Andover School Committee reviews final redistricting scenario; posts map for public comment

At a March 12 workshop the Andover School Committee reviewed an additional redistricting scenario prepared by consultants Dillinger Rad and agreed to post the new interactive map for public comment through March 19 ahead of a final presentation and vote at the committee’s March 20 meeting.

The scenario discussed (referred to in committee materials as elementary scenario 6 and middle school scenario 4, or “E6 M4”) would change only the West/High Plain elementary boundary and modify middle school lines so that Sanborn and High Plain would attend Wood Hill Middle School, Bancroft and about 70% of South would go to Doherty Middle School, and the Ballard Vale portion of South would remain elementary at South but send students to West Middle. Consultants presented utilization estimates for the plan — Wood Hill about 60%, Doherty about 80%, and West about 76–77% — and said the map was designed to balance building use while minimizing changes at the elementary level.

Why this matters: The committee said the plan attempts to balance three recurring priorities the community raised in the process — walkability, building utilization and keeping elementary cohorts together as they move to middle school — while acknowledging it cannot fully satisfy all three. Committee members emphasized the impact on students’ daily travel, social ties and the district’s ability to offer consistent programs across facilities.

Consultants’ presentation and community input Nick Stellitano and Katie Tartaglia of Dillinger Rad sketched the additional scenario and said it reflected six months of iterative design, dozens of public meetings and hundreds of inputs. “Some of the main considerations that we incorporated were considering the social and emotional needs of the middle school students,” Stellitano said, listing safe walking routes, capacity utilization and implementation logistics as primary concerns for the new option.

Stellitano told the committee the process has produced roughly 10 distinct map options so far (seven elementary options and three middle school options), gathered about 655 interactive-map submissions across multiple iterations, and collected 90 responses to a separate implementation survey opened on March 8. The survey respondents ranked “legacy enrollment” by grade (allowing students near the end of their time in a school to remain there) as the most preferred implementation strategy; consultants said fifth grade was the single highest-ranked grade for legacy protection and that a two-grade or two-year phased approach (for example fifth and eighth) was the next-most-supported option.

Terminology and implementation The consultants and district staff said they will stop using the term “grandfathering” because of its historical connotations and will use “legacy enrollment” to describe phased-in protections that allow some students to remain in their current school for a year or two during implementation. “For that, we do apologize for using that word. And we do thank the community very much for bringing this to our attention,” Stellitano said.

Committee members pressed for clarity on implementation timing and costs. Consultants and district staff described a two-year phased implementation model as a likely option: for example, letting older fifth- and eighth-graders remain for a year while younger cohorts transition the next year. The consultants said a two-year phase is “probably doable” and that they are running transportation and cost estimates; they expect to report preliminary budget impacts and feasibility to the committee at the March 20 meeting.

Walkability and safety concerns Multiple committee members and consultants said preserving walking access for middle school students was a strong and repeated theme in public feedback. Sandis, a school committee member, said, “I think it's important for us to make a decision on what this is gonna look like, especially for families in the fall. If they're gonna have to make a decision around kind of early opt in, we have to let families know as sooner rather than later.”

Consultants flagged specific downtown and neighborhood areas with traffic or route-safety concerns, and district and town staff agreed to coordinate. Keith (town staff) told the committee the town's planning and DPW teams have been consulted and that smaller safety fixes (signage, trimming trees) and larger projects are organized through standard town capital and grant processes.

Ballard Vale / South neighborhood feedback Committee members repeatedly asked the Ballard Vale (also referred to in the meeting as Ballardville) community to provide direct feedback on the new scenario. A recurring point in the discussion was that the Ballard Vale section has been sent to West Middle under recent patterns, and some local families prefer to remain at West while others want their elementary school cohort to remain intact when moving to middle school; the consultants’ E6 M4 option keeps Ballard Vale elementary students at South but largely follows the current middle-school assignment for that area.

Special programs, projections and constraints Katie Tartaglia confirmed the scenario models shown for the meeting included special-education numbers in utilization calculations. The consultants also said they reviewed demographic projections; they described Sanborn as a school with tighter projections but said the E6 M4 plan remains within projected capacity thresholds under current forecasts.

Next steps and public comment The committee directed staff and the consultants to post the additional scenario to the interactive map and accept public comment through March 19. Consultants and district staff will continue meetings with the Redistricting Advisory Committee and the transportation team, refine cost estimates for a two-year phased implementation (including any incremental bus costs), and return to the School Committee with a final presentation and a vote at the March 20 meeting.

Votes at a glance - Motion to adjourn: passed by roll call, 5–0.

Ending note: The committee did not adopt a final redistricting plan at the March 12 workshop; members emphasized that the posted map is one additional scenario to inform public feedback ahead of the March 20 presentation and vote.