Editors’ Note (added Dec 13, 2025): After this article was finalized, the school district released an informative new document called “Supplemental Information for School District Reorganization Discussion”. The document compares and contrasts the four reorganization options still under consideration, which will be discussed by the School Committee at their December 18 meeting.
After four hours of deliberation at their final meeting on December 2, The AB Forward Steering Committee voted eleven to six to move forward four elementary school reorganization scenarios. It will now be up to the School Committee to decide which of the fourscenarios will be implemented next year.
All four options require the closure of the aging Luther Conant Elementary School building, a move that will save the District multiple millions of dollars in avoided, future renovations and facility maintenance costs.
Two of the options moving forward preserve the K-6 structure of Acton-Boxborough’s elementary schools but reduce the number of schools from six to five, either by closing the Merriam School and moving the Conant school community into the available space (option 3.2) or by merging the Merriam and McCarthy-Towne Elementary Schools, which are co-located in the Parker Damon Building on Charter Road, and moving the Conant School community into the available space (option 4).
Another option advanced for School Committee consideration proposes converting the Parker Damon building into a “lower school” for students in kindergarten through grade three and an “upper school” for students in grades four through six (option 5.2). The new Boardwalk Campus building would have an identical configuration under option 5.2, while the Blanchard Memorial School in Boxborough would remain a K-6 school.
A final option proposes consolidating all six elementary school communities into three, larger K-6 schools –– two in Acton and one in Boxborough (option 6).
The School Committee, which has reportedly already received over 100 emails from parents and educators, began publicly deliberating on the four options at their December 4 business meeting and will continue their discussion on December 18. The public is invited to weigh in on the options at a public hearing scheduled for January 8 with a final vote planned for January 22.
The emerging themes of the School Committee’s discussion on December 4 included a need for greater clarity on operational differences between options 5.2 and 6, concerns about educational and social impact of reorganization under each scenario, and concerns about the level, scope and duration of disruption and outsized impact on the three schools named for closure or merger.
Options 5.2 and 6: operational differences
School Committee Member Liz Fowlkes asked for clarity on the operational differences between options 5.2 and 6. Superintendent of Schools Peter Light responded, “From a resource allocation standpoint, both of these options offer more flexibility and sustainability in the long-term and extend the reach of specialist roles to be able to serve more students in a more efficient way.” The biggest difference, said Light, lies in their administrative structure, with a principal and assistant principal overseeing administration in each of the upper and lower schools under option 5.2 and a single principal supported by a larger cohort of assistant principals in each of the schools in option 6.
Light told the Committee that having one principal overseeing 950 families under option 6 would be “a significant departure from existing practice and would be a really challenging cultural change around face time with principals.”
Light also noted that cost savings realized by changes in the administrative structure under both options 5.2 and 6 would be negligible.
Educational and social impact
School Committee Member Andrew Schwartz asked if the research procured by the District from the firm Hanover Research on the educational outcomes and social impact of various school configurations might help direct the School Committee’s discussion so that “we’re not just looking at financial impact but also at best practices around shaping school cultures.”
Light shared that a key take-away from the research for AB Forward Steering Committee members was the idea of student transitions being disruptive and potentially having a negative impact on student learning. “The research findings around transitions along with a lot of community feedback was the basis for the Steering Committee’s elimination of option 5.1 earlier in the process which, they felt, required too many student transitions between multiple school buildings during the elementary school years,” Light said. “In option 5.2, students stay in their building from kindergarten through grade six. This option offers a small-school feel within a larger structure.”
Option 5.1, which proposed that Blanchard become a PreK-K school, the Boardwalk Campus, a school for students in grades one through three, and the Parker-Damon Building, a school for students in grades four through six, was one of six reorganization options voted off the table by the AB Forward Steering Committee at their November 18 meeting.
Level of disruption and impact
The focus of much of the School Committee’s discussion on December 4 was on the realities and misperceptions regarding the level, scope and duration of disruption under the school reorganization scenarios, all of which require some level of dispersion of students and staff to other schools.
School Committee Member Vikram Parikh asked if it was the case that “with option 4 you have only Merriam, McCarthy-Towne and Conant affected, but with option 5 not only are those schools affected but the other elementary schools are affected as well.” In other words, Parikh said, “Rather than minimizing disruption you’re making it into let’s disrupt everybody: Johnny broke his arm, so everyone should break their arm. It seems to me that philosophy does not make sense.” School Committee Chair Tori Campbell responded, “When we looked at the math in terms of building capacity, every school is going to be impacted [regardless of the option] because every school is getting new students and new teachers.”
Superintendent of Schools Peter Light shed some light on the expected level of disruption under options 3.2 and 4 as follows: “We are talking about increases of about seventy-five students in each of Acton’s elementary schools split over seven grade levels and, at Blanchard, the addition of about one hundred students. We are looking for ways to keep cohorts of fifth graders together, as we recognize that this was the grade level most impacted by the pandemic and who are heading into their last year as a cohort at the elementary level.”
Later in the meeting, after an extended public comment period, School Committee Vice Chair Adam Klein made a motion to remove options 3.2 and 4 from consideration, arguing that maximal disruption would also allow for maximal innovation under options 5.2 and 6, but he withdrew the motion after members pressed Klein to allow the process, which was carefully and intentionally designed, to play out. “I’m trying to make a decision that will be disruptive for the majority of schools,” Klein said. “It feels unfair to say that option 4 is better because it only disrupts three school communities when one group has lost a building, two groups have lost a full identity, and everyone bears that weight. Other options may feel more disruptive, but there is an opportunity here to create something new.”
Chair Tori Campbell voiced concerns that were echoed in the comments of Conant, Merriam and McCarthy-Towne parents and educators who spoke during the public comment period, that options 3.2 and 4 are pitting schools against one another and making families feel they are in competition as they defend their school communities and cultures.
“There’s a lot of tension in our community,” Campbell said. “We do want to hear what you want to say. I’m going to clearly acknowledge that some options feel unpalatable to some of our community. At the last School Committee meeting, we talked about the grief that comes with knowing that your school building is no longer going to be your home, so we acknowledge that for the Conant community. I want to acknowledge the Merriam community is feeling not just a sense of loss but I think it’s safe to say a sense of rage right now. This decision is tough. We, the School Committee, have to make the best possible decision we can for the entire school district because we are the ones that are responsible to our community to make sure that we’re meeting the needs of every student.”
Campbell, who called for the community to model the communication, collaboration, and integrity elements embedded in the District’s Vision of a Graduate, told the Committee and audience members that “we are showing our kids what it looks like, and it’s hard. I’m just going to acknowledge that up front.”
Diane Baum is the School Committee beat reporter for the Acton Exchange. She served on the Acton-Boxborough Regional School Committee from 2015 to 2021.
