Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Closure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Andover School Committee votes to close old Kittredge School to meet MSBA wording requirement
Summary
The North Andover School Committee voted unanimously on March 31 to close the existing Kittredge School in a procedural action requested by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).
Get email alerts on the School Closure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The North Andover School Committee voted unanimously on March 31 to close the existing Kittredge School in a procedural action requested by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).
The vote, described by members as a technical wording change to meet MSBA requirements, passed by voice vote after a motion to close Kittredge was moved and seconded. School Committee members Hicks, Mostovich, Brown and Cormier each voted “yes,” and the chair indicated a “yes” vote; the committee announced the motion passed unanimously.
Committee members emphasized the vote does not alter earlier decisions about the project. As one member explained during the meeting, “Just so that people watching is clear, this is not changing any decision we made. It's just changing the wording to meet the technical requirements.” Members also clarified that the action closes the old Kittredge building in order to advance plans to build a new Kittredge school, describing the current action as a pause or closure of the old facility rather than a permanent policy change.
The committee set its next full meeting for Thursday, April 3, at 7 p.m. at the North Andover Senior Center and indicated an executive session will occur at that meeting; the transcript did not specify the executive session’s subject.
The MSBA had requested a specific, stand-alone vote on the Kittredge closure because the committee’s prior vote on the project had been combined with other schematic items, and the agency requires a discrete recorded action. Committee members said they did not intend the procedural vote to reopen debate on the project or change prior schematic decisions.
What the committee did not specify in the meeting: the vote did not include new funding details, a revised project schedule, or any conditions tied to permitting or contractor selection. Those topics were not discussed in the recorded segment and remain not specified in the transcript.

