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

Welcome to the March 2026 WPS in Brief. This month covers key topics from two school committee meetings and the redistricting forum, as well as some other important updates.

Subscribe now

Let’s dive in:

Potential Conflict of Interest.
The School Committee is currently negotiating contracts with multiple collective bargaining units, including teachers, assistant principals, paraeducators, and transportation staff, among others. Until this current committee, it was unprecedented in Worcester for a member to have immediate family employed by the district. Now, three members do: Maureen Binienda (daughter Mairecait Binienda, teacher), Kathleen Roy (daughter Katie O’Leary, School Adjustment Counselor), and Molly McCullough (husband Donald “Moose” Huban, Climate and Culture Specialist). Coincidentally, all of them work at Burncoat High. Binienda and Roy’s children were hired before they were elected to the school committee; McCullough’s husband was hired in August of 2024, while McCullough was serving on the school committee.1

Back on November 4, I requested the executive session minutes from previous meetings, which, after filing an Open Meeting Law complaint, I finally received on March 9. The minutes from September 18, October 9, and October 23 show that Binienda, McCullough, and Roy did not recuse themselves from discussions related to collective bargaining that could impact their family members.

A 1984 opinion from the State Ethics Commission states:

“School committee members may not participate in any way in the formulation, adoption or revision of any aspect of the budget or a collective bargaining strategy or position which may relate to the wages, hours or conditions of employment of any member of his or her immediate family employed by the school department. This principle must be followed both if the family member will be directly and immediately affected or if it is reasonably foreseeable that the family member’s interest will be affected.”

The first recorded recusals from Binienda, McCullough, and Roy happen at the November 20, 2025 meeting, sixteen days after my request. The minutes also note that “it was recommended that any individual with an ethics question contact the state board of ethics for guidance on recusals,” without identifying who made that recommendation.

There is precedent suggesting that even across different bargaining units, a financial interest may still exist if those units are part of a union that negotiates jointly across contracts. Binienda and Roy’s daughters are part of the A/B unit of the EAW, which includes teachers (A) and non-principal administrators (B). McCullough’s husband is part of the paraeducators unit. The EAW also represents bus drivers and monitors, parent liaisons, therapy assistant and ESL Tutors.

Given these circumstances, it appears that for at least a few meetings, multiple committee members participated in collective bargaining strategy conversations despite ethical guidance suggesting they should have recused themselves. This raises serious concerns about whether the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised, particularly given that these ethics laws exist to ensure public confidence and that elected officials remain loyal to the public interest.

Proposed New Math Curriculum.
The district has proposed adopting a new K–5 math curriculum, Reveal Math, to replace the current Savvas enVision Mathematics. However, the discussion at the March 19 school committee meeting left more questions than answers.

In discussion, Molly McCullough summarized the district’s report by framing this as a system-wide improvement and as an opportunity to upgrade instruction, align K–12 curriculum, and support strategic goals around equity, consistency, and high-quality education. She also noted how she appreciated the collaboration between elementary and secondary educators in this transition and pointed to early success in grades 7–12. But after extended questioning from multiple members, no clear evidence was presented by the district to support those claims. (For comparison, here’s an example of what another district did in its curriculum choosing process.)

There are also serious questions about the process. There was no clear explanation of how elementary teachers were involved in this decision, and no pilot was conducted. The rationale given was that this is an “extension” of the secondary curriculum, but K through 5 classrooms are fundamentally different environments, with different instructional needs. I also confirmed with the EAW that the teachers’ union was not informed of a potential curriculum change and only became aware of the proposal after it appeared on the school committee agenda, raising additional concerns about transparency and stakeholder engagement.

Looking more closely, both enVision and Reveal are rated as Tier 1, high-quality curricula by EdReports. Both “meet expectations” across key categories like focus, coherence, rigor, and mathematical practices. This is not a case where one curriculum is clearly better or more aligned than the other, and both already support the district’s stated goals.

A major justification offered was “K–12 vertical alignment.” But using the same publisher across grade levels does not, on its own, guarantee alignment. Vertical alignment depends on how content is implemented, how teachers are supported, and how well concepts build from year to year in actual classrooms. The district did not lay out any concrete plan on how that would happen with a new curriculum roll out. At the same time, midyear Star data shows math performance across grades 1–9 is currently the highest it has been since the district began using the assessment. It’s unclear what portion of that growth is happening at the secondary level, which switched to Reveal in the Fall of 2025, and whether a major shift at the elementary level could disrupt that progress.

All of this raises a fundamental issue: this proposal is moving forward without without clear evidence of how the new curriculum will perform in our classrooms. 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, implementation, and teacher buy-in which the district has not yet addressed with evidence or data.

The item now moves to the Teaching, Learning, and Student Success subcommittee on March 26 for further discussion, with approval planned for the April 5 School Committee meeting.

Key Takeaways from the District Realignment Community Forum.

On March 23 there was a district realignment community forum, aka the meeting of the decade (click that link for background, I’m not going to cover that here). The Telegram has some good coverage, too. Basically, the consultant the district hired to facilitate the process gave an overview (you can see the slidedeck here) and then most of the time was an open floor for public comments. There was also an initial input survey and mapping tool to provide feedback. A consistent thread to the public comments was the need to make sure decisions are equitable, transparent, and inclusive from the start. Here are my takeaways:

Transportation: Transportation, or lack thereof, was the topic of the evening. Parents expressed safety concerns, lack of clarity on eligibility, and the need for more access. Bus eligibility, walk zones, and overlapping school start times were identified as major constraints for the district right now. The consultant said they are exploring changing the tiered start times for schools which could potentially allow for expanded transportation access due to improved efficiencies. Though these changes introduce additional complexity to the redistricting process.

Equity & Systemwide Consistency: Participants emphasized the need to address historical inequities, ensure socioeconomic diversity, and create a more consistent, clear enrollment system. Parents voiced frustration with inconsistencies across the system, particularly around magnet schools, feeder patterns, and voluntary transfer policies. These inconsistencies were seen as undermining predictability for families and raising broader equity concerns about who has access to which opportunities.

Student Impact: Families expressed concern about disruption to students, and stressed the need for maintaining peer groups and minimizing reassignment. The consultant emphasized the district’s intent of minimizing disruption, and that efforts will be made to avoid reassigning students already enrolled in schools whenever possible.

School Capacity: The district is analyzing over-enrollment and under-enrollment at schools, with updated capacity data expected soon. People at the meeting felt that they needed that information to better understand the development of school boundary scenarios. And participants emphasized the need to account for future enrollment trends and potential other factors, including shifts in enrollment tied to immigration enforcement.

Community Engagement: While the district has prioritized outreach through forums and surveys, participants raised concerns about accessibility, including the overreliance on technology, language barriers, and bias in how feedback is collected. There were strong calls for more inclusive engagement, especially with multilingual families, and for parents and students to be included in the working group now. (The vibe was an emphasis on NOW, aka YESTERDAY…and just a plug from me to have a public nomination process or something, because inevitably they pick the parents who have political connections.)

