7. Regular Meeting May 19, 2026

This episode covers the May 19th regular meeting of the school committee, which, among other things,  included conversations about the 158 Spring Street building, including the future of Ahern field, screen time, and retirement plus legislation. Two district leadership positions were filled and next year’s school calendar was approved.

LINKS

Agenda

2026/27 Calendar

Hiring and 158 Spring Street Slides

CRLS Principal Position Profile

FMA Principal Position Profile

MA General Law 71 Seciotn 59

DESE Statement on School Committees and Hiring (scroll down to the heading, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education recommendations:")( 

Presentation Slides

The website for this podcast is CSC30.com

You can contact the podcast by emailing CambridgeSC30@gmail.com

The School Committee email address is SchoolCom@cpsd.us

Transcript

0:02

Hello. I'm Jess Gutz. Welcome to School Committee in 30 Minutes or Less, the unofficial recap podcast of the Cambridge School Committee. This episode covers the May 19th regular meeting of the School Committee, which, among other things, included conversations about the 158 Spring Street building and screen time. Just quickly, before we get started, I wanted to let you all know I am doing two things a little differently from now on. First, I am really trying to tighten up the way I recap things. The repetitive nature of the discussions at these meetings means that there is definitely more fat that I can and should cut to stay under 30 minutes. Second, I'm not going to split into pure reporting followed by an opinion section. But rather, I will be providing context and my thoughts along the way. I think it will flow better that way, and I also think it's important for all listeners to have context around key issues. Let's run the numbers. This meeting was four hours and 45 minutes long. All seven members were in attendance eventually. There were six public comments and one presentation from the superintendent. The committee approved all six contracts for a total of $836,143, as well as one in-kind donation. They approved two appointments to the district leadership and one subcommittee report. They also passed two school committee motions and three congratulatory resolutions. Public comment was up first. Among the six commenters was Chris Montero, the president of the Cambridge Education Association. He commented on the screen time presentation saying, This is a time to bring educators, administrators, and the school committee together to develop some concrete next steps for the start of the next school year. He also urged the committee to approve Motion 26106, which encourages the state Senate to pass the so-called retirement plus legislation. As discussed later in the meeting, this legislation is not controversial and makes sure that all educators have the same access to already passed laws allowing for additional contributions to pensions. Lastly, Mr. Montero had warm words of congratulations and encouragement for the student school committee members who will be graduating shortly. They weren't there to accept this praise though because we were a bit late because we just came back from Senior Skip Day. We were all at the beach. It was very successful. And honestly, I loved that for them. Next was my favorite kind of public comment, and that is a comment directly from an actual CPS student. Noam Krakauer, a CPS upper school student, talked about the screen time presentation, expressing his belief that there is too much screen time in the daily life of upper school students. He told the committee about his first-hand experiences with Chromebooks in upper school and asked them to consider if screens are actually contributing to learning. The remaining four commenters were caregivers who urged the committee to support motion 26107, which asked the city council to further investigate the consequences of installing artificial turf, especially on heat retention, at Ahern Field, the green space behind the 158 Spring Street building. They expressed concern that the field will be replaced with turf and worried about the potential environmental and health consequences thereof. It should be noted that even though the field is school adjacent and will be used by whatever students go into the 158 Spring Street building, the school committee is not in charge of the decisions regarding its renovation. That responsibility lies with the city. Then there was one item on the unfinished business agenda, and that was the vote to approve the calendar for the 2026-27 school year. This vote had been on the agenda at the previous meeting, but the superintendent asked to push it back to this one. As I understand it, there is concern that the way we currently put the school year calendar together, especially the many various religious holidays we take off, pushes the last day of school further into June than other districts go. This is apparently not desirable and becomes especially problematic if we have a lot of snow days like we did this year. The superintendent expressed these concerns but didn't propose anything new for now because next school year will start earlier than usual, so the concern about going deep into June isn't as relevant. He recommended they vote to approve the calendar for now, but asked that the committee perhaps indulge the administration at a later date about