Inside Education

Let’s talk about RPA and Evolve because this is one of the changes that has generated a lot of reaction… but not always a lot of clarity.

The Resiliency Preparatory Academy (RPA) is being closed as a program, and Evolve is being moved into that building. At face value, that sounds simple.

It’s not.

RPA has functioned as an alternative placement, often serving students who struggled in traditional settings, including students with significant behavioral, emotional, or academic needs.

But it has also been under scrutiny.

The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating practices in the district related to alternative placements, including concerns about whether students, particularly Black, Latino, and students with disabilities, have been disproportionately referred to more restrictive settings.

In a subcommittee meeting, it was explicitly stated that closing the program could help address that investigation.

That context matters because it shifts this from a program decision to something much bigger… about how placement decisions have been made, and who they have impacted.

Evolve is something different. It is competency-based, relationship-driven, intentionally smaller, and built around student choice

Students apply. They opt in. They build their experience in a way that is not possible in a traditional high school model. That distinction is very important.

There is also discussion about expanding what that space will be used for.

In addition to housing Evolve, there have been conversations about a night school program
and a virtual school option all operating out of the same building.

It signals that this is not just about relocating one program but about creating a centralized hub for alternative pathways.

This shift is not random. It reflects a broader move we’re seeing across the district… a move toward consolidating programs, using space more efficiently, and rethinking how alternative education is structured.

In theory, this could create more flexible options for students, access to different pathways based on need, and opportunities for students who require non-traditional schedules or formats

It could allow the district to meet students where they are, provide multiple entry points, and expand access beyond a single program model.

There is real opportunity here but there is also significant risk.

These are very different models:

Evolve is relationship-based and choice-driven.

Virtual learning is independent and often less structured.

Night school serves a different population with different needs.

Bringing them together in one space requires clear boundaries, clear purpose for each pathway, and strong coordination.

Without that clarity, there is a risk that programs blur together, expectations become inconsistent, or the space becomes a catch-all rather than a set of intentional pathways.

There’s another piece of this that cannot be overlooked.

What happens to the students who were at RPA?

We already know that middle school students are being returned to their sending schools. The
high school students will be expected to apply to Evolve, transition to Durfee, or choose another pathway.

On paper, those are options. In practice, this is a major disruption.

These are students who were already in an alternative setting, often because traditional environments were not working for them. Now they are being asked to re-enter those environments, navigate new systems, and rebuild relationships.

All at once.

These are not students who transition easily. They’ve already faced significant adversity. That’s why they were there. While there is a lot of focus on what is being created moving forward, there has been far less clarity about how these transitions will be supported, what continuity looks like, and what happens to the teams that were working with them.

Programs are not just buildings.

They are people.

When those teams are disrupted, students feel it immediately.

The hard truth is that RPA was far from perfect. It was under-resourced. It was under-supported.

None of that means the students in that program did not have something there that mattered. Beyond the structure of the program itself, there was a team of staff who have remained largely consistent over time, who know these students, who have built relationships with them, and who care deeply about their success.

That connection is not a small thing. It’s the reason many students showed up. It’s the reason they stayed.

Right now, there is a real risk that the focus on restructuring the system overshadows the immediate needs of the students who are already in it.

We have to be very mindful of increasing access for one set of students while removing access for others. I am very aware that it is not framed that way, but, we are yet to see what that will look like in practice.

Today is the start date of the interim superintendent and deputy superintendent so let's take a look at how we got here.

An interim superintendent is not meant to be the long-term leader of a district. The role exists to provide stability, continuity, and oversight during a transition period.

Since March 16, Assistant Superintendent Brian Raposo has been serving in the acting superintendent role, guiding the district through the budget season and maintaining certainty during a critical time but we are certainly in a transition period. With the departure of Tracy Curley, the district is in between permanent leadership. We are not going to rehash that situation here but it's important context (one day we will unpack the previous superintendent's evaluations that led, in part, to the end of her tenure but the news moves fast and this is where we are today).

The purpose of appointing an interim superintendent is to create space to stabilize the district, maintain continuity in day-to-day operations, and to conduct a thorough and thoughtful search for a permanent leader. The committee chose Kathleen Smith for this role. She brings extensive experience and has been recognized for her work in advancing educational equity, strengthening school communities, and supporting district-wide systems and operations. She holds advanced degrees in education and law, bringing both instructional and systems level understanding to the role.

