Square. Under the proposed scenario, the number of students living within the Rice Square zone would drop to 413. In other words, the chart shows how many students would be added to or removed from each school’s geographic zone, not necessarily how many students would enter or leave the school.

Secondary Schools.
At the secondary level, the challenge is different. Worcester’s middle and high school buildings are not proportionally sized. Doherty High has considerably more space than its feeder middle school (Forest Grove), while the South Quadrant has more middle school capacity (Sullivan) than high school capacity (South High). The presentation suggests that boundary changes alone cannot solve this problem.

One presented potential solution is a districtwide high school lottery or controlled-choice process to fill seats beyond those assigned through each quadrant’s regular feeder pattern. If that moves forward, families will need clear, public information about how seats are assigned and how equitable access will be ensured.

School Time Changes.
The proposal would also establish three school-day tiers: 7:15 a.m.–1:38 p.m. for high schools, Burncoat Middle and specialized programs; 8:15 a.m.–2:38 p.m. for other middle schools and elementary special education hubs; and 9:05 a.m.–3:28 p.m. for neighborhood elementary schools. Several schools would also be renamed to remove terms such as “community” or “magnet” when those labels no longer reflect their programming.

What should you keep in mind?
This is an initial scenario, not a final plan. It is intended to give the community something concrete to review and improve.

The plan also depends on WPS addressing voluntary transfers. About 14% of non-special education elementary students currently attend outside their assigned zones. If that continues, the new boundaries will not create the balance shown in the scenario.

Most schools would not see dramatic demographic changes under this scenario, but there are some notable shifts. Nelson Place and West Tatnuck would serve more low-income students, while Norrback, May Street and Thorndyke Road would serve fewer.

We also do not yet know when changes would begin, whether they would be phased in, or whether current students and their siblings could remain at their schools. Those details will obviously matter enormously to families, but we are not at that implementation stage yet.

What’s Next?
Right now, the district is asking for feedback, and this is where your local knowledge can be especially helpful: unsafe walking routes, natural neighborhood connections and places where a proposed line simply does not make sense. Families can see their current and proposed assignments and submit feedback through the district’s Community Input Mapping Tool or email alignment@worcesterschools.net. Of course, look at what the proposal means for your own family. But also look at the bigger picture: Does it use our buildings more fairly? Keep neighborhoods together? Create clearer pathways for students? Expand access to programs and opportunities?

Final scenarios are expected to go to the School Committee in December, following public meetings and community forums throughout September, October and November (see below).

There will not be a perfect map. But this is a once in a generation opportunity to make it better, and to build a stronger WPS for all our kids.

Welcome to the July issue of WPS in Brief. This month covers key topics from one school committee meeting.

Subscribe now

Let’s get to it:

Superintendent’s Goals and Self-Reflection.

At the beginning of each school year, the superintendent presents annual goals to the School Committee for approval. At the end of the year, he reports back on how those goals were met (or weren’t). It’s an important process because, when done well, these goals serve as both a roadmap for the district and a key accountability tool for the superintendent, the School Committee, and the public.

While Allen’s presentation lasted just twenty minutes, his 44-page self-assessment covered a lot of ground. I could do a deep dive on every goal, but in the interest of keeping this brief, I try to highlight the biggest takeaways.

Because Allen has been in the district so long at such a high level, it allowed him to hit the ground running as a first year superintendent. One thing I want to emphasize is where Allen’s strengths lie: he has an expert’s understanding of operations, systems, and organizational structure (as I reported when he got the job, he’s one of the best in the state, if not the region). His leadership has focused on turning the district’s strategic plan into concrete systems and processes, with nearly every initiative tied back to that plan, which runs through 2028—the same year his current contract expires. As Allen put it, “Running the Worcester Public Schools is equivalent to running a massive, highly regulated enterprise. We are more than a half billion dollar operation navigating complex legal, civil rights, and special education mandates... ultimately our role is shielding schools and classrooms from many of these operational challenges.” Whether you agree with every decision or not, his emphasis on building systems that support schools is a consistent theme throughout his leadership. It’s also what I believe sets him apart from many of his peers.

Student Goal.

The Superintendent set a goal of increasing the percentage of students meeting or exceeding benchmark on Star Reading (grades 2–9) and Star Math (grades 1–9) from 33% to 36% by the end of the 2025–26 school year. By June, 35% of students met the benchmark in both subjects, representing a 6 percent gain in reading and a 5 point gain in math. According to the district, this is the largest single-year improvement since Star was implemented districtwide in 2021–22. That’s encouraging, though I’d be interested in seeing the data broken down by grade level and student group. Districtwide averages can mask important differences, and some grades have historically shown as much as an 11 percent gain over the course of a single year.

The district also noted that fewer students fell into the lowest benchmark category than at any point since Star was adopted, suggesting growth occurred across the achievement spectrum, not just among students already close to proficiency. As always, though, the bigger question is why scores improved. How much reflects stronger instruction, increased familiarity with the assessment, changes in testing conditions, or other factors? It’s also worth remembering that Star is a universal screener and that student proficiency rates are heavily influenced by factors outside a school district’s control, including family income, home language, and parents’ educational attainment. Worcester’s student population saw decreases in both low-income students and English learners this year, which likely plays some role as well.

There was a deeper conversation around assessments later in the meeting, which I touch on farther down in this brief.

Collaborative Teaming Goal.
The district exceeded its goal of creating more consistent collaborative meeting structures across schools. The target was for 70% of collaborative teams—including Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), grade-level teams, departments, and school leadership teams—to consistently use four core meeting practices by the end of the year. According to Allen, 84% of team meetings included all four practices (using a standard agenda, sharing it in advance, reviewing meeting norms, and documenting action steps), and 38 of the district’s 49 schools met the district’s standard for implementing the collaborative teaming model with fidelity. This is one of those goals that’s hard for the public to see directly, but schools are full of meetings, and having consistent structures can help make those meetings more productive. It’s another example of Allen’s broader focus on building systems and processes that he believes will lead to stronger instruction over time.

Communication Framework Goal.
Allen also reported that the district met its goal of implementing a unified communications framework. The idea is to create a more consistent approach to how Worcester Public Schools communicates with staff, families, and the broader community, while also expanding multilingual outreach and accessibility. The framework is also intended to ensure district messaging aligns with the Vision to Action strategic plan.

The communications strategy document itself is pretty impressive, and I know I sound like a broken record, but communication is night-and-day compared to WPS before 2022. According to the Superintendent, the district will track the framework through communication audits, analytics, and surveys of staff and families, to see whether communication becomes more consistent, transparent, and responsive over time.

Future Teacher Pipeline Goal.
One initiative that seems to be off to a strong start is the district’s new “Grow Your Own” Future Teacher Pipeline. The goal is to recruit Worcester students who are interested in becoming teachers and, ultimately, bring them back to work in Worcester Public Schools. Given that Allen is himself a WPS graduate, this seems like a particularly meaningful initiative for him.

The district far exceeded its first-year goal, enrolling 41 students in the inaugural cohort instead of the 15–20 originally planned. According to the district, 78% of participants are students of color and 56% identify as Hispanic or Latino. Through a partnership with Worcester State University, 13 students completed their first college education course, and 25 graduating seniors took part in the district’s first “Future Educators Signing Day,” committing to pursue careers in education with the hope of returning to teach in Worcester.

Allen has also said he hopes the concept eventually expands beyond teaching. At a recent CPPAC meeting, he noted that WPS is the second-largest employer in the city and said he’d like to see similar pipelines developed for careers in areas like accounting, information technology, and other district professions.

Areas to Improve.
In his self-assessment, the superintendent reflected on several challenges during his first year, emphasizing that continuous improvement requires identifying problems, understanding their root causes, and making systemic changes. He acknowledged that communication was a common issue in several situations, including the principal selection process at Nelson Place, the proposed merger of the Worcester Alternative and ACT programs with the Central Massachusetts Collaborative, proposed administrative reorganization related to equity, and changes to elementary prep periods. In each case, he stated that the district plans to improve transparency, stakeholder engagement, and communication moving forward.

The self-assessment also outlines plans to strengthen the district’s advisory structure by restructuring groups that have seen low participation, while continuing to support established parent organizations such as CPPAC, SEPAC, and ELPAC and maintaining active middle and high school student advisory groups. The superintendent also plans to launch new teacher and community advisory groups, integrate school safety discussions into existing advisory structures, and continue efforts to improve district decision-making through broader stakeholder feedback.

Some other bits and bobs from the self-assessment:

• Artificial intelligence remains on pause. Allen reiterated that he has suspended instructional classroom use of AI with students while privacy concerns continue to be evaluated. Both the Future Ready Technology Committee (which includes parent representatives like me) and an internal AI Steering Committee are working on recommendations, with the administration saying any future AI use will be guided by student privacy, educational value, and state law.

• Screen time guidance. The school committee approved screentime guidelines that recommend that devices remain classroom-based through grade 3, and students may start bringing Chromebooks home in grade 4. The administration said it plans to revisit those recommendations during the coming school year as new medical guidance and research become available.

• A longer elementary school day is still on the table. Allen wrote that “there simply isn’t enough time in the school day” to accomplish everything the district is asking schools to do. He noted that extending the elementary school day remains part of the current collective bargaining process, making this something to watch for the fall.

• Seven elementary libraries will open next year. The superintendent said that with seven elementary school libraries operating during the 2026–27 school year, it will be the most Worcester has had since the 1989–90 school year. Future expansion will depend on available space and funding for books, materials, and furniture, but it’s encouraging to see libraries included as part of the district’s long-term vision. (Donate here!)

• Planning continues for the Advanced Scholars Academy. The district is continuing to redesign the selection processes for its admission-based programs while a working group develops plans for the proposed Advanced Scholars Academy at Worcester East Middle School and North High School. The stated goal is to make advanced academic opportunities easier for eligible students and families to understand and access.

• A new central office leadership position has been created. The district established a Chief of Equity, Access and Opportunity position by reallocating existing administrative funding. The role will oversee equity initiatives, family engagement, and several priorities within the Vision to Action strategic plan.

• The Elementary Wellness Support Center is back. Modeled after the district’s former Safety Center, the reopened center is designed to provide students with social-emotional and behavioral supports before situations escalate. The goal is to improve school climate while reducing disciplinary removals from the classroom.