Those are my quick takeaways. The next community forums are April 15 and May 5. Mark your calendars!

Family and Community Engagement.

At the March 19 school committee meeting the family and community engagement office and the communications office presented the report of the superintendent on family and community engagement. The report touched on how family and community engagement remains a central focus of the district’s strategic plan, and is grounded in values of partnership, equity, access, shared responsibility, and authentic voice. With the goal of improving attendance, academic outcomes, and students’ sense of belonging, Director Casey Starr emphasized a more intentional, systemwide approach that is moving from reactive responses to streamlined, proactive systems that ensure families don’t fall through the cracks. Key efforts include strengthening parent groups, expanding shared decision-making, increasing access to translation and interpretation, and continuing to build out the role of wraparound coordinators, now in their third year in every school, and universally described as transformative.

On the communications side, Chief Communications Officer Dan O’Brien described how the district has developed a more cohesive framework spanning internal, external, and crisis communication. Internally, this includes weekly principal updates, a new all-staff newsletter, and a centralized memo system. Externally, tools like the ParentSquare platform have significantly improved communication, particularly through real-time AI translation, with survey data showing strong family preference for text-based updates and overall improvement in communication over time. Next steps include refining data collection of surveys and finalizing a communications framework to guide long-term strategy.

Meeting Moment.

At the March 5 school committee meeting, the district had a report back in response to two items from Jermaine Johnson (district F) and Alex Guardiola (district D) around district accountability and MCAS. The report outlines three key indicators in the state’s accountability report: MCAS scores, chronic absenteeism, and graduation rates. In the meeting moment above, Maureen Binienda talks about ways to “get more points” on these accountability measures, raising the question as to whether the district should chase accountability for accountability’s sake, and what actual outcomes that will have on a student’s education.

This report is specifically for Hispanic students, English learners, and students with disabilities and outlines ways schools are trying to motivate students to take the MCAS seriously, including “friendly competitions.”

As you see in the chart above, the pattern from previous years continues, with scores fluctuating the same way as the state. This fluctuation continues to raise questions of the validity of the MCAS as an assessment. In terms of the breakdown between the different student demographics in the report, one thing worth noting is the high degree of intersectionality for the Hispanic and English learner groups–last year about 45 percent of English learners also identified as Hispanic. This overlap means that when looking at testing data, nearly half of the Hispanic subgroup’s test scores are heavily influenced by language proficiency. At the end of the report is an extensive description of the district action plan to improve these metrics, as well as a section on roles and responsibilities.

If you read me frequently, you know that when standardized tests come up I will continue to emphasize that:

• Out-of-school factors have the biggest impact on MCAS, like language spoken at home, family income, and parent’s education.

• Research shows that children who are bilingual and biliterate outperform their monolingual peers on standardized tests, something that is true in Worcester, where former ELs in elementary school have the highest percentage meeting or exceeding expectations on the MCAS of any demographic group.

• One third of Worcester’s student body is a year younger than every other district in Massachusetts, so developmentally it is not an equal comparison.

And repeat after me: MCAS scores ≠ literacy rates!

Recommended Reads.
South High basketball players targeted by racist social mediacomments

Worcester adds 20 electric school buses to move city “into the future”

With fewer students and higher costs, many Massachusetts districts weigh school closures and mergers

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

• Teaching, Learning and Student Supports is March 26, 5pm

• Finance, Operations and Governance is March 30 5pm

• School Committee Meetings are April 2 and April 16, 5:30pm

  ---

Also.
Just a reminder that it’s budget season and it is the most important thing you can pay attention to if you care about schools. Wish it was a shorter walk radius for secondary schools? Want to have smaller classes? Wish all elementary schools had an after school program? It all comes down to how the school committee decides to allocate the budget. For the details of the preliminary budget, read last month’s brief.

And I guess it should go without saying that all that will go out the window depending on the status of federal funding. WPS gets $52.3 million a year from the federal government, which completely funds student nutrition, head start, and entitlement grants. That money supports 460 jobs and is 6.5% of the budget. According to a Superintendent’s Update on March 10, DESE shared “the preliminary Census data indicates a 10 percent drop in Massachusetts’ share of the national poverty total. Therefore, we anticipate a significant decrease to Massachusetts’ Title I award for FY27.” According to the FY 26 (2025-2026 school year) Budget Book, “These funds support a portion of the Grants Director, 63 instructional coaches, 44 wraparound coordinators, and five other program and support positions.”

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!

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Dearest reader, I know we’re all busy and I don’t say this lightly. But if I were going to tell you to attend one Worcester Public Schools meeting during the 13 years your child is in the district, this would be the one.

On Monday, March 23 from 6:00–7:30 p.m., WPS is holding a community forum on the School Boundary and Quadrant Realignment Project at South High Community School. The district is asking parents, caregivers, and community members to share priorities as it begins a process that could reshape which schools Worcester students attend starting in the 2027–2028 school year.1

If you have kids, or plan to, please consider coming. There will be childcare and translation available (but no dinner). The important thing is that the district is at the very beginning of this process, which means now is the moment to weigh in.

So what exactly is this “realignment”? Worcester is beginning to rethink the lines that determine which students attend which schools. Most people call this redistricting, though district staff prefer the term “realignment.” Right now WPS generally uses a neighborhood elementary model (K–6) that feeds into middle schools (7–8) and then high schools (9–12). The current boundaries can be explored using the Worcester Regional Research Bureau’s interactive map, though official assignments are determined by the district’s street list, which assigns every address to an elementary, middle, and high school.

Below is a quick overview of what the district is considering, why it’s happening now, and what this could mean for Worcester’s students.

This conversation has been brewing for a while. Back in September, 2023, Worcester had one of the lowest enrollments it had seen in a long time, but the district still reported that there were only about 1,000 open seats across the entire system. Some schools were already over capacity. Lincoln Street and Chandler Street were leasing additional space to alleviate overcrowding, and Belmont Street was already full.2 At a School Committee meeting that month, then-superintendent Rachel Monárrez said the district would likely have to look at changing school boundaries at some point. As she put it, it’s something “no one likes to do,” but it was probably unavoidable. A formal agenda item to begin that process appeared in November, 2024.

A lot has changed since then. Immigration into Worcester has slowed significantly due to federal enforcement actions. As one staff member at the Parent Information Center recently told me, referring to new student enrollments, “It’s like a tap was shut off.” At the same time, birthrates in Worcester have been declining for more than a decade. Taken together, those trends suggest that elementary enrollment will likely continue to decline over time.

Across Massachusetts, that dynamic has already led to school consolidations and closures. Worcester went through something similar in the early 2000s, closing seven schools over a four-year period.3 The district says it does not anticipate school closures as part of this process, but enrollment pressure remains uneven. Some schools are overcrowded while others have space, and the district has also struggled to expand preschool opportunities because elementary classrooms were already full.

