The Worcester School Committee has renewed a long-running debate over how much time the public and committee members should have to review major curriculum, contract and policy changes before they are approved.
At its July 16 meeting, school committee member Sue Mailman proposed establishing a four-month lead time before such items come before the committee, arguing that additional time would allow for more meaningful public input and discussion.
Questions about how quickly major education decisions move through the approval process have surfaced repeatedly over the past several years. Debate over a new grading system last year prompted concerns that families and committee members had too little time to review the proposal before it reached the committee. More recently, parents have called for additional opportunities to weigh in on new classroom technology initiatives.
Mailman said her proposal is intended to create a more transparent and collaborative process.
“We had an issue a few years ago with curriculum and not enough time for public feedback on some of these important items,” Mailman said. “A lot of our meetings during this current school year have been public comment on different policy items and different curriculum. We’re waiting on a report that shows all of the curriculum and when things are up for renewal and we still haven’t seen that. Some of this we could think about in conjunction with that report to make sure we have enough time.”
Mailman said discussions surrounding some recent changes have been rushed, leaving “no time for back and forth,” which she believes “does not seem fair in terms of public interest.” She said the goal is to create a process that gives families, educators and committee members more opportunity to weigh in before decisions are made.
“I think this is a cooperative spirit we’re looking for, to have an idea of when things are coming up for renewal and then making sure we have enough time, a meeting or two meetings, to be able to allow the public to comment, to allow us to come back with formats,” Mailman added.
Committee member Maureen Binienda cautioned that a mandatory four-month timeline may not always be practical. She said some curriculum opportunities depend on state funding or deadlines that would make such a requirement difficult to meet.
“There are curriculums that the state would come out and offer as high-quality teaching documents and if you applied for that funding sometimes there’s not four months’ time there,” Binienda said. “I’m just very cautious about putting a timeline on it. Sometimes things come our way which are really good curriculum materials from the state, and this would prohibit us, if we put four months on it, from being able to apply for that.”
Mailman acknowledged that some curriculum changes are driven by mandates from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and said she hopes those situations will also be reflected in the district’s pending curriculum report.
The proposal was referred to the school committee’s Operations and Governance Committee for further review.
Mayor Joseph Petty said any changes would require amending committee rules. He acknowledged the challenge of balancing the public’s desire for more input with deadlines that sometimes accompany grants, state requirements and other time-sensitive decisions, but said he expects the proposal to generate “good discussion.”
Jason Bleau can be reached at bleau.jason@yahoo.com