this discussion. The calendar was unanimously approved and is now available on the CPS website, and I have linked to it in the show notes. On a related topic, the superintendent also reminded the meeting that there are some schools with new start times for next school year. Cambridge Port, the Fletcher Maynard Academy, Graham Parks, Haggerty, MLK, Morse, and Tobin will all start at 8 a.m. Next up was the superintendent's agenda. He began with three updates and then moved on to the presentation about screen time in schools. The first update was about the CPS response to the May 11th shooting incident on Memorial Drive and the emergency communication systems that were used that day. Superintendent Murphy expressed gratitude to the Cambridge Police Department for their timely notification and employees of the nearby schools for swiftly enacting the Secure and Hold Protocol. Secure and Hold means that nobody is allowed in or out of a building and there are predetermined staff members assigned to watch over specific parts of the affected building, or in this case, buildings. The affected schools were Putnam Ave Upper School and the Amigos, Morse, and MLK Elementary Schools. He said they have reviewed the school's responses and concluded they were correct and effective. But the review has already resulted in at least one change in practice, which is that briefings on these protocols will take place more than just once a year going forward. The second update took a little longer because it also ended up resolving two agenda items. These items, number 26096 and 26097, were both recommendations that the committee approve appointments to the CPS administration. The superintendent briefly presented on the hiring processes and I have linked to the slides in the show notes. A few things jumped out at me about this presentation. First, the slide deck also included leadership profiles that were created for the two open principal positions, and I've linked to them directly in the show notes. Second, the superintendent took special note to say the background checks were extensive. And third, even though it was good to see some details of the search process, there was a fair amount of missing information, including how long positions were posted for, where they were posted, how candidates moved through the process, and the makeup of the various interview committees and focus groups. After the superintendent's presentation, the members had a chance to ask some questions. Vice Chair Duby asked about educator involvement in the hiring process. She also asked how long the CRLS principal position had been advertised for. The superintendent said he thought educator involvement was important and listed a variety of ways in which educator voice had been included, but ultimately concluded that the responsibility for hiring lies with him. He then noted that the principal position for CRLS was posted on April 8th for two weeks, saying that there might be a reason it was only up for such a short period of time, but he wouldn't tell them what that was until the process was over. Now, it has taken me long enough to get this episode out that I can solve that mystery for you right now, as it has since been announced that the formerly interim principal, Alan Gately Gehant, is now the official principal. Chair Weinstein then also praised the superintendent's hiring processes and asked the superintendent to clarify for the public the role the school committee plays in hiring. I thought this was interesting because, in my opinion, that clarification should come from the school committee and not the superintendent. It seems a little odd to have your employee describe your job for you. Anyway, the superintendent's interpretation of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 71, Section 59, was something like this. The committee can't appoint someone to a leadership role in the district without a recommendation from the superintendent, and this is a statutory check to make sure a committee doesn't impose a team on a superintendent. I will note that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has a slightly different take on this, especially in the context of the 1993 Education Reform Act. Their position is that the school committee should function as a quote educational policy board, holding the administration accountable for meeting the standards and policies set by the committee. The school committee hires the superintendent and assistant superintendents and should rely on the superintendent to hire the other personnel who serve the school district as part of the administrative team. I've linked to both the general law and the DC statement in the show notes. I'm not sure what to make of it. But I hope school committee members take some time to think about it as managing the superintendent is a big part of their job. Member DePaulo Santos expressed concern about whether we are living up to our anti-discrimination policy because one of the candidates put forward has been named in a pending civil rights violation lawsuit. She asked about how background checks were conducted and what the district's liability would be if they hire someone with a pending lawsuit who is then found guilty. The superintendent said that he is grateful that we live within a legal system where being accused is not the same as being sanctioned or condemned, and he had total confidence in the