The most contentious topic was the proposed AB schedule for high school students, which has sparked significant concern among educators, parents, and community members. The shift would mean students taking eight courses simultaneously, a considerable departure from the current structure. Concerns were voiced about the impact on students’ ability to manage workloads effectively, with one chemistry teacher cautioning that the new schedule could reduce the number of class meetings by approximately 20 before Advanced Placement (AP) exams, potentially compromising the quality of education. The teacher further highlighted logistical challenges, particularly for science and art departments, which face space and resource limitations under the proposed structure. The teacher’s comments underscored the need for transparency regarding the costs and resources required to implement the AB schedule.

Another speaker, a math teacher, addressed the potential equity issues linked to de-leveling the eighth-grade math curriculum and the absence of an honors track. The teacher argued that without a formal honors math track, only students from affluent backgrounds could afford private tutoring, effectively privatizing honors education. The math teacher stressed the importance of maintaining current levels to prevent stigmatization and ensure that all students feel competent in their classes.

A former school committee member and current educator also weighed in, emphasizing that the proposed schedule contradicts previous feedback from parents, students, and teachers. The speaker called for a more examination of the schedule’s implications on students, teachers, and the school’s budget, advocating for a public forum to discuss the pros and cons transparently.

Additionally, the meeting addressed budgetary challenges for the fiscal year 2026. The superintendent presented a proposed budget of $44,784,400, reflecting a 4.21% increase, which aims to maintain current staffing and services. The committee noted the pressures of rising transportation and tuition costs, which have complicated budget projections. A projected shortfall of $414,500 was identified, potentially leading to staffing reductions.

The conversation highlighted several priority needs under the budget, including cybersecurity improvements, additional personnel, enhanced nurse staffing ratios, and multilingual education resources. These priority items were estimated to cost an additional $446,000, which would increase the budget projection to 5.25%. The importance of these initiatives was emphasized, particularly in light of the increasing demands placed on the district by new students.

Amid budget discussions, the committee also reviewed policies related to student immunization and took steps to update the district’s policy manual by rescinding obsolete policies. The revision to policy JCB, mandating immunization certificates, was approved without objection.

In the realm of curriculum, discussions on de-leveling middle school math courses revealed a divide between maintaining established levels and pursuing an inclusive approach. The decision emerged from an equity audit that highlighted concerns with the current structure. However, apprehensions were expressed regarding students’ preparedness for higher-level courses if they lacked adequate exposure to foundational content, such as algebra in eighth grade. The potential reintroduction of math levels was debated, recognizing the need to balance equity with rigorous academic standards.

The committee also engaged in discussions on professional development scheduling and the introduction of Algebra 1 into the middle school curriculum. Concerns were raised about the logistics of scheduling and the implications of altering the current system, with a cautionary approach recommended to ensure all students’ needs were effectively met.

As the meeting concluded, attention turned to infrastructure needs, particularly the condition of school building roofs. The committee voted to authorize the submission of Statements of Interest (SOI) for Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) funding to address roof deficiencies at multiple schools. Though securing funding is not guaranteed, this step was deemed necessary to seek support for critical repairs.