Education

Leading up to the November 4 local election, the Newton Beacon asked candidates in competitive elections for their views on public education:

How would you improve public education in Newton?

John Chaimanis, City Council Candidate, Ward 4 At-Large: As a parent with three young children in the Newton public schools, this is an issue close to my heart, and critically important to many of my strong supporters.  As a former educator and administrator I have some experience in this area. The school committee is responsible for helping NPS succeed. The city council has limited direct impact on education, but we can and should partner with the new Mayor, NPS leadership and School Committee on the items where the council does have an impact – like the budget and school buildings. If elected, my focus will be to work with the school committee, and NPS leadership to ensure that the city is fully informed about budget matters at a detailed level, and an informed plan to support NPS and their needs into the future. The simplest thing that we can all do right now, is to VOTE in the current critically important School Committee races.

Cyrus Dahmubed, City Council Candidate, Ward 4 At-Large: It’s important to recognize that our elected School Committee has the most direct impact on our schools, and that this year will see seven of the nine school committee seats change (one seat is the Mayor), so everyone should be well informed on these races and be sure to vote in them on 11/4. One thing the Council can do for our schools is to help ensure that adequate funding is available when NPS and our School Committee tell us it’s needed. This can be done by growing our revenue through new commercial and residential growth. Doing so may also have the benefit of making Newton more affordable for our public servants, like our school teachers, so that they are able to live in and be part of the communities they serve. Given the City Council’s limited direct role in the schools, I would also advocate for more and more effective communication between the Council, School Committee, School Department, and Mayor, to help understand goals, priorities, and challenges as early as possible.

Lisa Gordon, City Council Candidate, Ward 6 At-Large: I will continue to build a strong relationship with Superintendent Anna Nolin and the School Committee to ensure that our schools are funded in a predictable and sustainable way. While the City Council does not set educational policy, it can play an important role by supporting our Superintendent, teachers, and staff; promoting excellence in academics, arts, music, and athletics; and ensuring a cohesive approach to budgets, facilities, and long-term planning so that every child feels safe and supported.

Julie Irish, City Council Candidate, Ward 5: Newton’s schools are among the best in the state but keeping them strong requires smart investment and planning. While the City Council does not create the school budget or determine curriculum, I would support a budget that prioritizes classroom resources, student support, and facility improvements. Our teachers and staff are the heart of NPS, and we must support them with fair pay, professional growth, and tools to meet students’ academic and social-emotional needs. To maximize resources, I support working with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) to secure every dollar of available funding. If the Council is directly involved in school issues, I will work collaboratively with the Mayor and the School Committee. Having had two children attend Newton Public Schools and serving as a PTO Co-President, I understand the importance of ensuring students feel challenged and supported through strong programs, expanded enrichment, and best practices to keep our schools strong.

Josh Krintzman, City Council Candidate, Ward 4, At-Large: Most education policy decisions and determinations about the curriculum are within the purview of the Superintendent and the School Committee. However, the City Council has a valuable role to play in ensuring that our students are provided with the resources they require and using its public platform to regularly check-in with the schools and speak out when the direction of the schools seems off. Improving our education system requires a thoughtful, balanced approach in which every student has access to excellent learning opportunities. We must meet each child where they are, whether they need enrichment or additional assistance. Newton has spent years publicly quarreling over contracts and budgets. This has to stop. Newton needs to develop a budget strategy that is not only supportive of current needs, but represents a sustainable budget moving forward. Dr. Nolin has outlined a bold vision for the public schools that we should fully fund as soon as possible.

Marc Laredo, Mayoral Candidate: The Newton Public Schools are a critical priority. I am a proud graduate of the Newton Public Schools, the parent of three children (and a daughter-in-law) who also are graduates of the Newton Public Schools, and served as a member of the School Committee for eight years, including as vice chair and then chair. I will work closely with Superintendent Anna Nolin and the School Committee to ensure that we fund our schools in a predictable, sustainable way; promote academic excellence; bolster our extracurricular activities; and make sure that every child feels safe and secure in school.

Garry Miller, City Council Candidate, Ward 5: The City Council has little or no control over items like the school budget or curriculum. However, the Council can play a vital role in a few vital areas that I would support. 1) Ensuring that school facilities meet the needs of our students. Too many, such as Newton South, suffer from deficiencies like roof leaks or faulty HVAC systems that detract from learning. 2) As we learned earlier in 2025, the City Council can play a mediating and advocacy role to help calm conflicts and help find solutions when the School Committee and Mayor don’t agree. 3) The City Council plays a critical role in the city’s overall finances, which partly determines what money is available for our schools. A bigger overall pie can support a larger budget for the schools without necessarily cutting other city services.

