Parents and educators urge delay to Silas Deane Middle School schedule changes, warn of lost arts access

Public comment at the Wethersfield Board of Education meeting on June 23 centered on proposed schedule changes at Silas Deane Middle School that parents and educators say would reduce students’ access to unified arts and performance music.

Elizabeth Caprio, a middle‑school science teacher, said the staff at SDMS "was neither consulted nor informed" about schedule changes and described the process as failing to model collaboration: "communication and collaboration are currently absent from this process." Caprio urged the administration to share the qualitative focus‑group data that administrators cited as the rationale for the change.

Jenna Day, a Wethersfield resident and music educator from a neighboring district, told the board the proposal forces students to choose between unified arts courses, performance music and world language. "A well‑rounded education should not depend on meeting extra conditions and should be available to all kids," she said, warning that piecemeal enrollment would make it difficult to sustain ensembles such as band, orchestra and choir.

Several speakers described how the change would narrow exploratory opportunities at a formative age. Michael Olday credited daily music instruction with helping him stay in school and enter a music career; Matt Saccullo read a petition signed by 310 parents and community members asking the board to postpone any implementation for 2026–27 and to include teachers from the affected subject areas in future planning.

Speakers repeatedly pushed back on a district characterization that the proposal is only a scheduling change. "Students are now being asked to make more choices between unified arts courses, performance music classes and world language classes," Day said. Several commenters said the operational detail for the proposal—particularly the district’s stated plan for a WIN (What I Need) period and an opt‑out-for‑"good standing" rule—was insufficiently defined; a returning commenter later asked a list of logistical questions about attendance thresholds, IEP implications, capacity and grading.

At least three board members and other elected officials acknowledged the concerns but clarified that curriculum and schedule implementation fall to the superintendent and administration rather than the board. One board member said publicly: "we have no say in that," underscoring that the board receives and responds to public input but that scheduling is to be implemented by district staff.

Next steps: the superintendent presented a district report later in the meeting; members of the public and multiple board members said they expect continued outreach and clearer operational definitions (for example, what constitutes "good standing" for WIN opt‑outs) prior to any implementation.

Ending

The board did not vote on the middle‑school schedule at the June 23 meeting. Public commentary and several subcommittee reports indicated the issue will remain a focus of community engagement in coming weeks as the administration develops implementation details.