• The district continues to standardize teaching and learning. More than 70 new curriculum maps for elective courses will roll out next year, while existing K–12 curriculum maps continue to be refined based on teacher feedback. The district is also implementing five required instructional practices intended to better support multilingual learners across all classrooms.

• Higher education partnerships continue to expand. Worcester Public Schools is building new partnerships with Assumption University, Clark University, Worcester State University, and Quinsigamond Community College to expand scholarships, early college opportunities, internships, educator discounts, and its Grow Your Own teacher pipeline. Allen also noted that Holy Cross and UMass Chan have expressed interest in supporting North Quadrant schools.

• Allen offered an interesting glimpse into how governance works. In his self-assessment, he wrote that he meets individually with every School Committee member each month, saying those conversations help ensure there are “no surprises” at public meetings. One-on-one meetings between superintendents and committee members are common practice, but it does provide some insight into how much discussion and relationship-building happens before issues ever reach the public agenda.

The committee will formally evaluate the Superintendent at the August meeting, which is a requirement of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

Common Assessments and Benchmarking.
The school committee approved a three-year contract with Renaissance Learning, which the district uses for Star assessments and district common assessments. During the discussion, Vanessa Alvarez (District B) asked some clarifying questions about how these assessments are used. Dr. Andrew Lampi, of the Research and Accountability Office, explained that Star is administered three times a year for district benchmarking, with additional testing for students receiving interventions. He also cited research showing that assessments can improve learning when teachers review the results with students, help them understand what they got right and wrong, and use that information to guide instruction. He’s right, and it raises an important question: is that happening?

For years, families have asked for access to the results of the online assessments their children take throughout the year, including Star Reading, Star Math, and district common assessments. The issue has been raised repeatedly at CPPAC, where families have been told the district is working on it, but as of today the only way to get your student’s assessments is to request reports from your child’s school or, for Star, to sign up in advance to have them emailed after each assessment, (but this doesn’t give you access to past scores). Even then, the reports can be difficult to interpret. Check out the reports below. On one the reading domain is marked “secure,” but the overall score is only “meeting expectations.” On the other the student is “exceeding expectations” overall in math while multiple domains are still marked “developing.”

As a parent, you’re left wondering: What does this actually tell me? What skills should we practice at home? What misconceptions does my child have? Those are the kinds of questions a traditional classroom assessment often answered naturally because students brought their work home, teachers provided written feedback, and families could see exactly where learning broke down. With these digital assessments, that feedback isn’t readily available. Instead, I have to know my child took the assessment, request the report, and then follow up with the teacher to understand what it means. Most families aren’t going to navigate that process, and teachers simply don’t have the time to hold individual data conferences after every benchmark or common assessment. If the value of an assessment is the feedback it provides, then that feedback should be easy for students and families to access, not something they have to work to obtain.

Teachers have always assessed students by creating quizzes, reading student writing, listening to classroom discussions, and adjusting instruction based on what they observed. Those assessments were immediate, personal, and directly connected to classroom learning. Today’s standardized digital assessments are designed to produce comparable data across classrooms, schools, and the district. Data that can be valuable for identifying trends, evaluating curriculum, monitoring interventions, and measuring district progress. But if students, particularly those receiving interventions, spend hours each year taking these assessments only to receive little meaningful feedback, it’s fair to ask who benefits most from the data being collected. I don’t think the question is whether Star or the common assessments are “good” or “bad.” The question is whether they provide better feedback than the assessments teachers already create and use every day, and whether the additional instructional time devoted to district benchmarking produces enough educational value to justify it.

Assessment should serve students first. Districts need data, and schools need ways to measure progress. But if students and families can’t understand the results, if the feedback isn’t meaningful enough to improve learning, or if the primary value lies in district dashboards rather than classroom conversations, then it’s worth asking whether we’ve shifted from assessment for learning to assessment about learning.

Air Conditioning and Facilities.
This wasn’t on the School Committee agenda, but after the early dismissal for heat at the end of the school year, I heard from a lot of frustrated parents asking the same question: why don’t all Worcester schools have air conditioning?

The short answer is that many of our school buildings are old, and only 12 schools have air conditioning throughout the entire building. As temperatures continue to climb in June and September, heat-related early dismissals have become increasingly common. Trust me when I say these buildings can get hot.

What often gets left out of the conversation is why. For decades, Worcester and other high-needs districts were underfunded by the state and federal government. Faced with difficult budget decisions, districts prioritized keeping teachers in classrooms and protecting student programs, while major building maintenance and upgrades were deferred year after year. Our school buildings didn’t get this way overnight, and they won’t be fixed overnight either.

Upcoming Dates.

All school committee meetings have virtual options with Spanish translation, see the school committee site for more information.

• School Committee Meeting, August 13, 4pm

• Operations and Governance, August 18, 3pm

Also.
West Tatnuck students will now have sidewalks adjacent to the school! A happy update to the February story where Public Works committee members then-councilor Mero-Carlson and then-councilor Russell voted against the sidewalks. There’s three new members (Fresolo, Economou, and Mitra) and all three voted in favor. (ICYMI: Snowbanks, no sidewalks make it tough to walk to this Worcester elementary school: If you have children in WPS, I caution you before you watch the video from the meeting. Seeing why they originally voted down installing sidewalks-that the city is willing to pay for-adjacent to an elementary school will infuriate you!)

Thanks for reading. See you in August.

Share

Subscribe now

The next school committee meeting is scheduled for July 16, with Executive Session at 4 p.m. and open session scheduled to start at 4:30 p.m. See the full agenda here. You can watch it via zoom or Youtube Live. Spanish translation is available on zoom. Currently, there are no standing committee meetings scheduled for July.

Here’s my preview:

Superintendent’s Evaluation.
The Superintendent will report on his 2025-2026 school year goals, which include:

You can read up on these goals in more detail in last September’s brief. Allen also wrote a self-assessment, which reflects a first year focused on turning “Vision to Action” by strengthening district systems rather than launching a wave of new initiatives. He reports significant progress toward his student learning goal, with Star reading and math scores improving to 35% of students meeting the benchmark. It’s just shy of the 36% target, but represents the largest percentage since the district began using the test. He also exceeded his professional practice goal, with 78% of schools implementing the district’s “collaborative teaming structures with fidelity.”

The bulk of the self-assessment centers on instructional leadership: curriculum renewal, implementation of high-quality instructional materials, classroom walkthroughs, support for multilingual learners, the Vision of a Learner initiative, and expanded partnerships with local colleges and universities. Allen also notes that he visited schools 120 times during his first year and emphasizes data-informed decision making and collaborative leadership throughout the report.

From my lens as a parent, Allen has been one of Worcester’s stronger Superintendents. But one thing that stood out to me was how little attention the self-evaluation gives to relationships with families. Family engagement is mentioned as part of Allen’s entry plan and the district’s strategic framework, particularly around communication, but there are few concrete examples of work with families or measures of parent engagement, communication, or trust. Family & Community Engagement is one of the four standards used to evaluate Massachusetts superintendents, so it will be interesting to see whether the school committee views this as an area of strength or one where they’d like to see more evidence.

While the Superintendent will give a presentation about his goals on Thursday, the committee will formally evaluate the Superintendent at an August or September meeting, which is a requirement of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

Other Items.
Not a ton else on the agenda other than some procedural items and grants, but a few items worth noting:

• A request for an update on the Safe Schools LGBTQIA training/programming (a response from the February 2025 LGBTQIA+ resolution fiasco

• A request for an update on the WPS Homework Policy (which was implemented in June 2025).

• A request for a minimum four-month lead time for curriculum, contracts, or policy changes needing approval from the School Committee. (This harkens back to when Jermaine Johnson said he felt “our knees got cut off underneath us as a committee”).

• Approval of a three-year software license and services contract with Renaissance Learning, which the district uses for Star assessments and Renaissance DnA common assessments. No contract or cost is included in the agenda materials. The current student privacy agreement also does not specify what WPS student data is collected (only which fields are required or optional) and does not appear to be signed by a WPS representative. All WPS student privacy agreements with ed tech companies can be found here.

That’s it, have a great week!

Welcome to the June 2026 issue of WPS in Brief. This month covers key topics from two school committee meetings, two budget meetings, and three standing committee meetings.

Before we get started, I want to say thank you.

Last week’s agenda preview included a personal note about the Worcester Elementary School Library Coalition and our goal of helping the district open seven elementary school libraries this fall. I was genuinely blown away by the response. So many WPS in Brief readers donated, shared the fundraiser, reached out with words of encouragement, or offered to volunteer. Thank you. Your support means more than you know, and it’s a reminder of just how much this community cares about our students.

If you missed last week’s post, we’re in the middle of a community-wide effort to help launch libraries in seven Worcester elementary schools before students return in August. The biggest need we have right now is books. We’re hoping every child walks into a library that feels exciting and welcoming, with the kinds of books kids are eager to pick up.

If you’d like to help, we’re still looking for donors, volunteers, and people willing to spread the word. Every contribution, whether it’s a donation, sharing the campaign with a friend, or connecting us with someone who may want to support the effort, helps bring us one step closer. Thank you for being part of it.

Donate

Ok, let’s dive into what happened this month:

The 2026-2027 School Year Budget.
The FY27 budget was approved largely as presented (see last month’s budget preview for a deeper breakdown), with one notable change.

Member Jermaine Johnson (District F) proposed transferring $225,000 from the Miscellaneous Education – Instructional Technology account, moving $200,000 to the elementary teacher salary line and $25,000 to instructional materials. Johnson said his intent was to fund two full-time assistant principal positions at two schools that do not have them: May Street and Heard Street, while the instructional materials funding would be used for library books for the elementary schools opening libraries this fall.

Over the past school year, the district used free cash from the city to add an assistant principal at May Street after the assistant principal from Nelson Place was transferred there. Funding to maintain that position was not built into the FY27 budget. Also, it’s important to understand that elementary assistant principals are budgeted under the teacher salary line rather than school-based administration, where the secondary assistant principals salaries live. Superintendent Brian Allen explained that this dates back decades, when most elementary assistant principals were “teaching assistant principals” who maintained their own classroom while taking on administrative responsibilities when the principal was absent. The budget classification has remained even though the role has changed.

