Update: Let's Show Up for Music on August 24

Thank You! Approximately 400 verified Wayland residents have now signed this petition, and everyone’s support proves our community cares deeply about preserving music education.

Now we need to make our voices heard in person!

As of today, the Wayland School Committee is scheduled to meet on Monday, August 24, at 6:00PM at Town Building (41 Cochituate Rd, Wayland, MA 01778). Public comment is 2 minutes per speaker, and we want as many parents, students, grandparents, educators, and community members as possible to attend and speak!  [School Committee information: https://www.waylandps.org/agenda-and-meeting-information To further help families organize, I've also created the Wayland Parent Action Network on Facebook, so families can both discuss and coordinate. [ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/share/g/19D1mn8R4j/

If you're planning to speak, here are some facts and questions you may wish to reference (Feel free to choose points meaningful to you):

- ~400 verified Wayland residents have signed this petition asking the district to reconsider the pilot.

- All 3 Wayland elementary schools, Loker, Happy Hollow, and Claypit Hill, are high-performing schools that are not identified by DESE as requiring assistance or intervention. Loker has an Accountability Percentile of 86%, Happy Hollow 95% and Claypit Hill 91% (DESE). These results demonstrate that Wayland elementary schools are already among the stronger-performing schools in Massachusetts. If our elementary schools are already achieving strong academic outcomes, what evidence demonstrates that reducing music instruction is necessary or that it will improve literacy outcomes?

-Wayland's elementary schools consistently perform well above the Massachusetts average in ELA. Approximately 75% of Loker students meet or exceed ELA expectations, compared with roughly 42% statewide, and Happy Hollow and Claypit Hill also substantially outperform the state average. Year-to-year variation in assessment results is normal, and a few percentage points in either direction should not be treated as a crisis or as evidence of administrative success. Our community should be focused on sustaining strong outcomes and providing an excellent education for every child, not on chasing marginal percentage-point gains simply to produce slightly higher test scores. If all three elementary schools are already achieving strong academic results, what evidence shows that reducing music instruction is necessary to improve literacy?

- The district has not presented evidence showing that reducing music instruction by 30 minutes per week will improve literacy outcomes.

-ELA already receives approximately 30% of the elementary instructional week, and is the largest instructional block. Under the proposed pilot, ELA increases to approximately 32% of the instructional week. Music is reduced by 30 minutes per week (approximately 1.5% of total instructional time, or about 2% if the district's estimated transition time is included).

- Educational research consistently finds that instructional quality *not* simply more instructional time is what improves reading achievement.

- The district is implementing a new CKLA ELA curriculum while simultaneously increasing ELA instructional time. Why cut CKLA, if the new curriculum alone can improve literacy scores? How will anyone know which change, if either, affected student outcomes?

- Why wasn't the new curriculum allowed to establish a baseline before making another major instructional change?

- The district describes a 160-minute scheduling deficit, but this is NOT a Massachusetts requirement. This reflects local scheduling decisions and desires.

- Wayland students already receive approximately 1,101 instructional hours per year, about 22% more than the state's required minimum.

- Why was music selected for reduction rather than another scheduling solution?

- Music provides well-documented academic, cognitive, social, and developmental benefits that should be weighed against any proposed reduction.

- The composition of the Schedule Working Group raises concerns about whether the perspectives of those most directly impacted were adequately represented. The group was largely composed of administrators, specialists, and instructional coaches, with ONLY TWO general education classroom teachers included. Notably, there did not appear to be any Loker classroom teacher representation, and there was no apparent Grade 4 classroom teacher representation. The grade level directly affected by this proposed schedule change. A decision that significantly alters students' weekly access to music and classroom instructional time should include meaningful input from the educators who work with these students every day.

-Classroom teachers were not asked a straightforward question such as whether they supported adding instructional time if doing so required reducing or eliminating music instruction. Instead, the questions presented to teachers were framed around instructional time and academic priorities in ways that appear to have made support for reducing music more likely, rather than neutrally asking teachers to weigh the actual tradeoff. This raises legitimate concerns about whether the teacher’s input being cited reflects a genuine, informed preference for cutting music or a response to a question who’s framing already favored that outcome.

-Teachers were also never directly surveyed on the fundamental tradeoff at issue: whether they would prefer additional literacy instructional time at the expense of music instruction. Without asking that question directly, it is difficult to characterize teacher input as support for reducing music. Instead, teachers were asked questions about instructional priorities and scheduling that did not require them to explicitly choose between literacy time and music. The distinction matters: supporting more instructional time in general is not the same as supporting taking instructional time away from music.

- Families deserve greater transparency about how this decision was reached and what alternatives were considered.

- Many parents are concerned that children are spending increasing amounts of instructional time on Chromebooks, digital platforms, and standardized programs, while handwriting, extended writing, and hands-on learning receive less emphasis. By Grade 3, students are also required to take MCAS electronically, making proficiency with keyboards, screens, and digital interfaces an increasingly important part of how students demonstrate what they know. This raises an important question: if the district is concerned about maximizing instructional time and preparing students for academic demands, why is it willing to reduce hands-on, developmentally meaningful instruction such as music while continuing to expand screen-based learning and digital assessment? Why isn't the district pushing back on the increasing reliance on electronic testing and screen-based instruction rather than sacrificing other subjects to create more instructional time?

- If literacy is the concern, should we first examine how children are being taught before reducing music?

- Hundreds of families have written emails, attended meetings, spoken directly with administrators and School Committee members, signed the petition, and submitted letters expressing their concerns. Yet the proposed changes continue to move forward. At what point does community input actually influence decision-making? What specific changes to the proposal have been made in response to the concerns raised by families, and if the public's input is not going to change the outcome, what is the purpose of soliciting it?

-If elected School Committee members and hired administrators are unwilling to meaningfully respond to hundreds of families who have raised serious concerns, what accountability exists? Who investigates when public input is ignored, the decision-making process is questioned, and the community is not given clear answers?

Even if you don't want to speak, YOUR PRESENCE MATTERS. A full room sends a powerful message that our community values music education, transparency, and evidence-based decision-making.

Thank you again for standing together. I hope to see many of you on August 24.