Acton-Boxborough committee hears hours of public comment on school reorganization and enrollment

Administrators and hundreds of community members spent the school committee’s Jan. 8 meeting debating two remaining AB Forward reorganization options and whether the district should keep open enrollment or move to geographic assignment.

Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and Learning Gabby Abrams and Special Education Director Natalia Carrol presented a high-level analysis of Option 4 — which preserves much of the current K–6 structure — and Option 5 version 2, which consolidates elementary grades into larger grade-band schools and groups specialized programs into hubs. Carrol emphasized that individualized education programs will not change in content: “I want to ensure everyone that the IEPs will be provided as they are written,” she said, and reiterated that placements are determined by the student’s IEP team and protected by law.

The presentations framed the tradeoffs the committee must weigh: Option 4 limits short-term disruption and keeps more children in familiar buildings, while Option 5 v2 aims to create larger cohorts that district leaders say make it easier to target interventions, provide specialized staff, and sustain programming over time. Abrams told the committee that with more sections at a grade level “you have an opportunity to pull from more classrooms and therefore create more pure targeted interventions.”

Public comment stretched for more than two hours. Parents, teachers and specialists produced sharply divided testimony. Speakers from Conant and teachers who work with the school’s Connections program urged the committee not to displace vulnerable students, arguing that moving only Conant children into other established schools would remove social networks and specialized staff. “There is no Conant without Connections,” said third-grade teacher Taylor Luke, calling excising the Connections program “insulting” and potentially harmful for students who rely on long-term consistency.

Other parents and district residents urged a systemic reset. Supporters of Option 5 v2 with geographic enrollment argued that open enrollment has produced inequities and that a geographic model would distribute disruption and staffing needs across the district rather than targeting a single community. “When all students start together on equal footing, real community forms,” said a parent who identified herself as Akshat.

Committee members debated the core values reflected in the choice. Several members said they favored Option 5 v2 for its flexibility and longer-term sustainability, noting the district’s climbing student needs and limited staffing. Others warned that Option 5 v2 would disrupt more than 2,000 students, risk losing school-specific cultures and would be rushed if implemented in a matter of months. Several members and staff described a staged implementation or constrained-transfer option — geography-based attendance zones plus a controlled request process for families — as a compromise.

The committee did not vote on a reorganization option at the meeting; the chair said the group will deliberate further and that voting on a reorganization option and any related enrollment policy will be on the next meeting agenda. The public comment form will remain open for written comments, the chair said, and the committee signaled its intent to continue refinement of enrollment mechanics, transportation implications and transition supports.

Funding, staffing and program placement were recurring concerns: speakers pressed the committee to publish clearer cost estimates and implementation timelines, and teachers urged additional professional time and transition supports if the district moves forward. Several parents recommended grandfathering current students or staging geographic assignment to preserve cohorts. The administrative team proposed measures to soften transitions including targeted classroom-cohort planning, additional professional development at the start of the school year and intentionally assigning familiar staff across new school sites where feasible.

The committee scheduled continued deliberation at its next meeting and asked administrators to provide more specifics on zoning models, transportation effects, staff placement and costs before a final vote.