The discussion raised some interesting points. Member Sue Mailman (at-large) offered a substitute motion directing the entire $225,000 toward library books instead, arguing that adding permanent positions could put the district in a more difficult position next year as Worcester faces projected budget deficits. Johnson argued that elementary assistant principals play an important role supporting students with IEPs and 504 plans while allowing principals to focus on overall building operations. Vanessa Alvarez (district B) questioned why Woodland Academy, a significantly larger school with higher student needs, is going into its second year without a principal (the Claremont principal has been split between the two schools). In response to Alvarez’s question, Superintendent Allen said, “I’ll come forward with a recommendation [about Woodland] at some point in the future.”

Johnson’s motion ultimately passed 7-2, with Mailman and Alvarez voting no. The district noted that, with these additions, Wawecus will be the only elementary school without a full-time, non-teaching assistant principal.

The rest of the budget conversation included questions about transportation overtime (staff absences were an issue) and custodial overtime (the tough winter and the repeated freeze-thaw cycle played a big part). As well as building substitute staffing (which is increasing to 24 positions), and the role of positive youth development paraprofessionals (the district felt the need was in a different place, so those positions were reallocated).

My Take.
After watching budget deliberations for years, I walked away this year with a familiar sinking feeling. Worcester isn’t debating whether to fund “nice to have” programs. We’re debating whether students get consistent special education services because there are enough building substitutes. Whether teachers get common planning time because there are enough paraprofessionals to cover classrooms. Whether we can open elementary school libraries AND sustain middle school athletics. Whether we can expand full-day preschool while maintaining everything else our students need. These aren’t choices any district should have to make.

Six years into the Student Opportunity Act, Worcester is unquestionably in a better place than we would have been otherwise. The $22 million reduction two years ago would have been a bloodbath of $38 million without that funding. But it also hasn’t been the panacea many of us hoped for. We are still making impossible choices because the underlying resources don’t match the needs of our students.

Here’s what else happened this month:

District Boundary Realignment.
A representative from Dillinger Research and Applied Data provided a short presentation of the current status of the district realignment process, which will eventually redraw school boundaries and feeder patterns across WPS. Since the spring, the district has analyzed enrollment and building capacity data, formed an advisory working group (of which I am a member), and held community meetings that generated more than 300 survey responses. Initial boundary scenarios are expected to be presented in August, followed by public hearings this fall, with a final School Committee vote anticipated in December and implementation scheduled for the 2027-28 school year. (For a more detailed background on the topic, check out what I wrote back in March, also highly recommend this interview on Unity.)

Key areas I want to highlight that I think families and students will be happy about: the district is looking at expanding transportation options, creating more compact boundaries that could allow more students to attend schools closer to home, and making adjustments to middle school bell schedules. They’re also exploring opportunities to expand full-day preschool as the district moves away from half-day programs, and increasing access to after-school care through community partnerships. While there are still a lot of details to work out, these are all issues that came up repeatedly during community meetings and have the potential to make a big impact for students and families.

The administration is also proposing several school name changes to better align school designations with current programming. The proposal would remove the “Community School” designation from Belmont, Elm Park, Quinsigamond, and South, arguing that all Worcester schools should function as community schools. It would also remove the “Magnet” designation from Canterbury, Jacob Hiatt, and Tatnuck, saying these schools no longer operate distinct citywide magnet programs. Jacob Hiatt, in particular, would be intentionally redesigned as a neighborhood school under the proposal. These recommendations will be considered alongside broader redistricting proposals this fall, with public feedback opportunities before a final School Committee vote expected in December.

Limiting individual device use in PreK through Grade Two.

Kate Johnson, Lakeview Elementary parent whose youngest child will graduate from high school in 2042, speaks during public comment.

At the June 25 meeting public comment was dominated by parents advocating for a petition filed by Worcester for Safe Student Technology (of which I am a member), asking for limits on individual internet-connected device use in Pre-K through second grade classrooms and for policies that prioritize hands-on, teacher-led, screen-limited learning. The petition, which has gathered 468 signatures from members of 51 schools across the district, includes exemptions for students who require assistive technology and for technology enrichment classes. Public comment pointed to growing national concerns about screen time in schools, including recent action by the Los Angeles Unified School District and parents argued that young children benefit most from direct interaction, play, movement, and hands-on learning.

Relatedly, in response to a report request from Sue Mailman (at-large), the administration is recommending a shift to a 3:1 student-to-iPad ratio in pre-K through first grade (which I think is a typo, because first graders in the district get Chromebooks). While modest, it is one of the first tangible changes to emerge from ongoing parent advocacy around technology use in the early grades and freed up $100,000 in the budget.

Bullying Policy.
At the June 25 meeting the School Committee approved a revised Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan (BPIP), a document that must be updated every two years for the district to remain in compliance with state law.

During earlier public comment, several parents asked that the item be held in order to update other areas of concern in the policy. Sue Mailman made the same request, but Deputy Superintendent Marie Morse explained that the BPIP is the implementation plan that supports the policy, and that the district needed to approve it that evening to remain in compliance with the state. Morse added that the School Committee could separately request a review of the policy.

This is where I got confused.

The agenda item they were discussing read:

“To review and update, if necessary, Policy JICFB (Bullying Prevention), in accordance with M.G.L. c. 71, § 37O), requiring biennial review of such.”

That language appears to open the policy for review.

To address both concerns, Mailman then made a separate motion to refer the bullying policy to subcommittee as soon as possible. Vice Chair Molly McCullough (district A) raised a point of order, saying there was already a bullying item pending in committee, which meant another referral couldn’t be made.

There was some discussion over whether an existing bullying item was already pending in TLSS or Operations & Governance, with McCullough stating it was in TLSS. After the meeting, I reviewed both committees’ outstanding item lists, updated June 26. The only bullying-related item I found was a request, made during discussion of wellness rooms, for “a report on the collaboration of bullying mitigation and wellness rooms.”

That appears to be a different issue than Mailman’s request to re-examine district’s bullying policy, and it would also go to Operations & Governance, so I’m not sure why it prevented the motion from moving forward.

Here’s the video.

Public bodies only work well when everyone is operating from the same information and decisions are made through a transparent process. When facts become unclear, tempers get shorter, and disagreements start feeling personal instead of procedural, it’s much harder for the committee to move its work forward.

I’ve watched hundreds of hours of School Committee meetings over the years, and the June 25 one felt different. There was far more visible frustration: eye rolling, sighing, head shaking, curt responses, expressions of disbelief, and side conversations behind covered mouths. Patience seemed to be in much shorter supply.

And I just keep coming back to the question that I think should anchor every difficult decision: What is the best choice for students, even if it’s the harder choice for the adults?

I’ll leave you with that.

Upcoming Dates.
All meetings have virtual options, see the school committee site for more information.

• School Committee Meeting on July 16, 4 p.m. at City hall

• Subcommittees have no scheduled meetings until August.

Happy summer vacation! Lots of new families are joining WPS this fall. If you find WPS in Brief valuable, please share it with them! Last day to get the half off for a year subscription deal. Please support our work! See you in July.

Get 50% off for 1 year

A quick personal note before we begin:
If you’ve been reading WPS in Brief for a while, you’ve probably noticed that I spend a lot of time trying to help the community understand what’s happening in Worcester Public Schools. I do that because I believe knowledge is power, and informed families and strong public schools make for a stronger Worcester.

Today, I’d like to ask you to help me pay it forward.

The Worcester Elementary School Library Coalition is a volunteer effort to give every WPS elementary student library access by 2030. In partnership with Worcester Public Schools, school principals, and the Worcester Public Library, we are working this summer to help launch or strengthen libraries at six elementary schools: Belmont Street, Flagg Street, Gates Lane, Nelson Place, Norrback and Quinsigamond. Our biggest challenge right now is getting books on the shelves before students return in August.

If WPS in Brief has been helpful to you, I hope you’ll consider making a donation to help put books directly into the hands of Worcester students. Every gift, large or small, moves us closer to opening these libraries with the collections students deserve.

Support School Libraries

Thank you, as always, for reading, supporting, and caring about Worcester’s schools.

Here’s the agenda preview:

June 18 School Committee Meeting

The next school committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 25, a very late in the month rescheduled date due to middle school graduations and the City Manager’s State of the City address. The budget hearing starts at 4 p.m., executive session starts at 6 p.m. and the regular meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. For this meeting last year they held executive session at the end of the regular meeting, which was nice because it makes the timing of public comment more predictable, and allows people who might want to participate to plan accordingly. Not sure why they didn’t do that again. Also, there’s no guarantee that they’ll get through the rest of the budget in two hours. See the agenda here. You can watch it via zoom or Youtube Live. Spanish translation is available on zoom.

Here’s what’s on the agenda:

Budget Hearing.
The school committee will continue discussing each budget line of the general fund at 4 p.m. Last meeting they got all the way through to the facilities non-salary capital line, and will probably start from administrative salaries and move down. The budget hearing will last about two hours and this meeting is typically when members present motions to move money between accounts (unlike city council, the school committee has the power to do that.) There is no public comment before the budget hearing. If you want to see what’s in the proposed budget read the May Brief.

Limiting individual device use in PreK through Grade Two.
Worcester for Safe Student Technology (WSST), a parent, caregiver, and educator advocacy group (of which I am a member), has a public petition calling for limits on individual internet-connected device use in Pre-K through grade two classrooms and for policies that prioritize hands-on, teacher-led, screen-limited learning. The petition, which has gathered 447 signatures from members of 51 schools across the district, includes exemptions for students who require assistive technology and for technology enrichment classes. The group points to growing national concerns about screen time in schools, including recent action by the Los Angeles Unified School District, and argues that young children benefit most from direct interaction, play, movement, and hands-on learning. If you are supportive of this, email school committee members and let them know.

So what will happen to the $100K?
Relatedly, in response to a report request from Sue Mailman (at-large), the administration is recommending a shift to a 3:1 student-to-iPad ratio in Pre-K through grade one. While modest, it is one of the first tangible changes to emerge from ongoing parent advocacy around technology use in the early grades. That change would save at least $100,000 in the FY27 budget.

The larger budget question is where those savings should go. Worcester for Safe Student Technology has suggested that the district consider investing those funds in books for new elementary school libraries as Worcester works to improve literacy outcomes.

The discussion also comes as instructional technology is one of the fastest-growing areas of the budget. Technology spending increases 65 percent next year, driven largely by new device leases, as Chromebooks and MacBooks purchased during the pandemic reach the end of their useful life. At the same time, the instructional materials line, which helps schools purchase classroom supplies, classroom furniture, art materials, recess equipment, and other essentials, is decreasing.