background checks his administration conducted. Then each candidate was brought to the table and chatted with a bit before they voted. Both were approved unanimously, with the mayor being absent. And so the new school district legal counsel is Carolyn Wiseman and the new assistant superintendent of secondary education is Tamara Strass. Both women are joining CPS from the Newton Public School System. The superintendent's third update was on the future of the Spring Street building. He presented the slides from the May 14th Community Engagement Meeting. These slides are in the same presentation as the one about the hiring processes. The slide that jumped out at me the most was the one that listed the six options for what could go into that space, and these were moving a school that already exists, merging two elementary schools, merging two upper schools, creating a new school, relinquishing the building, reserving the building for use as a swing space or for the administration. The superintendent said that he did not think reserving the building as a swing or administrative space was a desirable option. He also said that merging two elementary schools was unlikely since he couldn't think of two schools that would benefit from such a move. Member Harding pointed out, and the superintendent agreed, that relinquishing the building was not an actual option based on decisions made by the previous school committee. There was a little more discussion on the topic that went something like this. Vice Chair Duby asked about the merging options and why they were being considered and how it all plays into the strategic plan, if it does. The superintendent said that introducing new programming is a nice idea and that doing so could follow two different paths. The first path is to incubate something at the 158 Spring Street building, and the second is to move an existing school to Spring Street and use their current building for new programming. He added that even if a school or schools were moved to Spring Street, there could still be space for incubating a new program. And if this confuses you, then you apparently get his point that this is a complex decision and the district needs to be thinking several, but not too many, steps ahead. Lastly, he said there is no way to think about next steps without including the strategic plan. Member Hudson asked for the specific timing of when a decision will be made and communicated to the public. The superintendent said that the goals for the upcoming school year will be presented at the June 16th regular meeting, and this will include timelines for various options. He said he believed the decision should be made by September 2026 if they are planning to have programming in the building in September 2027. But he noted that the construction manager hasn't finished his analysis yet, and there is always the possibility that infrastructure issues could push back using the building until the fall of 2028. Funnily, right before this part about the construction manager not being done yet, he had referred to the building as operationally sound. The building is operationally sound. We could in an emergency put students into that building in a matter of weeks. And I know I have my biases, but I have got to call BS on that. If you don't believe me, I urge you to find a former Kalo or Vassal Lane student or staff member and ask them about the state of that building. I can only imagine how much worse it is after sitting empty for a year. Well, empty, except for all the rodents. But Member Hudson wasn't done yet. She said she was worried about the pace of decision making and asked the chair to reflect the urgency of the situation in meeting agendas going forward. Then Member Harding asked about the extent of the renovation planned for the building, and the superintendent said it was focusing on systems, that is HVAC, electrical and plumbing, and windows. And now a quick update on the situation. On May 28th, the Building and Ground Subcommittee met. I've linked to the slides in the show notes. I didn't attend the meeting and the video isn't posted yet, but the important takeaway I get from the slides is that two of the six options have been officially eliminated. 158 Spring Street will not be relinquished or used as a swing slash administrative space. Now, I believe we can further reduce that list based on what the superintendent said about merging elementary schools, and on the experiences of upper schools in that building. That is to say, in my opinion, the idea that that building could house two upper schools is bonkers, even just based on the sheer bodily size of upper school students. So that would leave just two actual options. Either a current school gets moved there or a new school is created. At the two-hour and 15-minute mark, the superintendent pivoted to the evening's presentation about screen time in schools. The presenters were Dr. Heather Francis, the Executive Director of Academics, and Gina Rotten, the Director of Educational Technology. They presented preliminary information from their screen time audit. Preliminary in that there will be even more data to present later in June. I have linked to the presentation in the show notes, and here is a quick summary of what they said. For this report, they collected data from multiple sources, including a 23-day dataset of Chromebook usage from thousands of students, and