Interestingly, she succeeded Matt Malone as superintendent of Brockton in 2013 and served through her [semi] retirement in 2019. Since then, she's taken on interim roles in Salem, Weymouth, Dover, and Newton. In moments like we're in now, this combination of skills and experience really matters because it supports the kind of steady, consistent leadership we need during a period of transition.

The appointment of interim deputy superintendent Elizabeth Legault is a bit different. Ms. Legualt most recently served as superintendent in East Bridgewater for nearly a decade. Prior to her tenure there, she worked in Central Falls, RI, a district that has historically faced significant challenges including state intervention and long-standing systemic instability. Working in that kind of environment requires a very specific skill set in navigating limited resources, high student needs, and complex demands. A decade of tenure in East Bridgewater matters because it means she has experience managing district-wide operations, staffing and hiring systems, budget development and oversight, and coordination across departments.

It is relevant to note that she resigned from that role following discussions with the school committee, with the transition described publicly as a shift toward new leadership. There's been speculation about her leave from East Bridgewater but there has not been a single, detailed public narrative that fully explains the circumstances of that transition, and much of the conversation happening now is based on limited or secondhand information. At least at the public level, that transition looks similar to what we saw here with the ending of Tracy Curley's contract. It doesn't mean the situations are the same but the way it was communiticated and understood publicly feels familiar and that is important to acknowledge.

-------I'll pause here to say there has been a lot of talk about Ms. Legault personally and I'm making it VERY clear - that will NOT be tolerated in this space. If you want to discusss her qualifications or the role itself, that is open for conversation. Attacks on anyone at a personal level are not welcome here. --------

Now, for the purpose of this role, what matters is function. A deputy superintendent is the operational backbone of a district. If the superintendent is focused on where the district is going and what its priorities are, the deputy superintendent is focused on how those priorities actually work in practice.

This is not a role the district has historically had and that is important to recognize. While the interim superintendet role is about stability and continuity, the creation of a deputy superintendent position signals an acknowledgement that the current structure is not sufficient to manage the complexity the district is facing right now.

It seems that this role is a response to gaps. There is no human resource director as Brian Lally left rather abruptly earlier in the year. Staffing shortages are ongoing. Operations have been inconsistent, we have been riddled with unresolved investigations, and multiple systems are shifting at once.

Ms. Legault will therefore oversee human resources, work with individual departments to stabilize operations including resolving day-to-day issues, make sure decisions made at the district level don't break down once they reach schools, and coordinate systems that have not been aligned.

The district seems to be recognizing that it needs stronger internal coordination to function effectively. We can't keep doing things in the same way we have been for years - it's clearly not working. Right now, the challenge isn't necessarily deciding what to do but whether the system can actually do it.

Let's start by exploring special education. Now, let's be very clear about something. Special education is not a place... or one approach... or one group of students. Special education is a legally mandated system of services that spans classrooms, programs, staffing, curriculum, formal supports, and evaluations.
..and no two students experience it in the same way.

I've worked with children and families in Fall River - not for the city or the district - for 26 years. Throughout that time, I've seen the district's special education leadership change many times and I've seen how those shifts shape the system.

There was a time when special education felt consistently and deeply adversarial. Community providers would point out how the eligibility flow chart used to determine whether a student qualified for an IEP always led to no (IYKYK).

Families fought tooth and nail for services (too many still do).

Staff worked in silos, largely separate and apart from general education.

Placement decisions followed a pattern - if you were a student with what were considered moderate needs, there was a very high likelihood you'd be placed in a substantially separate classroom because that would often be the only option considered.

Autistic students would often be placed directly into autism-specific classrooms, located in separate parts of the school building.

Some students would be pushed into community based classrooms at 5 and 6 years old, to focus on life skills and functional academics, their entire academic trajectory mapped out at the very beginning of their educational journey.

Some students would be pushed into community-based classrooms at 5 and 6 years old, to focus on life skills and functional academics, their entire academic trajectory mapped out at the very beginning of their educational journey.