As the district transitions to a long-term device leasing model and faces projected budget shortfalls and potential layoffs over the next three years, the School Committee will need to decide how best to use any savings generated by reducing device use in the elementary grades. Unlike technology leases or adding administrative positions, which create recurring annual obligations, investments in school library books are largely one-time purchases that continue benefiting students for years without adding to future budget pressures. It also raises a question I’ve been wondering about for some time: can the district honestly afford a one-to-one device model anymore in K-6? With technology lease costs rising as the district faces significant budget cuts over the next three years, that’s a conversation worth having.

Redistricting updates.
The administration is providing an update on the School Boundary and Quadrant Alignment Project, which will eventually redraw school boundaries and feeder patterns across the district. Since the spring, the district has analyzed enrollment and building capacity data, formed an advisory working group (of which I am a member), and held community meetings that generated more than 300 survey responses. Initial boundary scenarios are expected to be presented in August, followed by public hearings this fall, with a final School Committee vote anticipated in December and implementation scheduled for the 2027-28 school year. (For a more detailed background on the topic, check out what I wrote back in March.)

Key areas I want to highlight that I think families and students will be happy about: the district is looking at expanding transportation options, creating more compact boundaries that could allow more students to attend schools closer to home, and making adjustments to middle school bell schedules. They’re also exploring opportunities to expand full-day preschool as the district moves away from half-day programs, and increasing access to after-school care through community partnerships. While there are still a lot of details to work out, these are all issues that came up repeatedly during community meetings and have the potential to make a big impact for students and families.

The administration is also proposing several school name changes to better align school designations with current programming. The proposal would remove the “Community School” designation from Belmont, Elm Park, Quinsigamond, and South, arguing that all Worcester schools should function as community schools. It would also remove the “Magnet” designation from Canterbury, Jacob Hiatt, and Tatnuck, saying these schools no longer operate distinct citywide magnet programs. Jacob Hiatt, in particular, would be intentionally redesigned as a neighborhood school under the proposal. These recommendations will be considered alongside broader redistricting proposals this fall, with public feedback opportunities before a final School Committee vote expected in December.

School Calendar Changes.
The Calendar Committee is recommending several changes to future school calendars after meeting throughout the spring to review scheduling practices and develop a more consistent approach. One proposed change is moving the January professional development (PD) day to October, reducing the risk that it would need to be canceled due to snow like it was this year. The calendar committee is also recommending that the November and March PD days be moved to Fridays, creating a more predictable districtwide schedule for staff and families. But the calendars in the backup maintain the November professional development day on election day, which is a Tuesday. So that’s confusing.

Those November and March PD days were originally scheduled on election days after concerns were raised by then-School Committee member Laura Clancy about student safety in schools that serve as polling locations.

Other Items.
Here’s some other items on the agenda:

• The committee will take a final vote on the bullying preventionand intervention plan.

• A report showing line item improvements for Worcester Technical High School from pre-SOA (Student Opportunity Act) until the end of SOA.

• The district plans to hire a district-wide guidance counselor.

• A report on the projected students for enrollment for the next few years. Which shows that elementary school enrollment is projected to increase each year, despite concerns of declining birthrates.

• A report on the current custodial and grounds staffing at Foley Stadium.

• Data on enrollment and participation of Hispanic/Latinx students in AP coursework.

• Report on the closing of the alternative programs as requested by two parents in a public petition.

That’s it. Have a great week. If you have feedback you can always get in touch: aislinn.doyle@me.com

Here’s what’s on the agenda:

Budget.
If you haven’t already dug into the details of the FY27 budget, check out my May WPS in Brief, where I broke down the big picture and what it means for the district.

Transitions Program Relocation.
The Committee will receive an update on plans to move the Transitions Program for students ages 18–22 from the Fanning Building to the Dr. James Caradonio [New Citizen] Center on Main Street beginning next school year. District leaders say the new location will provide improved accessibility, dedicated school space, better transportation accommodations, and expanded opportunities for community-based instruction and vocational training.

Scheduling Change: June 17 Meeting.
There will be a vote to reschedule the June 17 school committee meeting to June 25 to avoid overlapping with the City Manager’s State of the City address.

Digital Hall Pass Pilot Expansion.
Another item asks the district to explore the cost and feasibility of expanding a digital hall pass system across all secondary schools, similar to the pilot currently running at Worcester Tech. As with any student-monitoring system, the questions will likely go beyond cost, especially around implementation consistency and student privacy.

Two proposed policy updates.
The recommendation is to refer both to the Operations and Governance subcommittee for review.

• Physical Restraint of Students: The district is looking to align this policy with updated state regulations.

• Bullying Prevention: This is the required biennial review of the district’s bullying prevention policy under Massachusetts law.

  ---

  That’s it. If you have feedback you can always get in touch: aislinn.doyle@me.com

Welcome to the May issue of WPS in Brief. This month covers key topics from the FY27 budget (yes, I read all 398 pages so you don’t have to), two school committee meetings and three standing committee meetings. The format is a little different because the big focus this month is on the budget. This time of the year is a grind, but hang in there it’s almost summer!

Before we get to the budget it’s important to have a basic understanding of how funding for Worcester Public Schools works and why we don’t have a deficit (or a big increase) this year. If you haven’t read my quick budget primer I’d recommend it as a starting point before moving on.

TL;DR: Despite budget cuts facing dozens of districts this year (even the rich ones), Worcester is okay budget-wise. But buckle-up because starting in 2027-2028 we’re looking at some serious deficits, and the exhausting cycles of budget cuts will continue for a few years.

Share

Ok, let’s dive in:

The Proposed 2026-2027 Budget.

The WPS budget office released the proposed FY27 budget book, and as usual they do an excellent job laying out where the money comes from, where it is going, and how that connects to the district’s strategic plan. What I write about here is proposed, meaning this is what the district administration is suggesting. The School Committee will now deliberate on the proposal before taking a final vote (hopefully) by June 30.

Unlike the City Council, the School Committee has the power to move money between accounts. In past budget meetings the committee has typically discussed each account line one by one, often asking clarifying questions of the administration. In some cases members must recuse themselves from the discussion on certain accounts due to conflict of interest laws. After the committee goes through each account (which usually takes hours over two meetings) members can make motions on moving money between accounts. Now is your chance to voice your thoughts and priorities by emailing school committee members or attending the Public Budget Hearing, where you can speak for two minutes to the committee. It’s on Thursday, May 28 at 6 p.m. at the Durkin Administration Building.

Here’s a broad overview of key aspects of the budget, as well as some interesting tidbits:

This year’s budget feels very different from last year’s. Last year the conversation centered around restoring positions after a tough $22 million cut in 2024-2025. This year the biggest story is that the district is openly projecting double digit deficits over the next three fiscal years (FY28, FY29, and FY30). That looming financial picture hangs over almost every section of the budget book.

The FY27 budget is $31.6 million higher than last year’s adopted budget. But according to the district, $29.1 million of that increase is needed simply to maintain existing services due to inflationary costs and contractual obligations. That leaves only $2.5 million in actual new spending capacity.

A major reason for this is that many costs continue to rise faster than revenue. There is also a broader structural issue here: the district has relatively little flexibility in where cuts can even be made. Sixty-six percent of the budget goes to salaries, health insurance costs are increasing by 10 percent, and retired employee health insurance costs the district $17.4 million annually. These are not areas where the district has much flexibility to cut. (I also wish more local leaders were paying attention to what it means for Worcester’s economy that its two largest employers–UMass Memorial and WPS–are in sectors facing significant strain.)

These necessary cost increases create one of the most confusing realities in the budget: even though the budget is increasing overall, the district is still reducing positions.

Staffing.
One of the clearest tensions in the budget is that the district says it is using available new funding to increase teacher and instructional support positions, while at the same time the overall number of positions declines by 40. Both statements are technically true, which is part of what makes the budget complicated to follow.

At the elementary level, the district is adding 19 teacher positions, with seven of those being classroom teachers. At the secondary level, the total number of teacher positions remains flat at 877, though enrollment shifts mean the district is adding some positions while reducing others. New positions include Chapter 74 vocational teachers, an innovation pathways coordinator, and some English, math, social studies, and art positions, while nine “core content positions” are being reduced.

There are also reductions in several support areas: special education teacher positions are decreasing by 14, student support service positions are decreasing by three, and paraeducator positions are decreasing by 26. Multilingual learner teacher positions, meanwhile, are increasing by two.

The district is also continuing to expand its use of building substitutes, adding five new positions for a total of 24 building substitutes alongside 50 day-to-day substitutes.

The district appears to be strategically preserving certain priorities, like elementary classroom staffing, multilingual learner services, vocational programming, and building substitutes, while quietly reducing staffing in other areas. That balancing act becomes especially visible in the reductions to paraeducators and special education positions.

Administration and reorganization.
One of the most confusing parts of the budget this year is trying to follow the district’s new organizational chart. I felt like I was solving a Murdle puzzle.

The Positive Youth Development Office has been renamed the Student Support and Engagement Office, to be headed by Thomas Toney. That office, which previously had four employees, will now oversee the Family and Community Engagement (FACE) office and Nursing. FACE was previously under the Personnel, Engagement and Equity division, while Nursing had previously operated as its own department.

At the same time, principals have been moved out of schools into newly created district-level positions, including “Principal on Assignment” and “Manager of Student Support and Engagement.” Yet Woodland Academy, a school where 95.7% of its students are high needs, will spend another year without a principal. The Claremont Academy principal will oversee both schools again next year.

The Director of Equity & Cultivation position has been downgraded to an assistant director role. Translation services are being moved from the FACE office into the communications division. Student Placement & Enrollment, the staff who work at the Parent Information Center, has also been moved from the Personnel, Engagement and Equity Division to School Compliance & Improvement. Have I lost you yet?

Some of these changes may ultimately make sense operationally. But from the outside, it is not always clear what problems the reorganizations are intended to solve, whether they are connected to cost-saving measures, or how families are supposed to navigate systems that keep moving around administratively. The lack of principal at Woodland Academy especially stands out because it reflects a broader pattern of temporary arrangements quietly becoming longer-term realities. What was initially framed as a short-term leadership solution is now extending into another school year.

At the same time, the district continues to emphasize that administration spending remains below the School Committee’s self-imposed cap of 1.5 percent of the general fund budget. That creates an interesting tension in the public conversation, because debates around administration are often less about total spending and more about transparency, organizational clarity, and favoritism.

