Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears scheduling committee report; long‑term facilities planning group to be formed
Summary
The board reviewed a months‑long scheduling exploration that found staffing and facility constraints prevented a schedule change; members agreed to form a long‑term planning committee to study capacity, enrollment and options such as grade realignment or added space.
The Groton Board of Education on April 20 received a report from the Middle School Scheduling Exploration Committee that reviewed more than a half dozen scheduling models and concluded the district cannot safely implement a revised daily schedule this year because of staffing levels and building‑size constraints.
Assistant Superintendent Dr. Amarie Mancini said the committee—13 teachers plus administrators—met from September 2025 through March 2, 2026 to outline priorities (daily math and ELA instruction, common planning time, improved MTSS delivery and shorter instructional blocks) and to review local and national models. "We discussed the pros and cons of each," she said, but reported the group repeatedly hit two barriers: insufficient staffing or limits imposed by the physical size of the middle school.
Samantha Singleton, the middle school assistant principal and scheduler, told the board the building’s footprint and current enrollment create operational constraints: the school regularly requires three or four lunch waves, has a single gym and limited breakout rooms for interventions. "There's no way you could intervention in that one block of time during the day," she said, describing why a single advisory/care period cannot replace daily intervention needs for hundreds of students.
Board members and staff reviewed practical impacts: interventionists moving between small rooms, theatre and movement studios needed for specialized classes, difficulty fitting additional lunch waves without pushing meal times to extremes, and PowerSchool scheduling constraints that make heavily constrained models hard to load. Administrators noted the building was known to be tight during construction and that State reimbursement formulas limited options at the time.
Enrollment figures cited in the meeting put middle‑school enrollment near the high‑800s (roughly 880 students) with sixth grade the largest single cohort (about 312). Several board members recommended a long‑term facilities review rather than a rushed schedule change; Chair Be Washington agreed to form a long‑term planning group (board members Mitch and Adrien Johnson named among volunteers) to examine capacity options, potential grade realignments, and what additional classroom or staffing resources would cost.
The committee will report back with options the board can consider during the budget and facilities planning cycle; administrators said they will continue incremental scheduling improvements but that significant schedule redesign requires careful planning that addresses staffing, transportation and cafeteria impacts.
No formal schedule changes were approved at the April 20 meeting.