Sean Roche, City Council Candidate, Ward 6 At-Large: The two biggest opportunities for the City Council to improve our public schools are: * Ensure financial sustainability * Foster greater collaboration among the School Committee and Department, the mayor’s office, and the City Council New development that is in construction or soon to start will contribute to the city’s ongoing revenue. Beyond that, our priority should be to continue to revitalize our village centers and make them more economically productive. I would also consider adjusting the rate at which we are funding our pension obligations, while still meeting our legal deadline. I am committed to working with School Committee members, the mayor’s and superintendent’s offices, and colleagues on the City Council to ensure that we are sharing information among us and communicating consistently with city residents.

Would you support a Proposition 2 1/2 operating override to fund schools and other city expenses?

Mali Brodt, School Committee Candidate, Ward 6: Yes. To support a budget override, we need to approach the process thoughtfully, transparently, and strategically. First, we must use all available levers—state and federal funding, grants, partnerships, and efficiencies within the current budget—before turning to taxpayers. An override should never be the first or only solution. At the same time, we must vett the budget carefully, ensuring every dollar supports students, educators, and core priorities like class size, mental health, and engaging programming. We should learn from other communities that have passed successful overrides—what made their messaging effective, how they built trust, and what outcomes they prioritized. Most importantly, we need to make the case that strong public schools are a foundation of a strong community, and investing in them benefits everyone—now and in the future.

John Chaimanis: No position. Presently there is no override and any position on this matter would have to be grounded in the facts at the time, looking at it as an alternative of last resort. In recent history, the school’s budget was rejected even when funds were available, creating distrust and polarization. Regardless of the reason for an override, it must be accompanied by transparent facts and details allowing the public to understand the reality. We must analyze the actual budget from a revenue and expense perspective, living within our means as the first objective. To increase revenue, we should invest in identifying all alternative sources of revenue, such as grants, foundations, and innovative financing sources. The Mayor in her most recent address about the state of the city mentioned 9 or 10 ‘levers’ that the city has at our disposal – one of which is an override. Personally, I believe that we should focus on other projects and ideas before we even consider asking residents to approve another override.

Cyrus Dahmubed: Yes. Fully and appropriately funding our schools is non-negotiable, and so if a Proposition 2 ½ override is needed, I would support it. At the same time, I would seek to encourage growth and use it to delay and decrease the need for an override. We have lost out on years of revenue due to the delay in projects like Riverside, and we need to encourage opportunities for increased revenue, and be ready to capitalize them when they arise. If and when a Proposition 2 ½ override is necessary, I would encourage the City Council, Mayor, and School Committee to work together early and often to be in alignment on the communication of the override, what it will be used for, how it will achieve its goals, and how to ensure maximum transparency in the budgeting process so we can regain trust around asking our neighbors to dig a little deeper to support our shared resources.

Christine Fisher, School Committee Candidate, Ward 2: Yes. The cost of maintaining high-quality education continues to rise while funding lags behind. Before an override, the district must rebuild trust with the community by showing accountability, sharing a clear long-term plan, and demonstrating responsible resource management. Right now, many in the community feel disconnected from our schools. We need more regular communication about what’s working and what isn’t so the community understands the full picture. Only with this transparency and trust in place can we have an honest conversation about an override. Strong schools are critical to student success and to the health of our city.

Lisa Gordon: The City has multiple opportunities to increase our revenues and ensure we maximize the efficiency of our expenditures. I strongly prefer that all of these options are exhausted before we consider an override.

Julie Irish: Yes. An operating override is one of the most significant financial tools available to the City, and I believe it should only be considered after all other options have been thoroughly explored. That means a careful review of departmental budgets, seeking efficiencies, attracting new revenue, and maximizing state and federal funding before asking residents to contribute more. If an override is proposed, it must be clearly justified by the Mayor, with transparent communication explaining exactly why it is needed and how the funds will be used. We also need to acknowledge the very real financial pressures on many residents, particularly older adults and families with lower incomes, and weigh that carefully when considering an override. If those steps are taken and the case is strong, then an override can be a responsible way to sustain our schools and critical city services.

