A. Alignment Trajectory
| Phase | Alignment Level | Trend |
|---|---|---|
| Phase I 2007β2013 | Mostly aligned (0β3%) | Stable, improving |
| Phase II 2014β2019 | Moderate misalignment (2β5%) | Volatile, worsening |
| Phase III 2020β2025 | High misalignment (8β16%) | Explosive, collapsing |
B. Additional Revenue
| Phase | Revenue | Average per Year | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase I 2007β2013 | $11.3 million β Local | $1.9 million | Reasonable with massive decline in enrollment. |
| Phase II 2014β2019 | $11.5 million β Local | $1.6 million | Contrary to critics, it mirrored Phase I funding. |
| Phase III 2020β2025 | $24.4 million β Local $19.1 million β ESSER1 Total β $43.5 million | $7.3 million | Historic, unsustainable amid a continued enrollment decline. |
1 ESSER represents one-time federal relief funding.
C. School Committee/Superintendent Policy Decisions
| Phase | Leadership Style | Effect on Alignment |
|---|---|---|
| Phase I 2007β2013 | Unified, strategic | Achieved |
| Phase II 2014β2019 | Fragmented, political | Drifted |
| Phase III 2020β2025 | Chaotic, reactive, exclusionary | Collapsed |
D. Executive Summary of Each Phase
| Phase | Executive Summary of Each Phase |
|---|---|
| Phase I 2007β2013 | Phase One worked because consolidation, staffing reductions, and governance discipline kept excess staffing small and cost under control. |
| Phase II 2014β2019 | Phase Two faltered because consolidation stalled, staff reductions became inconsistent, and political conflict replaced strategic planning. |
| Phase III 2020β2025 | Phase Three collapsed because staffing grew while enrollment declined, ESSER temporarily hid the problem, and district leadership abandoned all structural planningβleading to catastrophic misalignment, tens of millions in excess cost, and eventual state takeover. |
E. (2007β2025) Enrollment Reductions
| Enrollment Reduction by Phase | Students | Cumulative Decline % |
|---|---|---|
| Phase I 2007β2013 | β1,903 | β16.4% |
| Phase II 2014β2019 | β875 | β24.0% |
| Phase III 2020β2025 | β947 | β32.2% |
| Total | β3,725 | β32.2% |
Figure 10 β (2007β2025) Change in Enrollment

F. (2007β2025) Staffing Reductions
| Staffing Reduction | Staff | Cumulative Decline % |
|---|---|---|
| Phase I 2007β2013 | β243 | β14.4% |
| Phase II 2014β2019 | β164 | β24.1% |
| Phase III 2020β2025 | +24 | β22.7% |
| Total | β383 | β22.7% |
Figure 11 β (2007β2025) Change in Staffing

G. (2007β2025) Excess Staff & Cost
| Excess Staff & Cost | Excess Staff | Cost Impact | Sustainability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase I 2007β2013 | 235 | $20.3 million | Controlled, manageable |
| Phase II 2014β2019 | 283 | $26.6 million | Growing, inconsistent |
| Phase III 2020β2025 | 871 | $80.7 million | Critical intervention needed |
| Total | 1,389 | $127.6 million | β |
Figure 12 β (2007β2025) Excess Staff & Cost Analysis

Refer to the methodology section for details on how excess staffing is calculated.
H. (2006β2025) Enrollment & Staffing Cumulative Gap

I. (2006β2025) Excess Staff & Cost
