Innovation school subcommittee reviews timeline, teacher vote rules for eight schools

The Innovation School Subcommittee met at 5:25 p.m. and heard a briefing on the timeline and procedures for converting eight schools to innovation status, officials said. Michael Cavani, who the transcript identifies as leading the initiative, outlined the steps that must occur at the school and district levels.

Why it matters: the innovation status would grant participating schools specified autonomies from existing district rules under the district's prospectus and requires multiple local approvals before the school committee makes a final decision.

Cavani told the subcommittee that a screening committee approved the prospectus on Jan. 22 and that the next step is school‑level innovation planning committees, each composed of up to 11 members with six roles required by the innovation statute: the applicant, two teachers, a parent, another principal and a school‑committee member. "The prospectus is the framework that really gives the rules of how we run a zone," Cavani said.

He said the planning committee drafts the school‑level plan — describing mission, curriculum, staffing, assessment and budgeting — and that teacher leadership teams across the district have begun readiness work so schools do not start from scratch. If a planning committee advances a draft, it goes to a teacher vote limited to Unit A members; Cavani said, "Two thirds approval has to be done." The transcript records additional voting rules such as ineligibility for retiring teachers and options for absentee voting.

Cavani set a suggested district target of completing approvals by April 9 but said the committees' schedules will determine the actual timeline; he warned the subcommittee was "concerned" about a July 1 date mentioned in the briefing as a deadline tied to program timing. He also said that an approved innovation designation would be valid for five years and that a public hearing is required before the full school committee votes.

On public input, Cavani emphasized a technical requirement: "It's gotta be 8 separate public speak outs," meaning each of the eight schools must have its own public comment opportunity rather than a single combined hearing.

A member of the subcommittee suggested that the district present the distinctions in autonomy between zone schools and district schools at a full school committee meeting so the public can better understand the changes; Cavani said proposed plans will be posted on the 'Together to Transition' website and likely on the schools' websites before public comment.

Cavani also asked the subcommittee for support attending a rescheduled planning meeting for a listed entity transcribed as "Chestnut Tag" on Feb. 12 around 3 p.m.; he said the meeting could be in person with participants joining by Zoom. Members and administrators reiterated support for the work and confirmed multiple school meetings were scheduled in the coming week to finalize draft plans.

No formal innovation plan was approved at this subcommittee meeting. The body moved to adjourn after the briefing; Miss Ben moved to adjourn, Denise seconded, and a roll call recorded affirmative votes from Miss Hurst, Miss Gresham and Miss Valentin.

Next steps: planning committees will continue drafting school‑level plans, proposals will be posted for public review, teacher votes will be held at each school, and the full school committee will hold a public hearing before any final vote on innovation status.