Utica board weighs $500,000 summer learning program for 750 students amid concerns about academic focus and transportation costs
Loading...
Summary
Board members debated a $500,000 proposal to fund a four-week 'summer regression prevention' program expected to serve roughly 750 students, with questions raised about program design, measures of effectiveness and an estimated $264,600 for transportation that could increase depending on routes.
The Utica City School District Board of Education spent a sizable portion of its meeting discussing a proposed $500,000 summer program intended to prevent learning loss and serve roughly 750 elementary and middle-school students over four weeks.
Superintendent Dr. Spence described the initiative as part of a broader strategy that also includes expanded extended-day learning and career-technical education, and he emphasized the district’s focus on “continuous improvement” as it finalizes the 2026–27 spending plan. He repeated that the proposed budget “is not cutting any positions.”
Chief academic staff (Mr. Fauci) told the board the program’s immediate metrics are attendance, grade point average and i‑Ready scores; more sophisticated longitudinal analysis would require additional software and a statistician. “In the immediate, we're looking at things like attendance, and we're looking at grade point average,” he said.
Board members pressed for more details on student selection and instructional focus. The board president said the district should explain how the program would be measured month to month and asked whether the district could instead invest resources during the school year to raise the graduation rate.
Board members and staff disagreed about program design. One board member urged a stronger academic emphasis: “I don't want to spend that money on kickball and tag. I want people sitting at desks doing work,” the member said. Administrators responded that the design includes academically oriented options (science, technology, engineering and math, performing and visual arts, and targeted remediation) and that enrichment components exist partly to increase participation.
Staff provided an initial financial breakdown: instructors, security, clerical staff and nurses were listed at $1,132,543; transportation was estimated at $264,600; supplies $25,000. District staff cautioned the transportation figure could rise depending on route configurations. The district also said about $9,000 of STEM programming is covered by grant funding. Officials said the high‑school credit‑recovery and extended‑learning components would use different funding sources.
Administrators said the program would use available school facilities (Procter High School, Donovan Middle School and two elementary sites) and that about 250 high‑school students would be served through existing extended‑learning federal funding, leaving roughly 750 elementary and middle school slots funded via the $500,000 allocation.
Board members raised equity concerns: students who must work in the summer or lack transportation could be excluded from the programs. One member said reallocating funds to increase targeted reading teachers during the school year might reach more students across the district. In response, administrators said some students are best served by summer interventions to prevent learning loss that accumulates over time.
The budget was not adopted at the meeting; officials said further discussions will take place before the board's final vote.