The redistricting project is meant to address some of those issues. According to the district, the focus will primarily be on elementary schools, with the goal of reducing enrollment in schools that are over 90 percent capacity and increasing enrollment in schools that are under that threshold. In previous meetings the district has publicly identified Belmont Street, Chandler Elementary, and Rice Square as schools experiencing overcrowding, with Rice Square sixth grade moving to Worcester East Middle to create space. The district has also said that Forest Grove and Sullivan are “exceeding capacity,” which means too many kids are feeding into those schools. There’s also weird boundaries that have emerged over the decades. As an example, a friend of mine can see McGrath Elementary from her front steps, but her address is assigned to Nelson Place, more than a mile away.

Designing boundaries for 33 elementary schools across a city is not simple. The district has to consider how many school-aged children live in each neighborhood, transportation and safe routes to school, balancing enrollment by grade, and what the ideal size of each school should be. To help model potential scenarios, Worcester hired Dillinger Research and Applied Data. But before those scenarios are developed, the district wants community input, which is the purpose of next Monday’s forum.

Another issue the district is looking at is what it calls “illogical” feeder patterns. Worcester is divided into four quadrants tied to the city’s comprehensive high schools, but 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.

Even when students attend the same middle school, they may split again later. Students from McGrath and Nelson Place all attend Forest Grove Middle School, but some continue on to Burncoat High School while others go to Doherty. (And oddly enough, students who live on Nipmuck Road attend May Street and Forest Grove, but are assigned to South High.)

The dual language program is another example of how complicated the system has become. Elementary programs are located in the South and Doherty quadrants, but the program continues at Burncoat Middle and Burncoat High, meaning it is currently overseen by three different executive directors.

At a recent meeting (video above), Superintendent Brian Allen also discussed the possibility of “grandfathering” students into their current schools if boundaries change — meaning students already enrolled could stay where they are. The trade-off is that it could take six or seven years for overcrowding issues to fully resolve.

I understand the instinct to avoid disrupting students, but as a parent whose child was forced to transition to a new school building in first grade, elementary-aged kids are pretty adaptable, especially if the result is more balanced class sizes across the district. And transitions already happen in Worcester. When families move within the city, students are typically required to change schools unless parents can provide transportation. For families experiencing increased housing costs and housing instability, school transitions are, unfortunately, already a regular occurrence.4

There’s another piece of this conversation that doesn’t get talked about enough, and that’s the socioeconomic segregation across Worcester’s elementary schools. Because Worcester relies heavily on neighborhood schools, the distribution of financial, social, and political capital varies significantly from school to school. That shows up clearly when you look at PTO fundraising.

Based on demographic data for the 2025–2026 school year, Flagg Street (26.3 percent low income) raises about $60 per student through its PTO. West Tatnuck (36.4 percent) raises about $58 per student, and Worcester Arts Magnet (43.4 percent) raises about $54 per student. Meanwhile, Worcester Dual Language Magnet (53 percent low income) raises about $29 per student, Gates Lane (73.3 percent) raises about $9 per student, Woodland (85 percent) raises about $3 per student, and Belmont Street (89.6 percent) raises nothing at all. This is not a matter of which parents work harder or which communities care more. It’s about who has access to resources.

Neighborhood schools are deeply embedded in Worcester’s identity, and I don’t expect that model to change anytime soon. But it also reinforces socioeconomic segregation. Right now, 43 percent of Worcester elementary schools enroll 81 percent or more low-income students, with a median of about 85 percent, while 30 percent of schools have 60 percent or fewer low-income students, with a median of 49 percent. For comparison, about 41 percent of students statewide are low income. Realignment alone won’t undo decades of housing and policy decisions, but adjusting the quadrant model could create better balance. Currently, Doherty Memorial High School is 58 percent low income, while North High School is 78 percent.

School boundaries shape how students move through the district, which schools they attend, and what resources they have access to. And once those lines are drawn, they tend to stay in place for decades. So if you want a voice in that conversation, next Monday night is the time to weigh in. I hope to see you there!

Share

Agenda Preview: March 19, 2026 School Committee

The next school committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 19. Executive session starts at 5 p.m. and the regular meeting is scheduled to start at 6 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 what’s on the agenda:

Approval of a New Elementary Math Curriculum.

The district is requesting authorization for a six-year contract, not to exceed $3.2 million, to purchase the Reveal Math curriculum (published by McGraw Hill) for grades K–6. According to the district, the program is “better aligned with the district’s standards for High Quality Instructional Materials and capable of meeting the complex needs of all students in our Pre-K–6 setting.”

Elementary teachers have not piloted the curriculum. The district already uses Reveal Math from 7th grade through Algebra 2 and reports “very positive feedback” from secondary teachers, arguing that adopting it in elementary grades would “enhance vertical alignment.” The report also states that “adaptations of the existing resources and instructional approaches have led to inconsistencies in student outcomes,” implying that a new curriculum would address those issues.

Unlike the English Language Arts curriculum adopted three years ago, the report does not indicate whether other curricula were considered. I also wasn’t able to find examples of specific lessons online.

Most surprising, though, is that the recommendation is to approve and file the contract without first sending it to the Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports (TLSS) subcommittee for a deeper discussion. When the district discussed adoption of its new ELA curriculum in April 2023, TLSS Chair Molly McCullough noted that “procedurally, it needs to go to TLSS.” Committee member Tracy O’Connell Novick added:

“I’m thinking of some second grade teacher who is wondering what the heck she’s going to be teaching next year, and that doesn’t feel fair. And the reason we even have any say in curriculum at all in Massachusetts is for the public process piece, and it feels like we’re skimping on that… I trust your judgment… I’m just worried about us as a body not doing the part of the job that really is ours — which is actually less about our judgment and more about the fact that we do it publicly.”

Again, it is a six year contract that is up for approval.

Public Petition.

WPS parent and former school committee candidate Nelly Medina has a public petition requesting “a comprehensive, published K-12 calendar of all district-wide and state assessments..and request that parents and caretakers be notified of specific subjects and testing dates at least one week before the start of any assessment to allow us to prepare our students mentally and academically.” Interestingly, I recently attended a school site council meeting where this request came up from parents, who also expressed the desire to help their children prepare.

Report of the Superintendent.

This meeting’s report of the superintendent will be on Family and Community Engagement.

Other Items:

• There’s a report about the lack of an organized fire prevention education programs in WPS, and the plans to implement one for fifth grade.

• Molly McCullough (district A) has a request to look into creating guidance as part of the Quadrant teams.

• Two requests from Alex Guardiola (district D): one for a report on special education transportation and another for a report of Head Start enrollment.

  ---

  Subscribe now

The next school committee meeting is scheduled for March 5 with executive session at 5 p.m. and the regular meeting starting at 5:30 p.m., depending on how long executive session takes. See the full agenda here. You can watch it via zoom or Youtube Live. Spanish translation is available on zoom.

Since there was a meeting last Thursday, the agenda is slim.

Here’s what’s on it:

Executive Session.
Executive session includes review of executive session minutes, a grievance, and three open meeting law violation complaints. Two of those open meeting law complaints are from me; one is around a request for executive session minutes and the other is regarding the committee following its own rules when it comes to policy approval.