To be incredibly clear, these settings are necessary. They are the pathway to success for some students. For a long time, though, they were the default and substantially separate placements should only be considered after exploring less restrictive options in a meaningful way.

This is how we got to where we are today and this context is essential. In the last few years, we'e seen a shift toward genuine inclusion and integration. The district is trying to move toward a more aligned, best practice model of special education but is doing so within a system that is not fully staffed, not fully built, and not stabiized.

However, waiting for the conditions to be perfect in order to make changes based on evidence, data, research, and developmentally appropriate practice would mean not doing the work at all.

Our kids don't have that kind of time.

So let's look at some of the changes -

At the evaluation level, the district proposed moving away from a model that relies on psychometrists to complete academic achievement testing, one part of a comprehensive evaluation. Over time, the role of the psychometrist has been narrowed to this singular function. Their contribution to the full evaluative process is to administer academic achievement testing, with results then interpreted and integrated by the school psychologist.

The proposed changes would shift the administration of academic achievement testing to school psychologists and add two psychologist positions to help absorb the testing load.

Research and professional guidance do not point to one specific role as the only appropriate person to conduct academic achievement testing. What is emphasized is that evaluations should be integrated, multidisciplinary, and interpreted by a qualified professional who understands the full profile of the student.

In practice, this has led many districts to move toward more integrated models. This is a through-line across much of the budget - a move toward more streamlined systems, with increasing emphasis on having the highest level of licensed professionals complete the work while realigning the system to fully support these shifts.

At the program level, the relocation of elementary medically fragile classrooms from Spencer Borden to Silvia is being driven by space and enrollment realities. We are seeing a significant increase in students with complex needs. That requires more classrooms, more specialized programming, and more intentional program design. With a growing number of students requiring specialized programs, the district is trying to expand capacity for student needs and use available space more efficiently.

Silvia School is moving its Pre-K classrooms to the Early Learning Center at Connolly, creating available space for programs serving students who already require specialized transportation and more intensive supports.

We know that space is only one part of a program. What makes these programs work is the people - students with high support needs rely on consistent staff, established routines, relationships built over time, and staff who understand their medical, behavioral, and communication needs.

The goal here is to move the entire program, including the staff who know those students best. In practice, that is where things become more complicated. Staff cannot be forced to move buildings. They are able to apply to positions anywhere in the district. Logistically, this move makes sense and, for students and families, this is not about logistics. It's about trust and when trust feels uncertain of course this move is scary.

At the staffing level, the district is proposing the elimination of 5 paraprofessional positions. Let's clarify this - this plan is described as staffing cuts but these are positions that were never filled to begin with. These are not layoffs. No currently employed para is losing their job as a result of these changes.

This is how we got to where we are today and this context is essential. In the last few years, we've seen a shift toward genuine inclusion and integration. The district is trying to move toward a more aligned, best practice model of special education but is doing so within a system that is not fully staffed, not fully built, and not stabilized. consistently vacant. The district is trying to shift those dollars into staffing models that can actually be implemented, rather than continuing to hold funds in positions that consistently go unfilled.

At the same time, this highlights a deeper issue. The challenge is whether the district can recruit and retain qualified staff to fill these positions.

On that same note, next up we'll take a closer look at the appointment of the interim superintendent and deputy superintendent and how these decisions connect to everything we're seeing now.

This week we saw two school committee meetings. One was a budget review meeting that took place on Monday. Wednesday’s meeting was the regularly scheduled monthly meeting. Both were very long and complex, filled with lengthy discussion all leading to the approval of the 2026-27 budget.

Because we’re talking about roughly 10 hours of meetings, we’re going to break this up into some key areas. We’ll look at special education, the dual language program, Evolve, RPA, and alternative education pathways, and district leadership.

To do this, we’re going to lay our foundation and start by stating the obvious.

There have to be changes.

We cannot continue to address the rapidly evolving needs of an even faster growing school community by doing the same things in the same way.

We’re doing all of this work with a more constrained budget. It is true that Massachusetts Chapter 70 funding has increased in recent years but not in the way that matches what districts like ours are actually dealing with. Funding formulas assume baseline costs but actual costs have surged. So even though funding is technically up, it doesn’t go as far.