an educator survey answered by 231 CPS educators. In addition, they held two educator focus groups, 34 classroom observations, six day-in-the-life observations where they followed students for a complete day of school, nine student feedback sessions led by instructional technology teachers, and principal feedback sessions, though I don't know how many. They presented results of the Chromebook Usage Analysis and Educator Survey in terms of the median number of minutes of use and the percentage of minutes which was considered instructional. I highly recommend checking out those slides and seeing if they jibe with your lived experiences, either as an educator or caregiver. They didn't for me. As an upper school parent, I strongly agree with a student public commenter who said, According to the audit, middle school students spend about 5% of their time on screens off task. However, I have reason to believe the situation may be even worse. They also listed the top platforms used at each age level as well as their definition of high-quality screen use, which is technology use that meaningfully strengthens teaching and learning. Here is what they listed as their major findings. Screen use increases predictably across grade levels. Most, but not all, screen use is instructional and curriculum aligned. Technology use is embedded within broader classroom routines. Students and educators consistently emphasized the importance of balance, and strong instruction remains rooted in discussion, writing, collaboration, and hands-on learning. Before I get into the discussion that followed, here are a few additional points that came up during the presentation but were not reflected in the slides. Regarding the methods used for this report, the panelists noted that the Chromebook usage was auto-categorized, which means it captured what tech products were used and how much, but not necessarily what it was actually used for. For example, all time spent on Google Apps was considered instructional. As a result, off-task behaviors could only be captured anecdotally. Interestingly, in lower elementary grades, when students are using math apps, they pair up in order to encourage math conversations instead of just using computers alone. The presenters also mentioned that upper school is where they are beginning to see tensions between appropriate and inappropriate technology use, with concerns about multitasking, distraction, attention, and off-task behaviors beginning to emerge. This is in contrast to the student quote they pulled for the slides, which features an upper school student feeling chill about their tech use, believing that it doesn't disrupt their learning. When they talked about screen use at the high school, they talked about how deeply embedded tech is in the students' day-to-day lives, and yet the median Chromebook use reported was 71 minutes, which is only 18% of a school day. After the presentation, Chair Weinstein opened the floor to questions. Member Harding asked what feedback they had received from librarians on technology. Ms. Rotten said the librarians are part of the Information, Communication, and Technology Services team, so they work closely with instructional tech coaches. She said they are tasked with teaching about choosing and using resources, both tech and non-tech, and they might actually be the best at balancing screen and non-screen use. Member Hudson first asked the panel to clarify the makeup of the screen use minutes, asking if the usage minutes included when something is projected in a classroom. She then asked her question, which was for more detail on what technology for the youngest learners actually looks like. Dr. Francis said that the student usage data from Chromebooks only captured their individualized screen time, so not classroom projections, but that the educator survey did include classroom projections. She went on to say that there were schools where there was no tech in the younger grades at all, and other schools where it was mostly projections, and that the minutes of personalized use captured in the younger age bands would be made up of ST math and boost reading time. Member J. Kumar said that the committee had heard from a lot of people in the community and there are concerns regarding unmonitored screen use, student ability to circumvent online guardrails, and using instructional products for non-instructional purposes. He asked if the presenters had concerns about the accuracy of their presentation. Dr. Francis said their data sources were sound, but that no one source is perfect, which is why they collected information from so many. She noted that students are smart and do learn to get around things, and that unstructured screen time is an area of needed improvement. Ms. Rotten also agreed that students are creative and some are determined to find their way around filters. She attributed this to a desire to avoid the activity at hand, which they would do with or without technology. She also saw this as an opportunity to teach kids when tech is helpful and when it detracts from learning. Asked about limitations of the audit's methods and potential areas of improvement. Dr. Francis said that it would be good to add caregiver focus groups in the future. She also noted that having internal staff working on a project could have introduced bias. The superintendent jumped in then and mentioned that technology was an