Report of the Superintendent.

This meeting’s report is on the Vision of a Leader, an effort that comes out of the strategic plan and aligns with the district’s Vision of a Learner.

School Accountability and MCAS.
The district has a report back in response to two items from Jermaine Johnson (district F) and Alex Guardiola (district D) around district accountability and MCAS. The report outlines three key indicators in the state’s accountability report: MCAS scores, chronic absenteeism, and graduation rates. This report is specifically for Hispanic students, English learners, and students with disabilities. The report also outlines ways schools are trying to motivate students to take the MCAS seriously, including “friendly competitions.”

As you see in the chart above, the pattern from previous years continues, with scores fluctuating the same way as the state. This fluctuation continues to raise questions of the validity of the MCAS as an assessment. In terms of the breakdown between the different student demographics in the report, one thing worth noting is the high degree of intersectionality for the Hispanic and English learner groups–last year about 45 percent of English learners also identified as Hispanic. This overlap means that when looking at testing data, nearly half of the Hispanic subgroup’s test scores are heavily influenced by language proficiency. It’s also worth noting that 2025 was the first year some students could take math, science and civics MCAS in Spanish. At the end of the report is an extensive description of the district action plan to improve these metrics, as well as a section on roles and responsibilities.

If you read me frequently, you know that when standardized tests come up I will continue to emphasize that:

• Out-of-school factors have the biggest impact on MCAS, like language spoken at home, family income, and parent’s education.

• Research shows that children who are bilingual and biliterate outperform their monolingual peers on standardized tests, something that is true in Worcester, where former ELs in elementary school have the highest percentage meeting or exceeding expectations on the MCAS of any demographic group.

• One third of Worcester’s student body is a year younger than every other district in Massachusetts, so developmentally it is not an equal comparison.

And repeat after me: MCAS scores ≠ literacy rates!

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

A previous version of this Brief incorrectly called the amount the city is required by law to pay each year as net school spending. It is called the “required local contribution.”

Welcome to the February edition of WPS in Brief. This month covers key topics from two school committee meetings and three subcommittee meetings. I know February is the shortest month, but Jesus Murphy it has been looooooong. Please consider subscribing to support our work.

Subscribe now

Let’s get to it:

Preliminary Budget.

It’s budget season, which is the most important time to be paying attention to WPS governance. CFO Sara Consalvo gave a presentation at the February 5 school committee meeting, sharing the preliminary estimates for the FY27 budget (covers from July 2026-June 2027). Consalvo outlined that the general fund baseline budget will increase by $27.8 million, but the cost increase to maintain the same level of services is $27.9 million. That means the district is basically breaking even.

It can be hard to follow if you’re new to all this lingo (and even if you aren’t) so here’s a breakdown on how the school department budget works. Stay with me, because understanding the budget is one of the best ways to know what is happening in Worcester Public Schools.

Worcester gets over half of its funding from the state. These funds are called “Chapter 70” and make up a good chunk of what is called the “foundation budget,” or what the state sees as the minimum foundation of what is needed to adequately educate our students. The funding formula used by the state to decide how much aid a district gets is determined by:

1. Student enrollment on Oct. 1, 20251

2. An inflation factor

The state decides what the City of Worcester must contribute (called “ required local contribution”) based on local income/property tax wealth, which is about 29 percent of the foundation budget. The estimate for next year is the city will contribute $161 million to schools2, $4 million more than this year, and the state then makes up the difference.

The Student Opportunity Act (SOA), passed in 2019, updated Massachusetts’ school funding formula over a six-year phase-in to better reflect the real costs of educating low-income students, English learners, and students with disabilities, as well as rising health insurance expenses. Because of Worcester’s student population, the city has seen foundation budget increases during this phase-in. But this year marks the final year of those increases. Without that buffer, and with enrollment likely to continue declining due to lower birth rates and reduced immigration, Worcester may face more difficult budget years ahead.

Decreased enrollment and decrease in low income students and English learners.
This year WPS student enrollment decreased by 101 students (0.41%), and it’s the first year of enrollment decrease after an increase over the last three years. For context, the total public school enrollment in the state decreased by 15,442 students (about 1.7%). For Worcester, high school enrollment increased by 22 students, middle school enrollment increased by 45 students, and elementary school enrollment decreased by 171 students.

Even more impactful to the budget than the slight enrollment decrease, is the significant decrease in low-income students (-595) and in English learners (-243). Superintendent Brian Allen addressed this at the meeting, saying “We knew there was going to be a state-wide low income drop because Covid era benefits expired last year, but we didn’t know the extent.” The district does not know what criteria students are qualifying for to be considered low income (i.e. SNAP, MassHealth) so could not estimate the decrease. In terms of the decrease of English learners, Allen said it’s “a combination of newcomers not coming and also the testing of our students.” Based on ACCESS testing from last year the district knew that English learners were testing out, which Allen said “is a good thing, but means a corresponding revenue decrease.” All these enrollment changes equate to a decrease of $4 million.

Federal Funding. The foundation budget is the meat and potatoes of how WPS is funded, but WPS gets funding from other sources too, most notably the federal government which completely funds student nutrition, head start, and entitlement grants to the tune of about $53 million each year. That money currently supports about 600 jobs.

If you want to give input, see above for the times and places you can do that. The official public hearing on the budget takes place on May 28.

Culturally Responsive Pedagogy.

The February 26 meeting report of the superintendent covered “culturally responsive pedagogy” (CRP), a strength-based, student-centered approach to teaching that recognizes and leverages the knowledge students bring from their experiences. The initiative is directly connected to the district’s strategic plan and positioned as a research-grounded “lever of change” that affirms students’ identities, cultures, and lived experiences while advancing academic achievement, cultural awareness, and critical consciousness.

Underway at South High and Sullivan Middle, it is framed not as an add-on but as a core method for building a culture of belonging and upholding high standards of academic excellence. The work aligns the curriculum with teaching methods and focuses on building capacity through sustained educator learning, strengthened instructional coaching, and expanded leadership capacity at the school level. Next steps include continuing professional development, identifying three to five “non-negotiable” specific, observable actions and behaviors in a classroom, embedding culturally responsive practices into existing systems, prioritizing coaching cycles, and using walkthrough data to monitor implementation.

In comments after the presentation Maureen Binienda (at-large) claimed that culturally responsive practices were already underway at WPS during her tenure a decade ago, and that the walkthrough tool was also in place at that time. Dianna Biancheria, Sue Mailman and Vanessa Alvarez made comments in support of the CRP work.

Meeting Moment.

At both school committee meetings this month, as well as at the infamous TLSS standing committee meeting, members discussed Chromebook use, screen time, and student data privacy. In the above clip, the district responds to questions about whether biometric data is collected (yes — photos, videos, and voice recordings, though not for authentication purposes) and whether student data is used to train AI (yes — but only after it has been de-identified). The district will be having discussions within the technology advisory committee about an opt-out option for the collection of biometric data and then will bring a recommendation forward to the school committee. There was also some excellent public comment around these issues from elementary parents at the TLSS meeting, see clip below.