Josh Krintzman: No position. Once the city has exhausted all other options and demonstrated additional needs – then, yes, I would support an override. Out schools are facing a serious budget deficit over the next few years and we need to TRULY prioritize our schools by getting them the funding our children deserve.

Mark Laredo: Yes. We must have a strong case to make to the voters before even considering the possibility of an operating override. First, we need to ensure that we are providing municipal and school services in as efficient a manner as possible. Second, we must reach a point where additional high-value services can only be provided with additional funding and cannot be provided with existing resources. Third, we must be thoughtful and deliberate before we ask the voters to increase their taxes, and I will not do so lightly.

Victor Lee, School Committee Candidate, Ward 8: Yes. Newton needs to have a deeper conversation about: a) how much of a tax impact we can expect from an override; and b) exactly what the additional funds would go towards. Past efforts have come across as insufficiently explained on these dimensions. We also should not position an override as a binary yes/no decision, but in gradients. An override should be on the table, but should not be pursued without an open conversation with Newtonians first. We have to explain how, for example, even a 3.65% YoY budget increase for NPS did not come close to the thrive budget NPS should strive for – and the consequences for our schools. Additionally, we need to explore other budgetary steps first, or in conjunction: such as getting higher reimbursements for SpEd from the state and possibly decelerating the pension liability funding pay-off timetable that was previously accelerated.

Jenna Lauter Miara, School Committee Candidate, Ward 5: Yes. I support an operating override but it cannot be the first or only solution to NPS’s budget challenges. We need to continue to look for efficiencies within the district, explore all potential sources of additional funding, pursue grants and other partnerships, and make strategic investments with the dollars currently available. At the same time, we need to lay the groundwork for an effective override campaign so that we are set up for success if an override is needed. That means working collaboratively with all stakeholders, building trust with voters by demonstrating accountability and fiscal responsibility, and communicating clearly and often about the budget needs of the schools. In an override campaign, it will be crucial to have broad support from City Council, School Committee, and the unions, and to detail how new funds would be used to support a positive vision of NPS that benefits everyone in Newton because our city’s health is inextricably linked to our schools’ health.

Garry Miller: As noted above, an override will likely be necessary. However, I don’t want to commit until we see the proposals the new mayor brings to the table. In the meantime, I will work tirelessly to avoid one (as long as that does not mean cutting essential services), and if one is necessary, to make sure it is not just the first in a long line of overrides to come.

Jim Murphy, School Committee Candidate, Ward 8: Yes. I have two caveats: One, I can’t speak for other city expenses, so I won’t. I think NPS has been chronically underfunded and that gimmicks have papered-over the problem. Additionally, the way the budget is allocated can appear random. It causes low confidence in budget transparency, and I think that’s why the 2023 override failed, even as the debt exclusions for new school construction passed: With the exclusions, taxpayers knew what they were paying for. I followed this year’s process very closely, so I see the needs, but people being asked to write checks shouldn’t have to do that. So my second caveat is that we need a full accounting of what it costs to run our schools before we ask taxpayers to pony-up. If we do that, and if School Committee members refuse to take underfunding lying down, then I think taxpayers will listen. This year’s budget proposal was a good start. Give me more of it to work with, and I’d be willing to make the case to voters.

Arrianna Proia, School Committee Candidate, Ward 1: No. In my view, it is fiscally irresponsible at this time to call for a blanket override to address school funding needs. As a School Committee, we must first work with city partners, the Council and the next administration, to comprehensively review finances and ensure every possible lever is used to increase school funding before asking residents to approve an override. If, after exhausting all options, an override is still required, it is our responsibility to build trust and provide full transparency, clearly showing residents why it is needed and how funds will be used. The last override failed in part because of a lack of trust and clarity. If we are asking residents to dig deeper into their pockets, we must demonstrate accountability with measurable goals. Newton’s residents have diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, and an override may impact some more than others, making it vital that we prove we have acted responsibly before seeking additional taxpayer support.

Sean Roche: Yes. I think the challenge for the upcoming mayor is how to quickly acknowledge the need for an override – if one exists – and build support for it. The longer we wait to have an override, if one is necessary, the larger the override will have to be and the more contentious it will be. The overwhelmingly likely incoming mayor and well over half of the City Council will have an understanding – in some cases deep understanding – of our fiscal situation. It should not require too long for the mayor to determine if an override is necessary. Delay will serve no one.

