[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6622224,"mediaKeyId","2787336-5a973912bf788432d388143f6ced337b","parentId",2787336,"title","Woburn School Committee weighs two redistricting paths as early‑childhood program strains space","audioSeconds",7099,"startMs",1045000,"endMs",8144000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2787336-5a973912bf788432d388143f6ced337b&start=1045&end=8144","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2787336-5a973912bf788432d388143f6ced337b/thumbnail_1045000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6622224/Massachusetts/Woburn-School-Committee-weighs-two-redistricting-paths-as-earlychildhood-program-strains-space","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622224-c6a7252c557fa5503d7e0e221d98eab1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166197&Signature=csKhEN-55-cy~4Wa90VlZT5qnPW3cfcf5bSHBPf5ebplvl5rokjvekQoM2Lh-OPqCzEh9BnT61a4AgM5m~y7cgq7zsJt4faYNKiD45pQwTjERNI05VPrxEK4vOk3gdxvM3hP2Tz2E0GBWu~XUuuPy9ewWP1swixWRJOUXvG6NAWVJES61q9U05AK2pqtXCaQqNtOjBwXrE-u3rEDaeJNIfKJllQ-EcrhObc0kp4yisjJov7ZgPnYfxQAyYngM8n-GSkxV7KF-3LN0XWdoO3rBXA3cOrhEDqwn~hJDWKM11EaQ-aeJcRmVdQEaKMYM93j6d2Dw1TfJvozz-m7CeYxDg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Woburn Public Schools, MA","date","2025-03-27T02:11:33.537Z","article","WOBURN, Mass. — The Woburn School Committee on March 26 heard a consultant presentation and several hours of public comment on redistricting options to address overcrowding and growth in the district’s early‑childhood special education program (ECP).

The committee and district consultant presented two distinct approaches: Option 1 would adopt an “end” map that guides phased moves over multiple years toward a long‑term configuration; Option 2 would redraw boundaries now to address the district’s immediate September space pressures. The committee scheduled a special meeting for April 1, 7 p.m., to vote only on which of the two approaches to pursue; it will not adopt a final map at that meeting.

The choice matters because the district needs space for ECP students — preschool special education placements required by federal and state law — and because any map affects school assignments for hundreds of families.

Sanborn Map Company project manager Priya Sankalia reviewed the work done to date, including geocoding student addresses, developing components (building blocks used to assemble school zones), and producing 13 options and 29 scenarios for review. The advisory committee narrowed those to three endpoint maps tied to Option 1 and several alternative lines for Option 2. Sankalia said the consultant and working group built the scenarios using the committee’s guiding principles, which include class‑size equity, preserving neighborhood schools where possible, protecting special programs and minimizing disruption.

District staff stressed that early‑childhood special education is legally required and drives many of the space decisions. “This is a special education program required by law. This is regulation right here. It is a law. This is not child care. This is not optional,” said Dr. Maureen Crowley (presenting for the district), describing the program’s intensive services and the requirement that an Individualized Education Program be available to each qualifying child on or shortly after their third birthday.

Crowley and other district officials gave enrollment and program figures during the meeting: the district reported 245 enrolled in the early‑childhood program as of about three days before the meeting and noted growth over the prior year (the district reported 261 at the end of the last school year). The district also said it currently operates 13 ECP classrooms, with nine at the Reeves and four at the Shamrock; staff said that figure has grown and discussed how program counts and class‑size calculations affect space planning for September.

District staff framed Option 1 as a long‑term plan that would allow smaller, staged moves now to reduce pressure while keeping a final map in view; the tradeoffs include a continued need to use nonstandard spaces for instruction in some buildings and the potential need for ongoing year‑to‑year maintenance of lines. Option 2, which redraws lines now to create more immediate space in specific schools, would produce faster relief in September but would likely require a later, larger redistricting once permanent ECP space becomes available.

Advisory‑committee members who spoke to the committee and the administration described a majority preference for Option 1, citing the advantage of a gradual plan tied to a long‑term facility strategy. Members of the public who spoke at length largely favored a phased approach (Option 1), urging the district to minimize the number of students moved this year and to make clear that any change this year is not likely to be permanent if a new facility or modular solution is adopted later.

Several parents and community members urged the city and school leaders to revisit modular classroom options and to press the City Council for a medium‑term solution that would reduce the need to redraw boundaries twice. A licensed mental‑health clinician who spoke urged expanded mental‑health and recess supervision funding to support students during transitions. Multiple public commenters emphasized timelines and the need for families to have assignments in time to plan for before‑ and after‑school care.

Procedure and committee action

- The committee voted to hold a special meeting on April 1 at 7 p.m. to choose between the two redistricting approaches. Motion made by Mr. Lipson; motion seconded; outcome: approved (4–0). Note: the April 1 vote will decide only the pathway (phased vs. immediate redraw); the committee will take further public input and later vote to adopt a specific map.

- The committee also voted to suspend the three‑minute public‑comment limit for this session to allow extended remarks; that motion passed by voice vote (ayes).

- After an extended public‑comment period, the committee voted to close public comment for the agenda item (voice vote; ayes).

What the committee and district say will happen next

District leaders said the April 1 meeting will be limited to choosing Option 1 or Option 2. If the committee selects Option 1 (phased approach), the committee will later select which of the three endpoint maps to adopt and will present multiple staged scenarios to the public for the short‑term “pressure relief” moves (September) tied to that endpoint. If the committee selects Option 2, staff will present final lines intended to achieve the biggest immediate relief for September enrollment and ECP growth. The advisory committee, working group and school administration will return to the public with more detailed impact numbers (how many students move, transportation changes and timeline) once the committee selects a pathway.

