School Committee — June 16, 2026

Representative Ken Gordon explained that the bill aims to restrict cell phone access during school hours. Discussion focused on various implementation methods including geofencing apps, Yonder pouches, and 'Doorman' technology, as well as concerns regarding student privacy, equity, and the cost of enforcement. Members also debated the potential for an 'unfunded mandate' and the impact on students with medical needs like Type 1 diabetes. Committee members discussed the complexities of enforcing cell phone policies, noting concerns about students feeling stigmatized (e.g., those with type 1 diabetes who rely on phones for medical monitoring) and the potential for legal liability if implementation is imperfect. There was also a debate regarding the enforceability of policies on school buses and the need for a culture shift rather than just punitive measures.

The committee engaged in a high-level information-gathering session with state representatives; no local policy was enacted. The board reached a consensus that policies must be fair rather than purely punitive and acknowledged the difficulty of enforcing rules on buses.

The bill is currently in a conference committee to reconcile House and Senate versions. Once passed, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) will lead a public regulatory process where the committee and parents can provide input.

Supporters highlighted the benefits of Alpha's personalized, self-paced academic model and AI-integrated learning, noting its potential to help students with dyslexia or those needing more challenge. Some speakers expressed concerns about the impact of private schools on public education, suggesting instead that Lexington Public Schools adopt elements of the Alpha curriculum. Arguments centered on providing more diverse educational options for students who do not thrive in traditional settings.

The School Committee decided not to take a vote on the Alpha School proposal during this meeting.

A working group will be formed to conduct a deeper dive into the proposal and present a roadmap/work plan to the committee by August 25th.

Members discussed the weight of their decisions and the challenges of being presented with such a significant proposal late in the academic year (May/June). They noted that a January introduction would have allowed for more adequate review time. The meeting concluded with reflections and a motion to adjourn.

The meeting concluded with reflections and a motion to adjourn.

The evaluation covered several professional practices including financial transparency, special education, K-5 literacy, instructional leadership, and community engagement. Dr. Hackett received ratings ranging from 'proficient' to 'exemplary,' with specific praise for the K-5 literacy curriculum adoption and her leadership during fiscal pressures.

The evaluation was presented to the committee, and members offered formal verbal commendations regarding her leadership and professional handling of district challenges.

The final copy of the evaluation will be sent to committee members.

Alpha School representatives detailed their mastery-based, AI-assisted curriculum, their physical site at 92 Hayden Ave, and their staffing/training models. Committee members questioned the school regarding student lunch provisions, playground availability, financial aid availability, and the balance between digital learning and physical writing/literacy instruction. The discussion focused on how Alpha selects and trains staff, noting that many guides come from diverse backgrounds rather than traditional teaching certifications. The process includes a period of shadowing, an 'alpha boot camp' (student teaching for 3-6 months), and ongoing training in child psychology and specialized areas. Committee members questioned how literacy, history, and critical thinking are assessed and taught via software. Alpha representatives explained the use of 'Alpha Read' and 'Alpha Write' apps, emphasizing that guides provide scaffolding and feedback. Questions were raised about whether MAP testing is sufficient for measuring writing and reasoning, and what kind of student data is collected. Alpha explained they use MAP for progress monitoring and supplemental assessments like the ISEE for middle schoolers. Regarding privacy, they stated data is stored on private servers and that while the system uses eye-tracking to monitor engagement/zoning out, no identifiable student faces are recorded or viewable to staff. The committee asked about NEASC accreditation and state-level approval. Alpha noted they have Cognia accreditation and have received approval for a Boston location, though they are still seeking specific local approvals for the proposed site. They also addressed how their curriculum is mapped to Massachusetts state standards.

The school provided clarifications on their operational model and physical plant readiness. The school asserted that their training model is a core strength that compensates for varying traditional backgrounds. The school explained that academic standards are met through a combination of personalized digital instruction and afternoon interdisciplinary workshops. The school clarified that MAP is an interim tool and that guides provide direct assessment of qualitative skills like writing. The school confirmed they will pursue NEASC accreditation once eligible and are currently mapping all content to state requirements.