The district also shared updated screen time guidance. If you have an elementary student, it’s worth reviewing. The guidance provides clearer expectations around 1:1 device use, screen time, and instructional time than we’ve seen in recent years.

Improving Public Participation with Clear Meeting Start Times.

Sue Mailman (at-large) proposed a rule change that school committee meetings should begin no later than 15 minutes after the posted start time. Because executive session happens first, it’s often unclear when public comment will actually begin. When start times vary widely, meaningful public participation becomes extremely difficult, especially for families with school-aged children who are arranging childcare, work schedules, extra-curricular pick ups, and dinner. A few years ago, when I attended to speak on behalf of a school site council, the executive session ran an hour and twenty-two minutes past the posted start time. Needless to say, I wasn’t able to stay to speak.

The strong reaction to Mailman’s proposal was surprising to me, with members inferring that the implication was that they intentionally don’t respect the public’s time and taking personal offense, while also suggesting that meetings rarely run late due to executive session. I ran the numbers, and from 2022 to 2025, 44 meetings included executive sessions. Of those, 41 percent began 30 minutes or more later, and 11 percent began an hour or more later. Just 23 percent of the meetings started within ten minutes of listed start time. The average delay was 24 minutes.

Mailman’s item highlights that even with the best intentions of the committee, executive sessions are unpredictable because there are often important, complicated discussions. As Mailman noted, there are workable alternatives: recess executive session to begin the public meeting on time and then go back to it after the meeting, hold public comment first, or move executive session to the end. It’s all a question of what the committee’s priority is to make meetings accessible to the public.

But instead of exploring how executive session has unintended consequences for the ability of the public to participate, the committee voted against the item 7-2 (with Alvarez and Mailman for it), thus filing it without sending it to committee for broader discussion. It’s an interesting choice at a time when the district has invested significant resources through the Family and Community Engagement office to make district meetings more accessible, including providing food, childcare, and translation. Ensuring that school committee meetings begin at a predictable time feels like a modest, reasonable step to accommodate the public. (Anyone interested in filing a public petition?)

Indoor Track at Burncoat High School.

At the February 26 meeting the committee voted to grant District C Member Dianna Biancheria’s request for reconsideration of a vote taken at the February 5 meeting (7-2, with Mailman–who wrote the original item–and Alvarez voting no). The committee then took two separate votes: one on supporting state legislation to create a commission to study the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), and another on supporting plans for an indoor track to be built at the new Burncoat High School. The proposed state commission, filed by Senator Robyn Kennedy, would study the MSBA building process, a system that reporting by the New Bedford Light, along with analyses from the Worcester Regional Research Bureau and MassINC, has found disproportionately benefits suburban districts. One potential outcome of such a review could be changes to what projects are eligible for MSBA funding, including indoor tracks, which are currently prohibited.

That means if Worcester wants to build a regulation indoor track at Burncoat, the city would have to fund it entirely on its own. Based on a comparable project at Lexington High School last fall, the estimated cost of a MIAA-regulation indoor track is roughly $55 million. Members Biancheria, Binienda, and Roy voted against supporting the commission to study the MSBA, but did vote in support of building an indoor track. Look forward to hearing where they think that $55 million will come from.

Bits and Bobs.

• The quarter two finance report listed a deficit of (-$792,747) in the teacher salary line due to an unanticipated doubling of teacher degree changes, which increases their salaries.

• Superintendent Allen reported that due to 15 new electric buses, paid for by a grant, the district may be able to lower the walking cutoff to a mile and a half for the third tier (later start) middle schools for next school year. In terms of the high schools, the last time the district looked at it in December 2023, it was reported that to decrease the cutoff to 1 mile it would take 49 more buses. To decrease it to 1.5 would take 34 more buses. Each big bus costs around $150,000 and then obviously bus driver pay and bus maintenance costs.

  ---

Recommended Reads.

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 voted down installing sidewalks (that the city was willing to pay for) adjacent to an elementary school will infuriate you!

Chicopee 1st to install cameras on school bus stop signs to prevent violations. Just yesterday morning two cars drove through the stop sign of my kids’ elementary bus. It’s been over a year since the city council and school committee approved cameras on school bus stop signs, and still no update on when it will happen.

Also.

It has been a struggle to be a pedestrian in this city after all this snow, and I don’t know what the solution is, but I’m about to do a gofundme to buy some snow dragons and create a fleet of volunteers to clear the paths to school. Let me know if you want in!

Upcoming Dates.

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

• School Committee Meetings are March 5 and 19, 5:30pm at City Hall

• Budget and Transportation presentations to the Citywide Parent Planning Advisory Council, March 11, 6pm-7:30pm at Doherty High

• Operations & Governance (OG), March 9, 5pm at Durkin Administration Building

• Teaching, Learning and Student Success (TLSS), March 26, 5pm at Durkin Administration Building

See you next month!

Share

Subscribe now

Tips and merch orders are also great ways to do that!

Tip jar!

Merch!

Ok! Commercial break over. Now to the SC preview.

February 26 School Committee Meeting

The next school committee meeting is scheduled for February 26. Executive session starts at 5 p.m. and the general meeting is scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m, but it depends on how long the executive session lasts. See the full agenda here. You can watch it via zoom or Youtube Live. Spanish translation is available on zoom. A reminder that this is a quick preview and does not include everything on the agenda.

Reconsideration: Burncoat Indoor Track.
Member Dianna Biancheria (district C) filed for “reconsideration” on an item from the February 6 meeting from Sue Mailman (at-large) that said “To unanimously support legislation filed by Sen Robyn Kennedy S390 - to create a commission to study MSBA to look at the funding process and the award process. Support for such a commission is especially important as we work on plans for a new Burncoat High School and explore the possibility of an indoor track facility.” Reconsideration can be filed within 48 business hours of a vote and according to the school committee rules, a reason needs to be supplied by the requesting member. Here is Biancheria’s reasons (provided in the agenda backup):

Senator Kennedy’s legislation is asking for a commission to look at the MSBA (Massachusetts School Building Authority) building process, which as reported by the New Bedford Light (below) and in an excellent report by the Worcester Research Bureau and MassINC, shows that the MSBA’s core program disproportionately benefits suburban districts.

One of those things a new commission could change is allowing schools to build indoor tracks, which is currently prohibited. And for Worcester specifically, since the closing of the old South High indoor track in 2021, it means student athletes have had to go all the way to Northbridge to access one. (Highly recommend reading Jesse Collings’ Telegram article on this for more context).

Comments from Members Maureen Binienda (at-large), Alex Guardiola (district D) and Biancheria on this item at the February 6 meeting focused around supporting the idea of the commission, but with concerns around how the support of legislation may weaken the relationship with the MSBA and could impact Worcester’s negotiating position. The item passed 7-2 with Biancheria and Roy voting against. City council had a similar item (without the Burncoat track part) that was approved unanimously on February 3.