A number of speakers recommended that the district also pursue a Statement of Interest to the Massachusetts School Building Authority and continue outreach to the City Council about modulars; school leaders said assembling a complete MSBA package is a substantial task and that they will not submit an SOI unless the committee and city leadership align on a target project.

Ending

The committee’s special meeting on April 1 will decide which of the two paths—phased long‑term redistricting versus an immediate full redraw—the district will pursue. After that step, the public will have more specific maps and impact numbers to review before the committee votes on any final map.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Woburn School Committee 3/26/25","oneSentenceSummary","WOBURN, Mass. — The Woburn School Committee on March 26 heard a consultant presentation and several hours of public comment on redistricting options to address overcrowding and growth in the district’s early‑childhood special education program (ECP).","taxTitle","Woburn Public Schools, School Boards, Massachusetts","taxId",71058,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6622219,"Woburn schools propose 7.65% FY26 spending increase; officials outline line‑by‑line reductions",1842,8125000,9967000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2787336-5a973912bf788432d388143f6ced337b&start=8125&end=9967","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2787336-5a973912bf788432d388143f6ced337b/thumbnail_8125000.jpg","/articles/6622219/Massachusetts/Woburn-schools-propose-765-FY26-spending-increase-officials-outline-linebyline-reductions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622219-e565a1811ce4e414851ad1729bfc71dd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166197&Signature=LCpuFa5RO~Ntu9aS8LqYhk4vjhj~jm20Em~ejcjaQ3xMdE2bztOp-b2rAV7BR0EfJEVvM3YTaVHVZ0RGUN35JRtxhJ~Vt-JQ7UEYNcQ3DiMHnq3Xy1XvgVZbOXHO7wfvwTZgkXAzAvRaopRDzwAX4l~b69rIysVufn0vUemtQJUJ~hFGPIB-oE-844nb93IOjXZnBb6plP5he4Bc0X3chCOjAor-Y2VIftgP24kJhja0ZWDi2jMb~~fNj-VlG5eF939j6wVCiqH~r5nFm2JhS-35dH1DJNBpC6yLbRDgUVdOLwI1KxxHYnJwR233SnCq79vZ~ELu9FH8ENPNo3tzOQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","WOBURN, Mass. — Woburn schools’ finance staff on March 26 presented a draft fiscal year 2026 budget that would total $97,275,867, a 7.65% year‑over‑year increase driven largely by salary step increases, raises and special‑education transportation and tuition costs.

Director of Finance Alex Dizzio walked the School Committee through 26 proposed changes that reduce or repurpose lines to contain the increase. He and district leaders emphasized that most of the district budget is student‑facing salaries: teachers, special‑education staff, nurses and related services.

Dizzio said the district’s FY26 proposal includes multiple targeted reductions and shifts, including trimming custodial and building supplies, leveling electricity and postage lines to FY25 actuals, repurposing a small contingency allotment into the legal line, and moving two interventionist positions from the operating budget into Title I grant funding. The presentation also recommended not backfilling several positions tied to attrition (two teachers) and reassigning a curriculum‑coordinator vacancy.

Key figures and drivers

- Proposed FY26 total: $97,275,867 (7.65% increase year over year).
- Salary and personnel costs account for the largest portion of the increase; Dizzio said roughly three‑quarters of the proposed budget is salary driven.
- Special‑education transportation is a major driver: out‑of‑district transport costs rose year over year, and contract bids for student transportation increased significantly.
- Out‑of‑district tuition increases also contributed: Dizzio cited a near‑9% increase in tuition lines.

Selected line changes described to the committee

- Reduce homeless transportation estimate by $25,000 (the line still reflects an increase from last year).
- Level‑fund electricity and reduce the building services and supply lines modestly, while preserving an electrical reserve account (Dizzio said the current reserve balance is about $750,000).
- Repurpose a historical $5,000 contingency line to increase the legal budget (to prepare for pending collective‑bargaining negotiations).
- Shift two interventionist positions to Title I funding and plan to cover pre‑K salaries from the preschool revolving account for one additional year (administration said the revolving account is likely only sufficient for one more year).
- Reduce a temporary‑help ask for summer facilities staff from $50,000 to $25,000.

Dizzio said principals were consulted about building baseline reductions (about $65,000 total) and that adjustments were made only after each principal had a chance to comment. He also noted that some historical stipends and recurring items were never explicitly budgeted and have been added to give them a proper line in the FY26 draft (for example, chair stipends and trolley tours for field trips).

Budget next steps and timing

District leaders described the draft budget as a working document. The committee discussed timing for public hearings and votes; staff recommended moving toward a public hearing in late April and general committee action in May so the budget can be transmitted to the city on schedule.

Administrators noted the budget assumes continuation of federal and state grants that offset special‑education costs. They warned the picture would change materially if key grants were reduced or eliminated.

Quotations from the presentation

“Seventy‑five percent of the current proposed budget is salary driven,” Dizzio told the committee, adding that most of those salaries are in student‑facing roles such as teachers, special‑education staff, nurses, counselors and related positions.

Ending

School finance staff said they will continue to refine the draft and return to the committee with additional details, including specific student‑impact numbers, before the committee schedules a public hearing and a final vote. Committee members signaled a desire to hold a public hearing and to post the draft budget to the public for review prior to formal adoption.","Director of finance presented a draft FY26 budget of $97,275,867, a 7.65% year‑over‑year increase driven mainly by salaries, special‑education transportation and out‑of‑district tuition. Administrators proposed 26 line changes and several shifts to limit the increase while preserving core student‑facing services.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Woburn School Committee weighs two redistricting paths as early‑childhood program strains space

Woburn schools propose 7.65% FY26 spending increase; officials outline line‑by‑line reductions