Technology.

One of the largest percentage increases in the budget is instructional technology, which increases by 65 percent, from $2.6 million to $4.0 million. CFO Sara Consalvo said at the most recent school committee meeting that $1.1 million of that increase is leases for replacement devices.

In 2022, using the Emergency Connectivity Fund, the district purchased 23,000 chromebooks. Those Chromebooks are reaching their end of life, as are staff Macbooks. The district has a transition plan toward leasing student devices because it cannot afford another large one-time purchase. The district is already leasing approximately 6,000 Chromebooks used at the middle school level at $582,000 a year. The budget includes adding 1,000 more Macbooks and 6,000 more Chromebooks through an additional five-year lease. The Macbooks will be $300,000 a year, and the Chromebooks will be $730,000 a year. The Chromebook lease has increased 23% from last year, due to tariffs. The price per Chromebook went up from $97 to $122, a total increase of $750,000 over five years.

By 2030, the district is projected to spend approximately $5.2 million annually on technology leases for Chromebooks, MacBook Airs, and iPads. At the May 21 school committee meeting, Sue Mailman (at-large) requested a report on cost savings for eliminating one to one devices at the pre-K through second grades, which many districts are doing recently (see LA, Cambridge, Pennsylvania).

At the same time, instructional materials funding appears to be decreasing. Traditionally this line has funded things principals buy directly for schools and classrooms, like paper, furniture, art supplies, recess equipment, and similar materials. The district says it is maintaining $75 per pupil for instructional materials, but because schools received $100 per pupil last year, this effectively represents a reduction. The instructional materials line item itself decreases by 9 percent.

Transportation and operations.
The district continues to budget for a new electronic bus pass system that would allow families to track when students get on and off buses, and an updated bus tracker that actually works. This is now the third consecutive year the system has appeared in the budget, but it still has not been implemented. According to the administration, the contract continues to be tied up in negotiations between the city law department and the vendor. Perhaps this is why the budget includes new funding for a designated assistant solicitor from the city law department assigned specifically to the schools.

The budget also notes that the district is reorganizing building maintenance into a quadrant-based support model, though there is not much detail yet publicly available on how that will work.

Other budget odds and ends.

Library Services: The district is supporting library services at the elementary level for the first time in decades through a new circulation management system for seven elementary schools.

Expanding Dual Language: The district is expanding two-way dual language in Spanish/English by adding 7th and 8th grade to Worcester Dual Language Magnet School. As you might remember from my road map to improving literacy, longitudinal research over decades has shown that dual language programs have an “astounding effectiveness” for ALL students, especially students with disabilities and monolingual students of low socioeconomic status, not just English learners.

Community: There is $35,000 allocated to the Worcester Education Development Foundation for “public relations and alumni services” and another $105,000 is budgeted for adult education services provided by the Latino Education Institute. (It confuses me that these services don’t have to go out to bid?)

Athletics: The district is adding unified basketball and unified track, as well as freshman volleyball and additional indoor and outdoor track teams.

That’s the broad overview of the proposed FY27 budget. More questions will likely emerge as the School Committee begins deliberations over the next several weeks. But the clearest takeaway from this year’s budget is that even as the district continues trying to preserve and improve services, the projected deficits looming over the next three years are going to shape nearly every financial decision moving forward.

Bits and Bobs.
What happened at the May School Committee Meetings and Standing Committee Meetings:

Public Comment.
There was about an hour of public comment at the May 21 meeting, with frustration expressed about the closing of Worcester’s alternative schools as well as parents and students requesting more accountability around the district’s bullying prevention and intervention plan.

2026-2027 Student Handbook.
Many policies in the district are changed through the student handbook updates, and the handbook for next year has some changes approved by the school committee at the May 7 meeting. Some quick highlights:

• The voluntary transfer policy (the way students living in Worcester request to attend a school outside their boundary zone) was updated to remove a part that allows students who change residences in, or the summer leading up to, 6, 8 or 12 grade to remain in their current school with principal’s permission.

• The student dress code policy changed to a more generic policy, removing many of the specific descriptions such as undergarments must be covered, no backless shirts, no hats or bandanas, while also removing explicitly allowed items such as durags and religious and cultural headwear.

• There is a new item added to the network unacceptable use policy: “Creating, altering, or distributing digitally manipulated content, including images, audio, or video (including content generated through artificial intelligence or other technologies), that impersonates, misrepresents, humiliates, intimidates, or harms another student, staff member, or member of the school community.”

• A change in language for exemption from the sexual health curriculum requires that caregivers exempt their child from all the lessons of the curriculum, rather than particular portions.

• Grades for academic eligibility for athletics will now be official on the next school day following the date on which the faculty are required to have submitted grades into the Student Information System. Previously it was when report cards were issued.

  ---

Turf Fields.
The School Committee revisited the ongoing discussion around the use of turf athletic fields in Worcester Public Schools, a conversation that carries added significance as the district looks ahead to the eventual replacement of Foley Stadium and the construction of a new Burncoat High School. Sue Mailman (at-large), who requested the original report, made three motions requesting all environmental reports used by the Turf Field Committee, the installation of thermometers on playing fields, and a report on field temperatures. The Committee voted 5-3 to hold the item along with Mailman’s motions for further review, with Biancheria, Roy and Guardiola voting no, and Mayor Petty absent from the vote (he’s been absent for a lot of meetings lately…). The discussion reflected continued concern from some members about student safety, environmental impacts, and long-term planning for athletic facilities across the district. As Worcester prepares for major future capital projects, questions around the type, cost, and safety of playing surfaces are likely to remain part of the broader facilities conversation.

Multilingual Learners.

At the May 21 meeting, the Multilingual Education department shared encouraging data showing that English learners are exiting language support programs at higher rates than they were five years ago. This year, 966 of 7,266 tested English learner students exited the program — a 13.3% exit rate compared to 9.3% in 2019. Worcester currently has about 7,740 English learner students, representing roughly 31% of the district, but the district also monitors about 2,000 recently exited students, meaning around 41% of students are being served by the office in some capacity. Students in Worcester speak more than 70 languages, with Spanish being the most common.

Director of Multilingual Education Jessica Mandes said the progress comes from a focus on rigorous instruction, educator support, and recruitment and retention efforts. The office has embedded multilingual learner strategies into curriculum maps across grade levels, strengthened collaboration with special education to better support dually identified students, and expanded partnerships and training opportunities for educators. Looking ahead, the office plans to strengthen the dual language program at the high school level, continue professional development around the new ESL curriculum, and support newcomer programs as the New Citizen Center closes at the end of this school year.

College and Career Highlights.

Dr. Emily Lehman, Administrative Director of College and Career Readiness, and Dan St. Louis, Director of Early College, presented a report on College and Career opportunities in Worcester Public Schools, highlighting growth in both Early College and Advanced Placement (AP) programs. The report outlined six Early College pathways available to students and noted that 1,362 participants have earned a combined 7,696 college credits, with 160 students earning more than 12 credits each. Over seven AP subject areas, WPS students completed 2,820 AP exams in 2025, with 51% earning qualifying scores, a percentage that has steadily increased since 2022.

The presentation also highlighted the continued expansion of Worcester Night Life, which now offers more than 80 in-person workforce development classes annually, and the Worcester Adult Learning Center, which provides no-cost education opportunities including high school equivalency, CNA certification, and English language learning courses, with priority enrollment for WPS parents.

Upcoming Dates.
All school committee meetings have virtual options with Spanish translation. See the school committee site for more information.

• Public Budget Hearing is May 28, 5:00 p.m. at DAB

• Teaching, Learning and Student Supports is May 28, 5:00 p.m.

• School Committee Meetings to discuss the budget are June 4 and June 17, 4:00 p.m.

• Operations and Governance is June 8, 5:00 p.m.

• Teaching, Learning and Student Supports is June 11, 5:00 p.m.

That’s it. Have a great end to the school year! And please consider a paid subscription to Worcester Sucks and a tip to support my work.

Subscribe now

Here’s what’s on the agenda:

¡Public Petitions!
The fact that there are five public petitions on the agenda, the most I’ve seen in my 150+ hours of watching meetings, says something important about the current moment. When community members feel heard and included in decision-making, they usually don’t need to turn to public petitions to have their concerns acknowledged. The irony is, a year ago the school committee approved new core values for the district, which were developed after extensive surveys and conversations with students, families and community. I tried to find them on the WPS website, but a search for “core values” did not turn them up, so I’ll just leave them here:

As Brian Allen said in his first message as Superintendent, “Our work will remain grounded in the core values that define us: belonging, respect, inclusivity, collaboration, and equity. These aren’t just words — they are principles that guide our actions and shape our culture.” The public petitions serve as a reminder that many community members are still looking to see those values reflected in practice

The petitions are in reference to:

Alternative Schools.
Three petitions refer to the closing of Worcester’s alternative schools: the Academic Center for Transition (grades K-6) and Worcester Alternative (grades 9-12). Students attending those schools will be offered a spot at the Central Massachusetts Collaborative.

Bullying.
Another petition asks for accountability around the district’s bullying prevention and intervention plan. There has been an uptick of items about bullying on the school committee agenda this year.

Voluntary transfer policy.
One petition refers to clarification on the voluntary transfer policy. Voluntary transfer is the process families use to request that their child attend a different WPS school than the one they are assigned to. Students are accepted on a “case-by-case” basis, and transportation is only provided if a student receives specialized transportation as a related service through an IEP or 504. As happens each year in May, voluntary transfers are denied and rescinded and people get frustrated by the black box that is the voluntary transfer process. While not explicitly stated in the policy, which can be found on page 5 of the student handbook, families are told in practice that voluntary transfer can be rescinded for “lack of seats, attendance, or other issues.”

That kind of case-by-case decision making, combined with the ability to rescind a placement for essentially any reason, means there is no real transparency around how many seats are available at different schools and how the decision is made about who gets them. As part of the school realignment process, data was released on the percentage of students attending schools on voluntary transfer, and it’s bonkers: 38% of students attending Roosevelt live outside its zone, as do 25% of students attending Doherty, and 20% of students attending Flagg Street.

