Nashoba leaders review school improvement work and propose yearlong high school schedule pilot

Nashoba Regional School District leaders on May 28 reviewed K–12 school improvement work and outlined plans for a longer pilot of a revised high‑school schedule intended to create in‑day time for targeted student support and teacher collaboration.

The high school presented a multi‑year effort to refine curriculum, increase student engagement and expand multi‑tiered supports (MTSS), and said the next structural step is testing schedule changes that would add a FlexBlock for targeted help and collaborative professional learning. “We implemented a short pilot schedule in the fall of ’24,” High School Principal Dr. Boynton told the committee, and the administration is proposing a full school‑year pilot of a drop‑one (one fewer daily class) rotation with FlexBlock in 2026–27 to allow time for professional development and design work.

School leaders said they first convened a 22‑member schedule working group in 2023, ran a planned three‑week pilot in October 2024, and reviewed staff and student feedback before recommending a longer test. Assistant Principal Janine Boulay summarized the timeline: after research, site visits and planning in 2023–24, the three‑week pilot occurred in October; staff and student feedback were then gathered and used to refine the model.

Why it matters: district officials say the schedule change is intended to increase equitable access to instruction, create time for targeted interventions during the school day, and provide regular time for staff collaboration and PLCs (professional learning communities). The administration tied the work to the district strategic plan and to school‑level improvement goals such as deeper, experiential learning and MTSS implementation.

What was tested and what staff and students said The pilot modified the rotation so one class day was “dropped” each rotation day and added FlexBlocks students could sign up for through a scheduling platform. The pilot also consolidated lunches from four down to three and moved most classes to roughly 50 minutes.

Student response: presenters reported more than 500 student responses overall and said 383 students responded to a specific pilot survey element: “75 percent of the students who responded favorably” to the pilot schedule, Boulay said, while noting “25 percent wanted to keep the current bell schedule.” Staff response: feedback from multiple staff surveys was essentially split — about half of teachers favored the drop model and half opposed it. As staff member and teacher‑representatives explained, many teachers who favored daily contact worry that dropping a class reduces instructional days and can make consistency harder for students; those favoring the change cited the need for structured in‑day help and collaboration time.

Staff concerns centered on FlexBlock design and the amount of time needed to implement it well. Social studies teacher Jennifer Dondramont, a working‑group member, said a three‑week pilot was too short for many teachers to “really understand and buy into the Flex model” and that clear, enforceable parameters for FlexBlock are necessary for it to succeed.

Administration’s next steps and timeline Leaders proposed these next steps: - A year‑long pilot of a drop‑one schedule with FlexBlock in 2026–27, preceded by summer and in‑service professional development and clearer FlexBlock parameters and sign‑up processes; - Expansion of PLC training for department heads and a phased rollout so department leaders can bring PLC practice to teachers; and - Continued MTSS training and use of data protocols to identify students for in‑day supports.

Principal Boynton said the pilot year will be used to refine the model and recommended waiting until 2026–27 to allow time for teacher training and for department heads to be prepared to implement PLCs. “We need more time than three weeks to flush it out,” one working‑group presenter said.

Points of committee concern School committee members asked about equity and access — particularly how students who rely on school transportation or who cannot stay after school will access help if the bulk of help remains outside class time. Members also raised workload concerns for students and teachers, noting that reduced frequency of class meetings (the “drop” model) must be balanced with high‑quality instruction and fair workload expectations.

Several committee members recommended FlexBlock begin with more frequent, structured offerings (rather than a single weekly session) so students with multiple teachers can sign up and receive help in a single week. Administration acknowledged those concerns and said one of the options under consideration is starting with one FlexBlock per week for the first year while clarifying the model and supports, then iterating.

What the committee decided There was no formal vote on schedule changes at the meeting. Presenters asked for feedback and time to finalize parameters; the committee provided preliminary support for a deliberate, well‑supported pilot but emphasized the need for (1) clearer FlexBlock rules, (2) substantial professional development for department heads and teachers, (3) monitoring for equity of access, and (4) explicit plans for special‑education and students needing transportation. Superintendent Kirk Downing and the high‑school team will bring detailed plans and evidence to the committee before any final vote.

Ending note District leaders asked committee members to allow the administration time to prepare a full‑year pilot proposal and to consider district‑level supports such as MTSS training and PLC development. As principal Boynton summarized, the work will continue through staffing development, data review and a staged pilot to test whether schedule changes yield broader academic benefits and more equitable in‑day support.