issue that was covered at the recent community feedback sessions. His takeaway was that it is top of mind for everyone who lives and works with students. He said there will be a round of communication at the end of the school year aimed at helping families navigate the issue over the summer. Member DePaulo Santos said she appreciated Mr. Montero's public comment, specifically that it is important to make sure educators are involved in addressing this issue. She stated that she hoped future iterations of this audit would report more than just the median number of minutes, saying it isn't helpful for understanding the range of experiences. She also noted that the audit measured screen time but not learning outcomes, and asked if we know if the text students use is actually improving student outcomes. She also asked if any data was collected in special education classrooms, adding that she had personally had the experience of seeing screens used for behavior management and to placate students in special education classrooms. Dr. Francis said they reported medians because that is what the vendor they used for the analysis had recommended. Now I'm going to take a little stats 101 sidetrack. Means and medians are measures of central tendency that are used to summarize the distribution of a continuous variable, but they don't tell the whole story, which is why they are usually accompanied by some measure of variability, like the range of values, or the standard deviation of a mean, or an interquartile range around a median. The fact that they are reporting medians tells me that the number of minutes spent on Chromebooks is not normally distributed, which probably indicates great variability across the range andor a skewed distribution, which would make it even more important for them to report more than just the measure of central tendency. Hopefully the full report in June will be a little bit more illuminating in this regard. Dr. Francis then said that looking at the role tech plays in learning outcomes would take a bigger, longer, and more complicated study, but it could be an interesting design challenge. She also mentioned that special education classrooms come up in the full report, but they did not observe any special education classrooms and probably should have. Then Vice Chair Duby named that the presentation held the operating assumption that screens are necessary, which she did not agree with, saying that we know screens are not of neutral impact on kids, especially the youngest learners. She said that the report gave no information on why screens are being used, and made the point that one reason screen use is hard to reduce or eliminate is the impact it would have on aspects of the bureaucracy of the district, including student data collection and the fact that the standardized curricula are disseminated on slides. She urged the administration to think not just about instructional versus non-instructional screen use, but about the effects of screen use over the course of a student's day, including at home, saying there are real mental health issues to be concerned about. She added that she particularly did not like the implication that educators should be in charge of managing students' screen time, saying, When you've got students on Chromebooks, you need to be walking behind them all the time. And that's not because the students are doing something bad or the teacher is doing something bad. It's because that's what screens do to young people's brains. And so if we're putting kids in the position where they're going to be distracted from learning because we're handing them hardware, that's on us. She then asked what the district can do in the fall of 2026 to begin enacting, perhaps through pilot programs, new and different ways of teaching and learning that do not rely on screens. The superintendent responded by saying that the analysis shows that there are specific practices that could and should be eliminated right away. I will note that these practices were not in the presentation, but perhaps they will be in the full report in June. During the discussion, they listed practices such as 10 p.m. homework deadlines and individualized screen use as a reward or time filler at the end of class. The superintendent said they need to identify and cut the easy stuff, but the other issues will take longer to unwind because efficiencies may be lost. To which Vice Chair Duby responded that the Los Angeles Unified School District was able to enact notable screen limits quickly because they were serious about it. And if Cambridge is truly serious about issues like elementary literacy, they will also act quickly. Dr. Francis said she agreed with the Vice Chair and that building leaders need to clarify with teachers why and when screens should be used, and that they are currently collecting teen health data and will hopefully be able to include some mental health information in the full June report. Student member Asraf asked if there had been a noticeable increase in non-instruction Chromebook use in the high schools since the Yonder pouches were introduced. Ms. Rotten said they didn't have Chromebook data from before the Yonder pouches, so they don't know, but it is an interesting question. She added that student feedback from the high school indicated that students know when they are misusing technology and that sometimes it is just done for a