Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Medford School Committee reviews educational plan for new Medford High School as MSBA deadline nears
Loading...
Summary
District leaders presented the MSBA-required educational plan outlining enrollment, six visioning goals, expanded CTE, co-location of early-childhood services and preliminary timelines. The committee was asked to submit comments by Thursday to permit a Feb. 2 vote and June MSBA final submission.
Interim Superintendent Dr. Galusi and Dr. Kim Talbot, assistant superintendent for academics and instruction, presented the Medford High School educational plan to the School Committee on Jan. 26, describing it as the document that will align the building’s design with the district’s instructional vision. “If I were to put it simply, I would say it's our North Star,” Dr. Galusi said, introducing the plan’s purpose.
District staff outlined key milestones in the MSBA process: a Statement of Interest in April 2023, MSBA approval in December 2023, the formation of a 25‑member school‑building committee in April 2024, and the current Preliminary Design Program (PDP) work that will inform a final June submission to MSBA after local review and edits.
Dr. Talbot said the educational plan grew from extensive stakeholder engagement — 48 hours of visioning, 60 department and program meetings, student shadow days, and multiple building tours — and distilled six goals emphasizing belonging, purposeful learning, flexible spaces, expanded CTE programming, student voice and long-term sustainability. The plan envisions an enrollment target for grades 9–12 around 1,395 students and centralizes an early‑childhood center (incorporating MEEP, municipal day care and the Medford Family Network) on the high‑school campus.
Presenters described immediate programmatic items the district can implement before the new building is built (instructional shifts, targeted professional development and some CTE expansions) and those that will require the new facility (co‑location and certain space adjacencies). The design team (SMMA) and owner's project manager (Left Field) were introduced and acknowledged for their roles in visioning and plan development.
Committee members asked procedural and substantive questions: how to prioritize reading the 60‑page plan, what edits to submit, whether policy changes are needed before building occupancy, and how the district will phase program expansions. Dr. Talbot suggested committee members “start with the section you’re passionate about” (counseling, arts, CTE, etc.) and requested comments by Thursday to allow staff to prepare a vote at the Feb. 2 meeting. The final educational plan will be posted on the project website under Phase 3.
No committee vote was taken on the content of the educational plan at the Jan. 26 meeting; district staff asked for written feedback to meet the Feb. 2 deadline for initial submission to the building committee and MSBA.