For the past few years, we’ve also had Covid relief funds. We used that money to fund extra staff, support intervention programs, and full service gaps. Now that those funds have dried up, positions that were sustainable with federal money are back in the local budget.

A growing portion of the budget is locked into things we can’t easily change - contractual salary increases, transportation costs, out-of-district placements, rising special education services. These costs are rising fast and non-negotiable.

The issue isn’t that we have less money - it’s that more of the budget is already spoken for, leaving less flexibility to respond to changing needs.

There’s another layer to this that we have to understand. Our district has operated in certain ways for a long time. Roles, structures, and systems have been built over decades sometimes without clear alignment, consistency, or the level of oversight we’re now experiencing.

We have a system in transition. As systems shift, there will always be tension between holding onto what feels familiar and building something that may be better for all of us.

Not everything being challenged right now is wrong and not everything being defended is working. Protecting people and improving systems are not the same thing but, right now, they are being treated as if they are. This makes it harder to have an honest conversation about what needs to change.

The challenge for leadership is to stay transparent and grounded.

The challenge for the school community is to stay critical and open.

This moment isn’t just about budgets or program but rather who we choose to be as a school community while everything around us is changing.

Next up: special education

Before we dive into the content of Wednesday’s school committee meeting, we need to talk about something important.

Come in a little closer.

In the days since the appointment of our new Interim Deputy Superintendent, the focus has been on her appearance, assumptions about her sexual orientation, and baseless speculation about her political views and intentions.

Nearly none of the discussion (if we can call it that) has been on her qualifications, her experience, and her approach to leadership.

We all know that social media can be a cesspool of keyboard warriors making incredibly ignorant, harmful, and hurtful (and frankly embarrassing) comments but there have been over 1000 mostly hateful comments across multiple platforms.

Come on, Fall River!

We have to be better than this.

Absolutely none of this is constructive.

You want to question the position itself? The rationale behind it? Go for it.

But this? This is the exact behavior you complain about when you say kids today don’t have respect and can’t behave themselves. Where do you think our kids have seen this modeled?

THIS is the first impression we are providing?

THIS is how we welcome someone into the district?

Right now we have to ask ourselves - is this really what we want to show people about our city? Is this who we want to be?

I do not want to believe that it is.

We can and should ask hard questions of leadership. That’s part of the work. That’s part of public service.

We can do that, though, without reducing people to assumptions, or leaning into bias, and certainly without creating an environment that pushes people away before they’ve even had the chance to start the job.

If we want strong leadership…

If we want people to come here and stay here…

If we want to build something better for our students…

Then WE have to be better in how we show up, too.

We can’t demand better leadership while behaving like this.

To those hiding behind a screen and going after someone you don’t even know, stop being cowards. I’d say grow up but that’s unfair to our kids.

Do better.

Lost in the chaos of Wednesday night’s school committee meeting was the Comprehensive District Review conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

Again, these reviews are not casual documents. They are extensive evaluations of how a school district is functioning across leadership, instruction, staffing, finances, and student support systems. When DESE conducts one, the goal is to identify systemic issues and provide recommendations for improvement.

The Fall River review identifies several structural challenges within the district that will require significant attention moving forward.

We’re going to break it down into the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Let's start with The Good
There are areas where DESE acknowledged progress. The district has taken steps to improve labor relations, including the recent teacher contract, which the report notes could help strengthen collaboration moving forward. There are also structures in place for family engagement, such as SEPAC, and the district has developed some curriculum frameworks and initiatives aimed at improving instruction.

In other words, the building blocks for improvement exist but the review makes clear that having pieces in place is not the same thing as having a functioning system.

The Bad
One of the most significant concerns raised by DESE is that the district does not have a comprehensive strategic plan.The previous strategic plan expired in 2021. Let me reiterate - we have not had a plan in 5 years.

That means there is no clear roadmap guiding priorities, decision-making, or long-term goals across the district. Without that kind of framework, initiatives can become fragmented and inconsistent from school to school.

Instructional consistency is another major issue. The report notes significant variation in instructional practices across schools, meaning students may have very different academic experiences depending on where they are enrolled.
Equity concerns also surfaced. DESE recommends that the district examine disparities affecting students with disabilities and English learners, including barriers that prevent English learners from accessing electives and other opportunities.