mental break. Just to wrap up, I will say that the panelists struck me as sincere, and I do believe they have started to, as Vice Chair Duby said, scratch the surface of these issues. But this presentation did not, as the superintendent asserted, give us all a common set of facts to work from. I personally reject the idea that screen time is of value just because it is considered instructional. And I think we have to ground this conversation a bit more in how we got here, which would include empathy and understanding for the wildly mixed messages about screen use that both students and educators have received along the way. As they were moving on to the consent agenda, Member DePalo Santos halted the meeting briefly, asking for a vote to reconsider the vote of motion 26097, the approval of the new Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education. She was seconded by Member Jacomar, but the motion did not pass as only she and Member Jacomar voted for it. So they moved on to the consent agenda. The consent agenda was up next. Only one item, Recommendation 26103, was pulled for discussion before the committee voted on the balance, which passed unanimously. The balance included five contracts for a total of just over $200,000 for curriculum assessment software, maintenance of the challenge course at CRLS Fieldhouse, audio amplification for visual and performing arts programs, and other computer software. They also approved a donation of visual and performing arts equipment. The committee then discussed recommendation $26103, which was to approve $600,000 for Chromebooks. Vice Chair Duby pulled it in line with a discussion they had all just had about screens in schools, asking if they really want to spend six hundred thousand dollars on Chromebooks if they all agree they need to seriously rethink how Chromebooks are used in schools. The superintendent said he understood her reasoning, but that this particular contract is actually about Chromebooks for ninth graders, and that if they don't approve it, it's possible the computers will be delayed for the start of next school year. He also said his team could do better with being more specific when writing recommendations going forward, since you wouldn't know from reading this one that this money is specifically for Chromebooks for ninth graders. Chair Weinstein pointed out that this is the approval that we could spend up to six hundred thousand dollars for this purpose. That's not happening right away. It might not happen at all over the course of the year, even if we make no changes, because we might not need quite that much. And then they voted and it was approved with only Vice Chair Duby voting no. Next up was the school committee agenda. Member Harding pulled two items, motion 26106 about retirement plus and 26107 about a Hearn Field. Both motions were co-sponsored by members DePalo Santos and Jacomar. Member Jacomar spoke first about the Retirement Plus motion, which encourages the Massachusetts State Senate to adopt an enrollment fix to the Retirement Plus program. He said this legislation is not controversial, has received unanimous support in the state house, and is widely supported in the state Senate. Just for some background, the original retirement plus legislation was passed in 2001 and allows educators to increase their contributions to their pensions and receive higher payouts after 30 years of service. But enrollment was complicated and many teachers were not able to enroll due to a variety of reasons, including being out on maternity leave. So this newer legislation is meant to fix that. Member Jacomar noted that this fix could also have a positive impact on the district budget if longer serving, that is, more expensive teachers, retire sooner. And Member DePalo Santos said that more staff turnover could result in a more diverse teaching cohort. They then voted and the motion was passed unanimously. For motion twenty six one oh seven about investigating the installation of turf at Ahern Field, Member Harding said he was not against it, but was concerned it could slow down the process of renovating the space. Member Jacomar said the motion was designed to echo the city council's own motion regarding the field, and the motion just asks that the anticipated needs of students be considered. Member DePaulo Santos emphasized the public comments about health and heat concerns with TURF, and Chair Weinstein said, It is the school committee's responsibility to look out for students and the design of spaces that support schools. The mayor supported the motion, saying the city is currently in the design phase of the project and it is perfectly reasonable for the school committee to weigh in. They then voted and the motion was also unanimously passed. Then they moved on to resolutions. There were three resolutions, and they were all delightful and positive, and they all passed unanimously. The resolutions were in praise and congratulations of CPS students. The first two were the student school committee members, Ziham Jama and Eva Asaf. And the third was an acknowledgement of several CRLS students who had won Scholastic Art and Writing Awards. And that pretty much wraps up that meeting. The next meeting is this Tuesday, June 2nd, and the agenda is available now. The very hot topic of controlled choice is on the menu. I mean, agenda. Should be interesting, and thanks for listening.