There’s been cases of families feeling that their child’s voluntary transfer was rescinded as retaliation for advocating for their students. And I have heard stories of favoritism in the voluntary transfer process, including seats being held for gifted athletes, district employees’ kids, students that school committee members advocate for, or for certain arts magnet students. But it is hard to verify these stories because the process itself is not transparent. And that is a problem: when there is no clear system for who gets access and why, families are left to rely on rumors, relationships, and luck.

Report of the Superintendent.
This meeting’s Report of the Superintendent is on Multilingual Learners. As demonstrated by the chart above, the majority of English learners in WPS are Spanish speakers, although that percentage has dropped in the last six years. (40% of the district’s Hispanic students are English learners, and 35% of elementary students are English learners, down from 49% last year).

One-to-One Device Lease.
The district is requesting approval to enter a five year lease for Chromebook replacement to remain a one student to one device district. According to this somewhat confusing chart, and discussion from previous school committee meetings, I think the district is already leasing 6,000 chromebooks for $2.9 million over the next five years (these are solely used at the middle school level). This request is to lease an additional 6,000 chromebooks at a cost of $3.6 million over five years. If approved, by 2030 the district will be paying $5.2 million a year in technology leases for 30,000 chromebooks, 5,000 Macbook Airs, and 4,000 ipads.

School Bus Ticketing.
Alex Guardiola (District D) has an item on the agenda requesting “an update on the status of school bus stop-arm camera enforcement technology for Worcester Public Schools, including whether the City of Worcester and Worcester Public Schools have opted into the Commonwealth’s recently authorized school bus camera enforcement program, the timeline for implementation, projected costs and revenues, vendor selection process, and how the program would improve student safety.”

It has now been a year and a half since Governor Maura Healey signed a bill into law allowing municipalities and school districts to install bus-mounted cameras and issue tickets to drivers who illegally pass stopped school buses. Both the Worcester City Council and School Committee voted to opt into the program in January 2025. At a November 10, 2025 Finance, Operations, and Governance Subcommittee meeting, Director of Transportation Mike Freeman said that a vendor bid was out and that implementation would come at no cost to the district, since expenses would be covered through ticket revenue. After asking for updates every few months, my understanding is that implementation is largely outside the district’s control. Police departments across Massachusetts appear to still be working through questions about how third-party vendors can issue violations using Massachusetts Uniform Citations, even when those citations are reviewed and approved by a certified officer. This is due to the “No Fix Law” which mandates strict procedures for issuing motor vehicle citations. Chicopee, for example, is the only municipality to install cameras so far, but has not yet begun issuing fines.

Even knowing that a 12-year-old child was hit by a landscape van while getting off a school bus in 2021, I was still shocked by how many drivers ignored stop signs at my kids bus stop on Pleasant Street when my oldest started kindergarten. Every single week for the last four years, I have watched cars speed through bus stop signs, or accelerate to try to beat the flashing yellow lights, which is exactly the behavior this law is meant to address. As Sergeant James Foley explained in a Worcester school bus safety video: “What we have been seeing throughout the city of Worcester is a lot of people are picking up their speed when they see the yellow lights thinking that they don’t have to slow down or come to a full stop. That is not the case.” PLEASE SLOW DOWN AND STOP FOR BUSES!

That’s it. If you have feedback you can always get in touch: aislinn.doyle@me.com

Also, Worcester for Safe Student Technology has a petition requesting limited individual screen use for Pre-K to second grade students. Read the letter and sign it here.

Subscribe now

Here’s the agenda preview:

May 7 School Committee Meeting
The next school committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 7. Executive session starts at 5pm and the regular meeting is scheduled to start at 6pm. The actual start time depends on how long the executive session takes. See the agenda here. You can watch it via zoom or Youtube Live. Spanish translation is available on zoom.

Report of the Superintendent.
This meeting’s Report of the Superintendent is on “College and Career Highlights” Giving the report will be Director of Early College, Dan St. Louis, and Administrative Director of College and Career Readiness, Dr. Emily Lehman (who, as it happens, is also a member of the West Boylston school committee). The presentation slides touch on Early College, Advanced Placement, Worcester Nightlife, and the Worcester Adult Learning Center.

North High Dedication.
Mayor Petty is requesting a plaque at North High School in memory of Linda Bergstrom, a longtime Worcester Public Schools teacher of over 35 years. Per the dedication policy, “all proposals must begin with consultation at the school level and include staff, students, and families” and then proposals must be reviewed by the Operations and Governance subcommittee, referred to a naming committee, and then come to the full school committee for a vote.

New Special Education Curriculum and Supplemental Resource.
Up for approval is the Unique Learning System (ULS) which the backup says “serves as a core, evidence-based curriculum resource within Worcester Public Schools for students with significant cognitive disabilities who require highly individualized, standards-based instruction in both English Language Arts and Mathematics.” The cost is $96,349.44.

Also up for approval is Number Worlds, a math intervention system by McGraw Hill, for use in SAIL students. To authorize the Administration to purchase the Number Worlds Curriculum. The cost not to exceed $450,893.26.

Other Items.

Up for approval are:

• an extension of an existing Parent Square contract for three (3) years, at a cost of $350,078.80.

• an extension of an existing Custom Computers (Infinite Campus aka Woo Edu) contract for three (3) years, not to exceed $1,358,134.10.

There is also a report back on Special Education Transportation.

And that’s it for the agenda. The proposed budget in full is released May 8, so more from me next week! If you have feedback you can always get in touch: aislinn.doyle@me.com

Share

Happy spring! Hope you had a restful April vacation. Before we start I wanted to give a quick plug for an unofficial middle school enrollment guide I put out earlier this month. This month’s WPS in Brief covers key topics from two school committee meetings and two subcommittee meetings.

Subscribe now

Let’s get to it:

Redistricting.

The district is now in its third month of a formal redistricting process aimed at better aligning school boundaries. Two community forums were held this month (April 15 and 27), and a few key takeaways stood out:

Worcester experienced 20% population growth from 2000–2020, and that growth was spread across the city rather than concentrated in one area. Looking ahead, most future growth is expected to be among older adults (50+). At the same time, school enrollment has been declining. Over the past decade, the district has seen a 2.7% overall drop in enrollment and a 10% decline in kindergarten. Schools in the Burncoat quadrant saw the steepest kindergarten decline at 20%, while schools in the Doherty quadrant saw the smallest decrease at 3%.

Above you can see a slide from the forum that shows the percentage of enrollment change over the last ten years, with Burncoat being the only quadrant seeing a decline and no growth. The area with the largest enrollment growth (in the middle of the map on the right) is also high poverty, with 83-94% of students designated as low income.

Currently, 20% of elementary students attend a school outside of their assigned zone (this is students under voluntary transfer, and does not include those in magnet or hub programs). That’s 23% of Burncoat elementary students and 24% of North quadrant elementary students, versus 16% of South and Doherty quadrant students. Complicating matters further, not all elementary schools feed into the same middle or high schools, and some elementary zones are not geographically contiguous. As an example, outlined in yellow is the zone for City View Elementary:

I highly recommend reviewing the FAQs, which address many of the questions raised at recent forums or through the survey. (If you haven’t already, please complete the WPS Realignment Initial Input Survey. It’s open through May 15.) I’ve been asked to serve on the working group as a parent representative, so definitely reach out if you have comments or concerns. There are also two upcoming virtual forums that will cover school capacity and utilization, school-level trends, and travel time:

• Tuesday, May 5, 2026 (5:30–6:30 PM): Community Forum #4 (virtual)

• Wednesday, May 13, 2026 (7:00–8:30 PM): Spanish-language Community Forum (virtual)

These will be the final meetings before initial redistricting scenarios are presented to the School Committee in June. Then there will be more community forums in August, September and October to learn about the scenarios and offer feedback, with a tentative final school committee vote taking place in November for implementation in the 2026-2027 school year.

New Elementary Math Curriculum Approved.

The school committee authorized the purchase of a six-year contract for a new elementary math curriculum, Reveal Math, not to exceed $3.2 million. The district says the new curriculum would provide more consistent instruction across schools, stronger support for multilingual learners, more opportunities for discourse and problem solving, and better alignment with grades 7–12, which have been using Reveal since last fall. District leaders feel that because teachers have been heavily supplementing the current curriculum, students are not receiving the same learning experience across classrooms. They have also pointed to the fact that Reveal is already being used in grades 7 through Algebra 2, saying a K–6 adoption would improve K–12 “vertical alignment.” (I was not able to find examples of other Massachusetts districts using the same math curriculum across K–12.) They also used this rationale to say it’s an “extension” of a current curriculum in use, rather than a new curriculum, which appears to be a way to get around following best practices for selecting a new curriculum. (For comparison, here’s an example of what another district did in its curriculum choosing process.)

The district also outlined a yearlong implementation plan intended to support the transition. Math Curriculum Specialist Heather Farrington said elementary curriculum maps would be updated by mid-May, followed by district onboarding in early June and several days of training for teachers. That training will take place during the school day, with teachers pulled from classrooms, meaning lost instructional time for students.

Questions remain about both the process and the timing of the change. Elementary teachers did not pilot the curriculum, and it was not clear how they were involved in the selection process. The teachers’ union was also not informed until the proposal appeared on the School Committee agenda. At the same time, district data reportedly shows that midyear math performance across grades 1–9 is currently the highest it has been since Worcester began using the Star assessment. Curriculum changes at this scale carry some risk. When teachers are learning a new program, instruction is less consistent at first, which is normal, but can impact students. The district is only in its third year of implementing a new ELA curriculum, and many teachers are finally becoming comfortable with it; adding another large-scale change raises legitimate concerns about capacity and implementation. A district needs teacher buy-in, family buy-in, and a clear plan to support the transition. Moving forward, Sue Mailman (at-large) requested a report for a more clear curriculum review cycle, which is a best practice standard in Massachusetts (see here, here, and here as examples). It’s surprising that Worcester doesn’t already do this.

Autism Program Updates.

One of this month’s Report of the Superintendent was on Autism program updates. The focus was on the SAIL program, which stands for Specialized Approaches to Individual Learning, and is in four hub schools in each quadrant. Reporter Jesse Collings covered it well in the Telegram, so it’s worth checking out there (Links: Telegram, Apple News, WPL).

¡Elementary Libraries!