Human resources systems were also flagged. The district faces recruitment and retention challenges, slow hiring and onboarding processes, and the need for more intentional strategies to recruit and support diverse educators and administrators.
DESE specifically acknowledges strained relationships between district leadership and the school committee, noting that these tensions have created barriers to collaboration and effective governance. Anyone who has watched the past year of meetings will likely recognize that dynamic.

The Ugly
The most uncomfortable findings in the report involve operational systems.
One of the more concerning areas identified in the DESE review involves the district’s financial management and transparency systems. The report calls for improvements in how financial information is communicated to the public, noting that the district’s budget materials are not always presented in ways that are clear or accessible to families and community members. In practical terms, this means that while the district produces financial documents, understanding how money is actually being spent (and why) can be difficult for the public to interpret.
DESE specifically recommends redesigning the district’s budget presentation so that it includes clearer explanations and visuals that help stakeholders understand how funds are allocated across programs and priorities.

The review also highlights capacity challenges within the business office, recommending additional training and staffing support to ensure that financial systems are operating effectively. For a district managing a budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars, these issues matter. Clear financial systems are essential not only for internal management but also for maintaining public trust and ensuring that resources are aligned with student needs.

The report also calls for stronger coordination between the district and the city on accounts payable systems, noting the need for improvements to ensure that vendors are paid in a timely manner.

Facilities management is another related concern. DESE recommends that the district develop a preventative maintenance plan for its buildings, suggesting that maintenance has often been handled reactively rather than through long-term planning.

In a district the size of Fall River, one with dozens of school buildings, aging infrastructure, and thousands of students and staff using those spaces every day, that approach can create serious long-term challenges. Preventative maintenance systems are designed to track the condition of buildings, schedule routine repairs, and plan for equipment replacement before systems fail.

Without those structures in place, districts often find themselves responding to unexpected breakdowns, emergency repairs, and higher long-term costs when problems that could have been addressed early are allowed to escalate.
Preventative maintenance planning is also important for budgeting and capital planning. When districts maintain clear data on building conditions and equipment lifecycles, they can anticipate future costs and prioritize repairs in a way that minimizes disruption to students and staff.

DESE’s recommendation suggests that Fall River would benefit from a more structured system for tracking facilities issues, planning repairs, and coordinating maintenance across the district’s buildings rather than relying primarily on reactive responses when problems arise. For a school system responsible for maintaining learning environments across the city, strong facilities management directly affects the safety, functionality, and stability of the spaces where students learn every day.

The review also raises concerns about the district’s human resources systems that go well beyond simply recruiting and retaining staff. DESE recommends that the district formally document its HR procedures, suggesting that many core processes are not consistently structured or standardized. When systems depend on individual staff members rather than clearly documented procedures, districts become vulnerable to delays, inconsistencies, and disruptions when personnel change. This says to us that we do not have a fully functioning HR department.

The report also calls for improvements to administrator evaluation systems and leadership development, indicating that support structures for principals and other school leaders may be uneven across the district.

Another concern involves certification tracking and credential support for educators. Maintaining clear systems to ensure staff meet state licensure requirements is a critical compliance responsibility for school districts.
While these issues may not always be visible to the public, they are the kinds of internal systems that determine how effectively a district can hire, support, and develop the educators responsible for student learning.

None of these issues are glamorous, but they are fundamental to the functioning of a school district.

Perhaps the biggest question raised by the report is not what it says. It’s what has happened since it was completed.

District reviews are meant to serve as a blueprint for improvement. They identify weaknesses and outline the steps districts should take to address them. Yet many in the community appeared to be learning about this report for the first time Tuesday night.

If the district has had these recommendations for nearly a year, the public deserves to know:
What actions have been taken?
What changes have been implemented?
What progress has actually been made?

Reports like this are only valuable if they lead to action otherwise they become a document that diagnoses the problems while the system continues to operate exactly as it did before.

For Fall River, the real work now is determining whether this year-old review will finally spark the kind of structural change the district has needed for years or whether it will simply become another report that sits quietly on a shelf while the same issues continue to play out in public meetings.

At the end of the day, the question the community should be asking is fairly simple-
If the problems have already been identified, what is actually being done to fix them?