Under the current MSBA structure, in order for Burncoat High School to have an indoor track, Worcester would have to pay for it. Which, according to a similar project at Lexington High School this past fall put estimates for a MIAA regulation indoor track at around $55 million.

Reconsideration is voted on before public comment, so email is the best way to communicate to school committee members before the vote.

Report of the Superintendent.

This meeting’s report is on Instructional Framework - Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Enhanced.

School Committee Rule Change.
Sue Mailman (at-large) has an item to amend school committee rules so that the start of the public meeting is not delayed longer than 15 minutes of published start time. Because executive session happens before the public meeting, it can be especially challenging for people to know when to expect public comment to start. A few years ago, when I was there to speak on behalf of a school site council, the executive session went over an hour past the published start time.

Lowering distance for walkers.

Jermaine Johnson (district F) has a request to lower the walking cutoff from 2 miles to 1.5 miles. This applies to middle and high school students, as most elementary students are assigned a bus route if they live a mile or more from school. In January of 2025 the district received a grant for electric buses that allowed the district to add 15 more school bus routes, which the district said at the time could potentially allow the district to reduce the walk radius for middle schools from two miles to 1.5 miles and reduce the walk radius for high schools to less than two miles.

Blocking websites from students.

There is a response back from administration to an item from Kathi Roy (district E) about what firewalls and precautions are in place to prevent students from connecting to internet sites that are outside the educational uses of chromebooks/ipads.

Collecting student biometric data.
Two petitions I filed last July are back on the agenda after being voted down in standing committee. One calls for explicit parent/guardian consent before any third-party vendor can use student data to train artificial intelligence; the other requires explicit consent before collecting biometric data such as audio, photos, or video. Both stem from a specific incident in which the district allowed the venture-backed company Amira Learning to record and retain early elementary students’ voices to train its AI system without informing parents.

The petitions were heard at the February 3 Teaching, Learning and Student Success (TLSS) meeting, where ten parents spoke in support, all parents of primarily elementary-aged children. The majority of the committee voted to file the petitions and largely dismissed the concerns; I’ve never seen that many people speak on a single issue at a standing committee meeting.

The petitions now go before the full committee for a final vote on Thursday. I sent an email to committee members afterward, voicing my concerns, and asking them not to file the petitions. I’m also appreciative of the superintendent for hearing parent concerns and expressing at the February 5 school committee meeting the district’s willingness to work collaboratively toward a resolution.

Other Items.

• A request to get an update on proposed changes to Woodland/Claremont.

• A proposed revision to remove the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act opt out form from the Student Handbook.

• A request to get an update on girls flag football in WPS.

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

Imagine you have an eight-year-old and a five-year-old, and you need to bring them to a 5:00 p.m. school subcommittee meeting.

You pick them up, race through the McDonald’s drive-thru, and park outside the Durkin Administration Building so they can shove chicken nuggets into their mouths and wash them down with Hi-C. With five minutes to spare, you coax them out of the car. Since they’ve had indoor recess again for what feels like the thousandth time this winter, you decide to take the four flights of stairs instead of the elevator, hoping to burn off a little energy before asking them to sit still.

As you climb, you give the speech.

“Remember, this is an important adult meeting. The expectation is that you’ll be quiet and considerate. These are the people in charge of all the schools in Worcester. We need to show respect.”

The eight-year-old asks, “Will there be pizza?”

“No,” you say. “It’s not that kind of meeting.”

You try the spiel again. “Do you both understand what I’m saying?”

You’re answered with two deeply annoyed YES-es

The meeting room is small, about the size of a college seminar classroom. You all sit down in the seats available for the public, and your kids start drawing on the whiteboard on the wall. As you wait for the meeting to start, a school committee member asks other people in the room if they saw the email complaint about snowy sidewalks leading up to Goddard elementary school. The other people say no.

Oh that parent is a pleasure, the school committee member says.

The tone was sharply sarcastic.

You look around the room and think: Is no one going to say anything? Is it just normal for them to talk about parents this way?

The school committee member continues their dismissive diatribe with an I’ll tell you what, it’s not about the snow. It’s because her kid is at that program.

Your jaw drops. The casual disdain is stunning.

Did they really just say that about a parent? About a child? In public?

You sit there with your kids, who you just finished lecturing about respect, and wonder what, exactly, they’re learning right now.

You go home and tell your spouse what happened. They’re appalled too. You sit with it all weekend, replaying the moment and how inappropriate it felt. You weigh the pros and cons of saying something. You ask people you trust for advice. Finally, you decide to email the chair of the school committee and the chair of the subcommittee where it occurred.

You write:

You describe what you witnessed. You don’t speculate about intent. You don’t demand punishment. You simply say that speaking about a parent in what felt like a sarcastic and denigrating way, in public, crosses a line, and that parents need to trust that disagreement will be handled with respect.

The Mayor’s Chief of Staff responds to you two days later:

It’s an astonishing reply that centers reputation over accountability and closes ranks. From the office of a mayor who claims to listen, include, work across differences, and bring people together. (Just not people like you, apparently.)

Meanwhile, the aforementioned parent had sent the same email about the snow issue to city councilors. One of them placed an order on the city council agenda about ensuring streets and sidewalks around schools are thoroughly cleared after snowstorms, specifically citing Goddard School of Science and Technology.

Speaking on the item, City Councilor Gary Rosen says:

“I brought up Goddard School because I got a long and very good email from a parent who has a student at the school, I guess in a special program there, and remarkably she notices all that’s going on and she noticed how many students were walking in the street and how dangerous it is.”

How can two elected officials have such different responses to the same email?

Why is a parent’s complaint treated as petty, suspect, and self-interested by one, and as legitimate, civic-minded, and worthy of public discussion by another?

This wasn’t an isolated moment.

We’ve seen this pattern before, most recently at the February 3 teaching, learning, and student success standing committee meeting, where parent concerns about an AI company’s data harvesting practices were consistently reframed through inaccurate assumptions and familiar red herrings. Questions about process became questions about motive. Instead of engaging with what was actually being said, the response appeared to be shaped by what some members already believed parents were trying to do.

That’s confirmation bias, not governance. Those who ask questions are not seen as constituents, but as potential disruptions and variables to be managed. Concerns are filtered not through their merit, but through how inconvenient they are. Inventing narratives about the public to make their advocacy easier to disregard is not okay. When concerns are filtered this way, parents are sorted into “pleasant” and “problematic.” And when the dynamic shows up repeatedly, it stops feeling accidental.

To be clear, this is not true of every school committee member. In the past week alone, I’ve also seen genuine, good-faith efforts to engage on these topics by Vanessa Alvarez, Jermaine Johnson, and Sue Mailman. That looks like doing the research. Asking questions with real curiosity and listening to the answers. It looks like humility and acknowledging what you don’t know, and showing a willingness to step outside familiar bubbles to learn more. It’s about not letting political “loyalties” get in the way of doing the right thing. That’s how trust is built. Even when a vote doesn’t go the way we might hope it will, those good-faith efforts make a difference. They tell us that someone listened, did the work, and was transparent about how they arrived at their decision.