If you’ve been reading me for a while you know that, as the child of a library para, school libraries are close to my heart. And as a member of the Worcester Elementary School Library Coalition, we have been working hard to advocate for libraries to be reinstated in elementary schools (for background on libraries in WPS read this) I’m excited to share that at a recent subcommittee meeting the district informed the committee that 7 elementary schools will now be using the 4th or 5th prep periods to provide elementary students with regular access to library services. The schools are:

• Belmont Street Community School

• Flagg Street School

• Gates Lane School

• Nelson Place School

• Norrback Avenue School

• Quinsigamond Elementary School

• Worcester Dual Language Magnet School

Right now a handful of elementary school libraries have been functioning mostly because of parent and community volunteers (who were recognized at the April 16 school committee meeting), and it takes a lot of commitment. This is an important step for making sure students have equitable access to books, literacy support, and spaces that foster a lifelong love of learning. Check out more about the Worcester Elementary School Library Coalition here.

Middle School Grading Policy Change.

There was a report on the progress of the high school grading change to “mastery based grading” and an update on the roll out for middle school which is planned for the 2026-2027 school year. The goal is for grading practices to reflect “understanding over task completion, encouraging deeper engagement and skill development” and to “ensure grades reflect learning, not external challenges.”The school committee originally approved the updated policy as a pilot at the high school level, and it’s not clear if this report was a formal approval of the policy for the middle school level.

Culture and climate program updates.

The second Report of the Superintendent this month was on the culture and climate wellness rooms. The rooms are in Worcester’s middle schools and high schools and are generally used as a space for students to take a break or get academic support. Again, Jesse Collings covered it well in the Telegram, so it’s worth checking out there (links: Telegram, WPL, Apple News).

Middle School Sports Grant.

The School Committee approved a $50,000 grant from the PlayBall Foundation to support middle school athletics, funding four spring sports–baseball, softball, and boys’ and girls’ soccer–across five schools. The money will cover uniforms, equipment, transportation, and coaching stipends. Jermaine Johnson (district F) asked whether the grant would expand offerings or simply offset existing costs; North Quadrant Executive Director Kareem Tatum said it will add teams, particularly in soccer, while baseball and softball may start as clinics due to lower student interest.

What’s Behind Alex Guardiola’s Energy Infrastructure Push?

Alex Guardiola (district D) published a bizarre op-ed in the Telegram arguing that investing in energy infrastructure is essential to improving student learning. He points to school closures during heat waves and the possibility of students spending nights in cold homes due to grid failures as evidence, ultimately concluding that “investing in modern infrastructure is not just an energy issue, it is an education imperative.” (links: Telegram, WPL, Apple News)

But that argument is quite the leap. In Worcester, if a student is in a cold home, it’s far more likely due to not being able to pay heating bills than a widespread grid failure. And when schools close during heat waves, it’s not because of energy infrastructure, it’s because most WPS school buildings lack air conditioning, period.

Reading the piece, it’s hard not to ask: who is Guardiola writing this for? He runs his own consulting and lobbying firm, yet he is not registered as a lobbyist with the state, has not publicly disclosed his clients, and he also has no conflicts of interest on file with the City of Worcester, aside from attending WooSox opening day. Transparency is something he often emphasizes on the School Committee floor, but this op-ed sure leaves you wondering.

Upcoming Dates.

All school committee meetings have virtual options with Spanish translation. See the school committee site for more information.

• May 5: School Boundary and Quadrant Alignment Forum, 5:30pm (virtual)

• May 6: 2026-2027 budget released

• May 7: School Committee Meeting, 5:30pm at City Hall

• May 13: School Boundary and Quadrant Alignment Forum in Spanish, 7pm (virtual)

• May 13: Burncoat Building Project Community Visioning Input Session, 6pm at Burncoat High

• May 18: Operations and Governance Meeting, 5pm at Durkin Administration Building

• May 20: Finance Meeting, 5:30 pm at Durkin Administration Building

• May 21: School Committee Meeting, 5:30pm at City hall

• May 28: Teaching, Learning and Student Supports Meeting, 5pm at at Durkin Administration Building

• May 28: Public Budget Hearing, 6pm at Durkin Administration Building

  ---

Also.

You may have seen the news article in early April about an AI-generated photo of Auburn student prompts police investigation and the Globe story, “He made a fake nude of his middle school classmate. Nothing Happened.” Even elementary students in Worcester have access to AI image generation through Canva (and the district touted its use by kindergartners in a press release). As much as I hope the safeguards put on AI image generation keep our kids safe in school, it leaves me really uneasy. The Worcester Families for Safe Technology group is holding a community meeting on Wednesday, April 29 to have a conversation about AI and Technology in WPS. Hope to see you there!

Thanks for reading. I hope these briefs are helping you stay informed without feeling overwhelmed. If they are, please consider a paid subscription or a tip to support the dozens of hours of work it takes me to put these together. See you next month!

Share

Subscribe now

Before we get to the agenda preview, I want to share two things:

Please come to the district realignment forum this Wednesday, April 15 at 5 p.m. at Doherty High. Also be sure to fill out the Initial Input Survey, which is open until May 15.

Last week I put out a Guide to WPS Middle School Enrollment, which is a very unofficial guide to navigating Worcester Public Schools’ middle school magnet programs and voluntary transfer policies. If you have kids in elementary school, check it out.

Ok here’s the preview:

April 16 School Committee Meeting
The next school committee meeting is scheduled for April 16. Executive session starts at 5 p.m. and the regular meeting is scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m. The actual start time depends on how long the executive session takes. See the agenda here. You can watch it via zoom or Youtube Live. Spanish translation is available on zoom.

Report of the Superintendent

This month’s Report of the Superintendent is on the culture and climate wellness rooms. The rooms are in Worcester’s middle schools and high schools. Also, I missed the rebrand, because up until this year the office was called climate and culture, but I guess it’s culture and climate now.

Farm to School Grant.
Massachusetts Farm to School was awarded $100,000 to lead a two-year project to facilitate local food collaboration for Boston, Worcester and Springfield. According to the grant the purpose is “to support alignment of menu items to increase local food purchasing and promotion. The districts will work together to establish ‘New England Harvest Menus’ that feature multiple items that utilize locally grown, raised, or caught foods.” Up for approval is $20,000 of the grant to come to Worcester.

Middle School Sports Grant.
Also up for approval is a grant for $50,000 to support middle school sports from the PlayBall Foundation. The grant will support “four Spring sports (baseball, softball, boys’/girls’ soccer) across five middle schools within the district. Funds will support the purchase of uniforms, equipment, transportation and coaches’ stipends.”

Reports From Administration On:

• Supports for unhoused students

• School nurse staffing levels

• Dropout prevention plan

  ---

Other Items.

• Sue Mailman (at-large) has an item requesting an update on the plan to move the transitions program out of the Fanning Building.

• Molly McCullough (district A) is requesting an update on the supports and services currently offered for students with dyslexia and other language-based learning disabilities.

• Alex Guardiola (district D) is requesting a report on the custodial and grounds staffing at Foley Stadium, with a long list of what he’d like to specifically see included.

• Vanessa Alvarez (district B) has an item asking for data on enrollment and participation of Hispanic/Latinx students in advanced coursework.

• The administration is requesting a renewal of the McGraw-Hill Contract for five years for “History- grades 6,7,9, Psychology, Sociology, and Legal Aspects.

That’s it. Have a good week! If you have feedback you can always get in touch: aislinn.doyle@me.com

This week, the district shared with families at Worcester Dual Language Magnet School that the school will be expanding into a pre-K through 8 model. Since then, I’ve been part of a lot of conversations with fellow elementary parents about Worcester middle schools — and wowwww, there is so much confusion and misunderstanding out there. That’s what motivated me to put together this guide to middle school enrollment.

For this guide I’ve pulled all the scattered info into one place and will break down the biggest sources of confusion: how magnet programs work, how voluntary transfers are handled, and the practical details like transportation, school hours, and extracurriculars.

If you know other parents with older elementary kids who are confused about middle school, please share this guide with them! Here is a PDF version as well.

Share

I’m just a parent sharing what I’ve pieced together from five years of watching school committee meetings and talking with other parents. To the best of my knowledge, this is as accurate as possible, but my own family hasn’t gone through this process yet. I highly recommend checking out the district’s specialized programs page and enrollment videos, and definitely contact the district directly if you have specific questions. I’d also really appreciate any clarifications or insights from families who have been through it. And one final thing I’ve learned over the years: policy and what actually happens in practice are not always the same thing…

Let’s start with the basics.
A student’s official middle school assignment is determined by the district’s street list, which assigns every address to a middle school. *Update that the district has released a new tool that allows you to search by your address which is way more user friendly than the street list. It also includes distance from school which is helpful to know whether your address qualifies for a bus or not (for the secondary, elementary school transportation is not so clear cut.) Here are some examples of the results:

There are five middle schools a student can be assigned to: Burncoat Middle, Claremont Academy, Forest Grove Middle, Sullivan Middle and Worcester East Middle. There is also a line in the student handbook that states: “Spanish Bilingual, Structured English and Special Education Programs are offered in certain schools. Any student requiring these services will be enrolled in the school that will meet their assessed needs.”

But, as I wrote about in my district realignment piece, ”the pathways students take through the system don’t always line up neatly. Chandler Elementary, for example, feeds into three different middle schools, while several others — including City View, Belmont, May Street, Norrback, Quinsigamond, and Vernon Hill — feed into two.” It’s always good to double check the street list and never make assumptions of where your student is assigned!

There’s also a bunch of middle school options that are citywide magnets or programs that require applications. They are: Goddard Scholars Academy, Hanover Insurance Academy of the Arts, Visual and Performing Arts Magnet at Burncoat Middle School, Worcester Dual Language Magnet School, and University Park Campus School. We’ll take a look at each of them, but let’s start with the first middle school opportunity for students.

Goddard Scholars Academy.
While middle school in Worcester starts in seventh grade for the vast majority of students, 50 students each year start in 6th grade at Sullivan Middle School as part of the Goddard Scholars Academy. According to the website, “Goddard Scholars Academy (GSA) provides a rigorous and accelerated academic program in a safe, nurturing, and personalized atmosphere. The student body is a select group of Worcester Public Schools’ students, grades 6-8, who have demonstrated academic proficiency.” That academic proficiency is determined by Star scores. Star is a private standardized testing company that the district contracts with, and students take Star tests in September, December, and May each year starting in first grade.

