One notable matter at the meeting was the proposal to change school start times across the district, primarily to align the schedules of different educational levels—elementary, middle, and high schools. Dr. O’Neal presented “option two,” a plan that aims to synchronize the start times of the high school and middle school with the Joseph C. Shaughnessy School (JCS) schedule. The proposal involves combining bus routes for elementary students to create a consistent and collaborative educational environment. A key benefit of this approach would be the potential for advanced classes for middle school students and improved after-school scheduling.

However, the proposal is not without its challenges. Concerns were raised about the financial implications, with Dr. O’Neal noting the need for additional funding to implement the changes, estimating approximately $60,000 per bus. The committee discussed the possibility of a staggered rollout over two years to ease the financial burden. Parental concerns about mixing younger and older students on buses and the overall feasibility of the new schedule were also highlighted.

Feedback from the community and staff was considered crucial, with plans to visit school parent boards and conduct a community forum on April 28. The need for careful communication and phased implementation was emphasized to avoid repeating past mistakes related to schedule changes. The committee acknowledged the necessity of maintaining momentum and establishing a timeline to prevent future delays, with further updates expected at the next meeting on April 16.

Another focal point of the meeting was the district’s school choice policy, which sparked debate among committee members. The current school choice program allows students from outside the district to enroll in Norton schools, a practice that has both financial benefits and challenges. The committee reviewed projections for class sizes and discussed the implications of admitting additional school choice students in various grades.

Concerns were raised about the financial impact of maintaining the school choice program, particularly given the state’s funding rate of $5,000 per student, which some members deemed inadequate. The potential for financial losses if the program were frozen was discussed, with estimates suggesting a loss of nearly a million dollars over the next few years. The committee acknowledged the importance of school choice for maintaining financial stability but also recognized the strain it places on resources and class sizes.

Legal and contractual considerations played a role in the discussion, particularly the requirement for a public hearing if the district were to discontinue school choice. The committee weighed the potential consequences of such a decision, including the inability to accept staff students under similar arrangements. Members expressed a desire for more clarity on the financial and logistical implications of the program before making any definitive decisions.

The debate over school choice also touched on the correlation between declining test scores and the presence of school choice students, although it was noted that there is no clear evidence linking the two. The committee considered the long-term sustainability of relying on school choice funds, especially in light of projected declines in enrollment and the financial challenges facing the district.

In light of these discussions, the committee agreed that further information and consideration are necessary before making any decisions regarding school choice slots. A motion to freeze the program was introduced but ultimately tabled to allow for additional data gathering and analysis. The committee expressed a commitment to revisiting the topic with a more comprehensive understanding of the implications involved.

Other topics at the meeting included discussions on the 2025-2026 school calendar, with a focus on scheduling professional development days and their impact on families and educators. The committee explored options for balancing instructional time with the need for teacher training, considering the possibility of adjusting the calendar to incorporate full PD days. The superintendent’s evaluation process and the school choice enrollment numbers were also reviewed, with an emphasis on flexibility in accommodating new students without straining resources.