And the contrast between those good-faith efforts and shutting down constituents shows that the problem isn’t disagreement on policy, it’s how power is exercised.

As we climbed those four flights of stairs the other night, I had told my kids that these were the people in charge of all the schools in Worcester. That they deserved respect. What I didn’t have words for was how, sometimes, respect didn’t seem to flow both ways.

If we believe that the main purpose of public schools is to teach kids how to participate in a democracy (which I do), then district governance isn’t a side issue, it’s the curriculum. When constituents are treated as adversaries rather than partners, we’re teaching a very specific lesson about power: who gets to speak, who gets believed, and who gets talked about when they’re not in the room. This is why district governance matters more than we’re often willing to admit. Because kids are always watching, even when we think they’re just quietly drawing on the whiteboard in the back of the room.

So the question becomes, what is the lesson we intend to teach them?

Leave a comment

Share

Join the chat!

The next school committee meeting is scheduled for February 5 at 5 p.m. There is an executive session, which starts at 5, and then the general meeting is scheduled to start at 6 p.m., but it depends on how long the executive session takes. See the full agenda here. You can watch it via zoom or Youtube Live. Spanish translation is available on zoom.

Let’s dive in:

Preliminary Budget Estimates.
The report of the Superintendent is on the preliminary budget estimate. The good news is that we’re in better shape than a lot of other districts in Massachusetts, but the bad news is that the budget outlook for next year isn’t great. From the presentation slide deck it looks like the general budget will have an estimated increase of $27,804,976 and the estimated cost increases to maintain current operations is $27,900,000. So we’re looking at about a $100,000 deficit.

This is because enrollment is down 101 students from last school year, which means less money because the state funds education “per pupil.” Even more so than enrollment being down, the demographics of the student population have shifted, with 595 fewer low income students and 243 fewer multilingual learners. I do not know if that means Worcester is gentrifying, how students are classified as low income has changed, immigrants are leaving or being forced to leave, or more multilingual students are reaching proficiency. Regardless, this is a pretty big demographic shift.

Screen Time Policy.
In response to an item from Sue Mailman (at-large), the district is not recommending a screen time policy, but outlines some guidelines. If you have elementary students I highly recommend you read it. It offers more clarity around the 1:1 devices than I’ve seen in my 3.5 years of being a WPS parent, and it’s helpful to understand what is expected in terms of device use, screen time, and time on learning.

Other Items:

• An item supporting legislation changes to the Massachusetts School Building Administration (MSBA) program to allow schools to build indoor tracks in the hopes the district can build one at the new Burncoat.

• An item to request changing the school calendar for the 2026-2027 school year to give two weeks off for “Christmas break.” This would add three days on to the school year, which if tacked on to the end would push the last day of school to June 22, 2027. (If they do that, pray we don’t get any snow days.)

• A request for an enrollment report for the Hanover Program and Goddard Scholars program, including sending schools and demographics.

TLSS Subcommittee Meeting Rescheduled.
I have two petitions on the TLSS agenda around student data and privacy, which I wrote about in an op-ed in the Telegram last weekend (here’s a free link). Give it a read, and if you’re so moved, please email school committee members your thoughts or come speak at the meeting. Due to technical difficulties the meeting was rescheduled to Tuesday, February 2 at 5 p.m. at the Durkin Administration Building. Here’s the agenda.

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

Thank you to everyone who has read, shared, asked thoughtful questions, or engaged with this work along the way. Your trust over the last three years means more than I can say. And a special thank you to my husband, for the steady encouragement and countless small acts of support that allow me to do this work.

Subscribe now

And one last thing before we get into this month’s brief–an op-ed I wrote was published in the Telegram this weekend (here’s a free link), and it’s about two petitions I filed with the school committee on student data and privacy. Give it a read, and if you’re so moved, please email school committee members your thoughts. My petitions are on the agenda for the Teaching, Learning and Student Support meeting this Thursday, January 29 at 5 p.m.

Ok let’s dive into what happened this month, which covers key topics from three school committee meetings.

School Buildings.

The January 22 report of the superintendent focused on facilities and how the district is planning and prioritizing the gargantuan task of getting our school buildings in better shape and maintaining them. A long term plan to improve facilities is one of the strategic plan goals, as many WPS buildings are in desperate need of work, mostly due to deferred maintenance for many, many, years. Chief Financial Officer Sara Consalvo stressed the fundamental shift in the district from being reactive to proactive when it comes to the district’s 57 buildings, 4.6 million square feet of interior space and 1,700 classrooms. Fundamentally, the main catalyst of this shift is increased funding due to the Student Opportunity Act. I cannot stress this enough. The reason that Worcester is able to spend more money on our buildings versus six years ago is because the state of Massachusetts changed to a more equity based funding model (which is still imperfect, but has been incredibly impactful for districts like Worcester).

The presentation was an overview of safety priorities, an overview of the five year capital plan, an update on the new Burncoat High/Middle School, and an update on the facilities master plan process, which is a joint effort with the city. According to Consalvo, the district is taking a high-level, strategic approach. “By coordinating our master plan with public facilities, city investments, MSBA partnerships and our school boundary realignment goal we will ensure every building will be utilized at capacity for students and staff” she said. Here are some highlights from the presentation:

• Burncoat High (and potentially Burncoat Middle) has entered the feasibility phase of the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) process, and that phase is expected to last through 2028. The MSBA will then decide whether the middle school can also be replaced since they share mechanical systems (typically the MSBA will not fund two buildings within one district at a time). The projected opening is 2031–32, when current first graders are in 7th grade. Here is the most updated list of the 39-person school building committee appointed by Mayor Petty.

• The district completed $1.1 million in classroom door lock and hardware upgrades, establishing a new standard lock type districtwide. Intercom replacement is next, with the goal of standardization.

• The district believes that schools should be a hub for the community, and are working to support partnerships to expand opportunities. For example, they are collaborating with YMCA and the Guild of St. Agnes to expand out of school care using a hub model.

• The response to repair requests has increased significantly, with 100% response or completion time within 72 hours. The district says this is due to both an increase in funds and improved systems.

  ---

Superintendent’s Mid-Year Review.

The superintendent’s January 8 report provided a midyear progress update on his yearly goals. Evaluating the superintendent is, arguably, one of the school committee’s most important responsibilities. Last year, committee members Dianna Biancheria (district C), Maureen Binienda (at-large), and Kathi Roy (district E) voted against accepting then-Superintendent Monárrez’s midyear goals report without offering amendments. This year, those same members voted to accept Allen’s report, despite the goals and progress being largely similar. That contrast is hard to ignore. Let’s look more closely at Allen’s goals:

Student Achievement Goals
According to Star assessments1 for grades 2 through 9, reading and math both increased by three percentage points at midyear. Reading remains at its highest midyear level to date, though the district will need an additional four-point gain by the end of the year to meet its target. Math performance is also at its highest level since tracking began.