Each March, about 300 to 350 fifth grade students are invited to “apply” for the program if they have Star scores in reading and math above the 75th percentile (some students take Star tests in Spanish, but those scores do not count towards GSA eligibility). I put apply in quotes, because it’s not really an application in the way most of us think of one —students simply check a box saying whether they want to be considered. Students are ranked based on their highest Star score from May of fourth grade, or September or December of fifth grade, and offers are made in that order. What’s not clear is exactly how that ranking is calculated, and families also aren’t told where their child falls on the list, so a student could be near the top or way down at #275 and the family would have no idea. I’ve heard this is a major frustration for families, especially given how many invitation letters go out for so few spots.

If accepted, students have to maintain at least an 80 average in all subjects and should expect one to two hours of homework each night. GSA students are guaranteed a spot in the high school Goddard Scholars program that continues at South High.

Hanover Insurance Academy of the Arts.
Hanover Insurance Academy of the Arts is a second honors program, established in 2017, that is available at Burncoat Middle School, and continues on to Burncoat High School. (It is different from the Burncoat Middle School Arts Magnet program, which I’ll get into next.) Like Goddard, there are 50 spots and acceptance is based on Star scores. But unlike Goddard, it doesn’t begin until 7th grade, so eligibility is based on scores from spring of 5th grade and fall and winter of 6th grade. Hanover, as the program is often shortened to, also differs from Goddard because students take honors academics, but can also participate in the Performing, Visual, and Media Arts Magnet Classes at Burncoat High. If you want to understand the history and some of the questions around how this program was created, I highly recommend reading former School Committee member Tracy Novick’s blog. She has written about this a bit and, among other things, has pointed out that there does not appear to be any formal arrangement around the Hanover Insurance name being attached to the program.

It’s also worth noting that at a November 2024 Teaching, Learning and Student Support subcommittee meeting school committee member Sue Mailman (at-large) raised concerns that the honors programs in the district are not following similar acceptance criteria as Worcester Tech, like having allocations by quadrant, for example.

And that concern makes sense when you look at the demographic data reported back in April 2024 for both the Burncoat Hanover Insurance honors program and the Goddard Scholars honors program (see above). Enrolled students in those programs do not reflect the WPS student body and disproportionately come from the Burncoat and Doherty quadrants. One data point that wasn’t included, but that I’d really want to see, is how many students are low-income versus non-low-income. At a recent school committee meeting Mailman requested updated demographic data for these programs and I will include that here when it is released.

Visual and Performing Arts Magnet at Burncoat Middle School.
The longest standing K-12 magnet program in the city (dating back to around 1985), the Visual and Performing Arts Magnet at Burncoat Middle and High School is a continuation of the K-6 Worcester Arts Magnet (WAMs). Students can concentrate in dance, media arts, music, visual arts and theater.

It’s my understanding that students who go to WAMs automatically get a spot in the magnet at Burncoat Middle, but I could not find that in writing anywhere. If your kid wants to join the magnet, but doesn’t go to WAMS, they can be a part of the arts magnet program if Burncoat Middle is their assigned middle school. If you don’t live in the Burncoat quadrant, you would need to submit a voluntary transfer request to attend. As far as I can tell, this is less of a separate admissions process and more about whether Burncoat is your assigned school or whether you’re able to transfer in.

Voluntary transfer is the process families use to request that their child attend a different WPS school than the one they are assigned to. Students are accepted on a “case-by-case” basis, and transportation is only provided if a student receives specialized transportation as a related service through an IEP or 504.

While not explicitly stated in the policy, which can be found on page 5 of the student handbook, families are told in practice that voluntary transfer can be rescinded for “lack of seats, attendance, or other issues.” That kind of case-by-case decision making, combined with the ability to rescind a placement for essentially any reason, creates an inequitable process for families. It means there is no real transparency around how many seats are available at different schools, who gets them, or who decides.

I have heard stories of favoritism in the voluntary transfer process, including seats being held for gifted athletes, district employee’s kids, students that school committee members advocate for, or for certain arts magnet students. But it is hard to verify these stories because the process itself is not transparent. And that is a problem: when there is no clear system for who gets access and why, families are left to rely on rumors, relationships, and luck. A public school system should not have a process this consequential operating this informally.

Worcester Dual Language Magnet School.
The district recently announced that the Spanish/English dual language program 7th and 8th grade will no longer be at Burncoat Middle, but will be at Worcester Dual Language Magnet School. If space is available, students can join in 7th or 8th grade if they speak, read and write in both English and Spanish. This is a big change, but one that could create a stronger and more cohesive pathway for students continuing in dual language through middle school.

University Park Campus School.
University Park Campus School (UPCS) is a 7-12 school and the application is open to students who live within the UPCS zone. According to the district, the school’s partnership with Clark University means student teachers provide individualized support, students have access to Clark’s athletic facilities, and upperclassmen can take courses at Clark and could qualify for the Neighborhood Scholarship, which covers four years of free tuition as long as they have lived in the UPCS zone for at least five years before enrolling. Enrollment for students who live in the zone is determined by a blind lottery, with sibling preference.

A few other things to keep in mind.

High School Career Technical Education Admission: Admission to Worcester Tech is determined in part by the middle school a student attends. Lottery seats are distributed to each middle school based on its share of the total WPS 8th-grade enrollment. Below is the slot distribution for Worcester Tech’s incoming 9th graders (Class of 2030).

For the CTE programs at Doherty, North and South High Schools, there are no seat allocations based on where students attend or live.

School hours: You can find school hours on each individual school’s website. The middle school day is 18 minutes longer than elementary school, and start times vary— some as early as 7:20 a.m. and others as late as 8:47 a.m. (This is also one of the things that could potentially change through the district’s realignment process.)

Transportation. If you live within two miles of the school, your kid will need to walk, take the city bus, or you’ll need to drive them; unless they qualify for specialized transportation services as written in their IEP or 504. If you live two miles or more away, they will generally be assigned a bus, assuming they are not a voluntary transfer student. Two miles is a lot, and one expressed goal in the realignment process is to create more transportation efficiencies, so that more students can get access to busing. But as of right now, two miles is the rule.

Extra-Curriculars: Every middle school has extra-curricular offerings, but what’s available may vary by school. You can check out athletics here, and here are examples of what’s offered at Worcester East Middle and the clubs offered at Burncoat Middle. I could not find similar sites for Sullivan and Forest Grove.

Star Scores. The district does not automatically send parents their students’ star scores, and they are not available in Woo Edu. You can sign up to get your student’s Star scores emailed to you when they take them. To do that, log in to their Clever account and then click on the Renaissance app. If you scroll to the bottom it says “For parents and guardians” and click “get email updates.” The only way you can get past Star scores is to ask your child’s teacher to send you the reports. If you do not know how to log in to your child’s clever account, it’s their school email as the username (student.studentidnumber@worcesterschools.net where studentidnumber is the 6 digit number assigned to your child) and the password is their birthday (DDMMYYYY).

I hope this is a helpful starting point for families trying to make sense of Worcester’s middle school options. If you’ve been through this process and have anything to add or correct, please share. I’d genuinely love to make this guide more useful and accurate for other families. You can reach me at aislinn.doyle@me.com

Share

Subscribe now

April 2 School Committee Meeting
The next school committee meeting is scheduled for April 2. Executive session starts at 5 p.m. and the regular meeting is scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m. The actual start time depends on how long the executive session takes. See the agenda here. You can watch it via zoom or Youtube Live. Spanish translation is available on zoom.

Here’s my preview:

Executive Session consists of discussing collective bargaining strategy, as well as strategy with respect to negotiations for Tammy Murray, Director of Special Education (and husband of Tim Murray).

Adding Recess to the Middle Schools.
There is a public petition from Sullivan Middle School students requesting that recess be added back to the middle schools.

Report of the Superintendent

This month’s Report of the Superintendent is on Autism program updates. The focus is on the SAIL program, which stands for Specialized Approaches to Individual Learning.

New Elementary Math Curriculum Approval.
There’s an item requesting the school committee authorize the purchase of a six-year contract for a new elementary math curriculum, Reveal Math, not to exceed $3.2 million. The backup does not include the contract up for authorization.

For some background, the district says the new curriulum would provide more consistent instruction across schools, stronger supports for multilingual learners, more opportunities for discourse and problem solving, and better alignment with grades 7–12, which have been using Reveal since last fall. District leaders feel that because teachers have been heavily supplementing the current curriculum, students are not receiving the same learning experience across classrooms. They have also pointed to the fact that Reveal is already being used in grades 7 through Algebra 2, saying a K–6 adoption would improve K–12 “vertical alignment.” (I was not able to find examples of other Massachusetts districts using the same curriculum across K–12.)

At the Teaching, Learning, and Student Success subcommittee discussion on March 23, math curriculum liaison Heather Farrington described Reveal as offering stronger language supports, more structured problem solving, more opportunities for student discourse and collaboration, built-in differentiation, better digital tools, and a clearer lesson structure. The district also outlined a yearlong implementation plan intended to support the transition. Farrington said elementary curriculum maps would be updated by mid-May, followed by district onboarding in early June and several days of training for teachers. If some of that training takes place during the school day, it could also mean teachers are pulled from classrooms, raising concern about substitute coverage and lost instructional time for students during the transition.

Questions remain about both the process and the timing of the change. Elementary teachers did not pilot the curriculum, and it was not clear how they were involved in the selection process. The teachers’ union was also not informed until the proposal appeared on the School Committee agenda. At the same time, district data reportedly shows that midyear math performance across grades 1–9 is currently the highest it has been since Worcester began using the Star assessment.

Other Items.

• Sue Mailman (at-large) has an item requesting the implementation of a formal process for logging race-related complaints across all sports.

• There is a report on the progress of the high school grading change to “mastery based grading” and an update on the roll out for middle school which is planned for the start of the 2026-2027 school year.

• An update on programs that address cyber bullying and social media

  ---

Proposed Policy Updates.

A bunch of proposed policy updates are up for approval, including:

• The removal of the third party service opt-out form as related to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act

• A policy update that due to electronic messages between public officials potentially being considered public records, “the district shall provide district e-mail addresses, cellular telephones, and laptop or iPad to members of the School Committee, which are archived” and the school committee members must use these for all district business

• A policy clarification that schools cannot host raffles or games of chance as the sponsoring organization, and that students and student groups are also barred from hosting raffles and games of chance, and from participating in sales or buying tickets.

  ---

That’s it. Have a good week! If you have feedback you can always get in touch: aislinn.doyle@me.com