While results typically peak at midyear and dip slightly by year’s end (with no clear explanation why), this year’s gains are notable: math scores are 15 percent higher than when the district began using Star assessments, and the six-point increase from beginning to middle of year is the largest observed so far.

Professional Practice Goals
The district continues to strengthen professional learning communities (PLCs) and implement them with greater fidelity. A new data system now captures feedback after meetings, and the use of PLC structures has steadily increased. Participation by multilingual and special education staff has improved, though it remains an area for growth. Allen emphasized that research consistently shows PLCs are among the most effective strategies for improving student achievement.

District Goals

• Communication strategy: Efforts are underway to streamline internal communication, reduce one-off emails, and prevent conflicting messages to staff.

• Grow Our Own: The program to recruit WPS students to become WPS teachers has reached capacity with a group of 32 students enrolled, drawn from six high schools across the city.

• School boundary and quadrant alignment: In his report, Allen cited overcrowding at Belmont, Rice Square, and Chandler Elementary, as well as capacity concerns at Sullivan Middle, Forest Grove, and South High. He also highlighted confusing quadrant feeder patterns (for example, Chandler Elementary students feed into three different middle schools or McGrath students go to Burncoat Middle, despite being on the same campus as Forest Grove). Next steps include scheduling community forums to gather feedback and then developing recommendations for implementation in the 2027-2028 school year.

Which leads us to:

Meeting Moment.

In this meeting moment Superintendent Allen responds to a question from Alex Guardiola (district D) about how the school boundary assignment realignment may impact high school students who may be assigned to a different school than they currently attend, especially if they’re on a sports team or in a club. Allen reiterates that the realignment will mostly impact the elementary schools and he is going to highly recommend that students get “grandfathered in” to their current schools. He also says that could mean it might take 6 to 7 years to alleviate the overcrowded schools. That would take us to the 2033-2034 school year, when fourth graders are entering their senior year of high school. I get that we don’t want to make kids transition too many times, but as a parent whose child was forced to transition to a new school building in first grade, I think it’s manageable for elementary-aged kids, especially if it means expediting equity across the district in classroom sizes. This also isn’t just a redistricting issue. When students move within Worcester, they are required to change schools unless a parent can provide transportation. For those who do not have housing stability, the concern about students’ education being interrupted by moving to another school boundary assignment is a common occurrence in the district already.2

Budget Update.

Every year the school committee votes on the district budget in June, often before the final state budget is known, which can lead to midyear adjustments. This year, charter school and school choice tuition costs came in higher than projected, creating a $2 million gap. To cover it, the city manager allocated free cash, directing $3.8 million to the school department’s general fund for the remainder of the year. This fully closes the gap without cuts and leaves an additional $1.7 million to allocate. The district proposed using the funds for items including a new secondary ESL curriculum, high school graduation costs, classroom furniture, and several staffing additions. For details see my January 8 agenda preview. The school committee voted unanimously to approve the allocations.

New Committees Assignment and New Vice Chair.

Committee assignments were released shortly after I sent my January 8 agenda preview, where I noted that, if based on experience, subcommittee chairs would likely be Jermaine Johnson, Maureen Binienda, and Sue Mailman (vice chairs typically do not also chair subcommittees, which is why I did not include Molly McCullough). I also warned that if Mayor Petty prioritized political allegiance over experience, Binienda and Mailman would be passed over.

The reality was worse than I expected. Mayor Petty demoted Vanessa Alvarez from vice chair of TLSS, awarded Dianna Biancheria two committee assignments (everyone else received one) and named Biancheria chair of the new Finance Committee. Biancheria’s record raises serious questions about the rationale for that decision: she is frequently late to meetings (including arriving more than 30 minutes late on January 2), has disparaged climate and culture specialists as “glorified bouncers,” delivered an objectively unreasonable evaluation of former Superintendent Rachel Monárrez, and told Brian Allen he “better not screw this up” before voting to appoint him superintendent. These are not leadership behaviors to be rewarded.

At the January 2 meeting, Molly McCullough (district A) was elected vice chair in a 7-2 vote (Vanessa Alvarez and Sue Mailman voted for Mailman, and coincidentally are the only two school committee members who are not chairs or vice chairs of a subcommittee).3 McCullough is the granddaughter of a Worcester mayor and has worked on Joe Petty’s Mayoral campaigns for many years. She is the second longest serving school committee member, after Dianna Biancheria. This is McCullough’s second time being vice chair (she was vice chair in 2019, although the vice chair position back then was not the same as it is now.) The main job of the vice chair is working with the clerk and the superintendent to assemble the school committee agenda and to make sure the committee meets with the Student Advisory Council.

Roosevelt Parking Ban.

At public comment at the January 22 meeting, two grandparents who pickup their grandchildren every day came to speak against the Roosevelt Parking ban approved by the city council. In response to questions asked by Jermaine Johnson (district F) and Sue Mailman (at-large), Superintendent Allen emphasized that the district knew from the outset that the new parking lot would alleviate some of the issue, but not address the whole issue.4 One positive is that the parking lot work separated school buses from car traffic, which was an issue because once the bus lights were deployed cars couldn’t pass them. Now the challenge is how to utilize space on school grounds to get cars off the street. There are, on average, about 170 cars that pick up students every day, about the length of 7 soccer fields. Allen said he believes everyone is working quite hard to find a solution and help keep kids safe. He also mentioned that in the past, the district offered transportation to families even if they wouldn’t typically be eligible. Allen said, “For example there are a number of students at Roosevelt who are there due to voluntary transfer to help alleviate Rice Square overcrowding a couple of years ago. We’ve offered them transportation before, we could certainly try to do it again.” There was also a suggestion to have more police officers at school drop-off and pickup to help direct traffic, but that would come at a cost since the district would be charged by the city.

Recommended Reads.

• Check out my op-ed in the Telegram about petitions I submitted with school committee around student privacy, biometric data, and AI.

• Teachers are mad at Nelson Place.

• It’s been a year since the legislature passed a law allowing cameras to catch people passing buses and ticketing them. It’s been a slow rollout across the state, but Brockton is doing it: Drivers caught on camera passing Brockton school buses face police fines.

• Google’s work in schools aims to create a ‘pipeline of future users,’ internal documents say

• Poll shows most Mass. K-12 students have used AI for schoolwork

  ---

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

• Teaching, Learning and Student Support is January 29, 5 p.m.

• School Committee meetings are February 5 and 26, 5:30 p.m.

• Operations and Governance is February 9, 5 p.m.

  ---

Also.
It is Kindergarten enrollment time! If your kid was born in 2021 it’s time to enroll them in kindergarten. I strongly encourage you to check out the Spanish/English dual language program. As a dual language parent and a dual language graduate, I can say from personal experience that it is an incredible way to be educated. And you don’t have to take my word for it, because 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. If you want your kid to achieve at the highest levels, be bilingual and biliterate, and have cultural competency, apply for the dual language program lottery.

That’s it for this month. Enjoy the snow, send your girl a tip, and see you in February!

Subscribe now