Ben Schlesinger, School Committee Candidate, Ward 5: Yes. An override should be the last option, but it may well be necessary. The cost of living in our city is high, and we owe it to our residents to exhaust all other options before asking them to pay higher taxes. We should explore adjusting the pension funding timeline, reducing free cash, lobbying for increased state funding, and generating new income from NPS, namely through grants and sponsorships, which are in the Superintendent’s strategic plan. Most of the people I speak to in the city government believe that even when all that work is done, we will face the choice of either passing an override or reducing school quality. If we get there, I will strongly support an override. As a community, we cherish our children and we know that education has been the path to prosperity for generations of Americans. We value great public education – I am a K-12 product of NPS. Our schools are core to who we are as a city, investing in them is how we express our values.

Linda Swain, School Committee Candidate, Ward 2: Yes. I believe there are additional levers we can pull before resorting to an override. These levers could include: Advocating the state for additional Chapter 70 funding; Advocating the state for additional special education dollars; Slowing the pace of paying off pension liabilities; Thinking creatively on the revenue side – including grants, fundraising, and even possible student enterprises. There may still be a need for an override in the future, but we should first explore other options. If an override later proves necessary, voters deserve a clear explanation of what it will fund and how it will affect their taxes.

Did you support the NTA going on strike last year?

Mali Brodt: No Position. I fully support our teachers and deeply respect their commitment to our students and schools. The strike was a terrible outcome that reflects accumulative failures over time—failures in communication, leadership, and addressing critical issues like staffing and resources. This situation was avoidable if earlier conversations had been more transparent and collaborative. Teachers must have felt they had no other option left to make their voices heard and secure the support their students and classrooms urgently need. Moving forward, it’s essential to rebuild trust, improve dialogue, and ensure that such disruptions don’t happen again. Our focus must be on supporting educators and students while fostering a collaborative environment where challenges are addressed proactively, so a strike does not happen again.

Christine Fisher: No. I did not support the strike because it disrupted student learning and created real hardship for families. That said, I take seriously the concerns teachers raised about workload, pay, and resources. The strike showed a breakdown in trust and communication between the district and the NTA. We need leadership that restores collaboration, where issues are addressed early and negotiations are respectful and transparent. The goal should always be to keep students in classrooms and ensure teachers feel supported, so families, educators, and the district can work together toward shared goals.

Victor Lee: No. I believe some of the NTA desires were reasonable and important to discuss (e.g., appropriate COLA increases, improved support for aides), and I appreciate that some members of the NTA felt frustrated and out of options because of how the Mayor and some members of the School Committee approached the negotiations. However, though the NTA is not solely responsible for the conditions that led to the strike, the decision to strike was ultimately theirs. I believe the NTA should not have undertaken an illegal strike that resulted in students being out of school for way too long (11 days) and undermined trust in the public school system. Having talked to thousands of Newtonians, I have seen how detrimental the strike was to teacher and community relations. The strike was lose-lose, and our students and teachers both deserve better. I look forward to restoring healthier channels for dialogue so that we reduce the likelihood of a strike occurring again.

Jenna Lauter Miara: No Position. I was devastated by the strike and deeply concerned about the future of our schools. One of the most critical responsibilities of the next School Committee will be to avoid a repeat of the division and disruption we endured in 2024 by successfully negotiating the next contract. I understand from my experience on both sides of the negotiating table and from talking to many NTA members and past and present School Committee members that the strike was the almost inevitable result of several years of an increasingly ineffectual and high-conflict relationship. Particularly in light of the national and local challenges facing public education, it’s critical that we find a way for School Committee and the NTA to be partners, not adversaries. I know how to do that by fostering open dialogue, building productive relationships, and identifying shared interests to find compromises so that we can reach a sustainable contract that serves all students.

Jim Murphy: Yes. Unlike my opponent and some of the city officials who have endorsed him, I took a clear stance back then. No one wants a strike, and they don’t happen when good faith exists. The School Committee insisted on an obscenely low-ball offer to classroom aides, and it reneged on a previous contract agreement to provide classroom aides in exchange for full-day kindergarten. Had the committee acted in good faith and done right by the kids, for that matter, there would not have been a strike at all. I’d also argue that the current model of negotiations, marked by secrecy and zero-sum thinking, incentivizes the kind of bad faith we saw. My opponent has taken no position on this that I know of, but if elected, I will move to scrap it in favor of a more collaborative, interest-based, open model of bargaining. It won’t eliminate disagreements, but it will set a tone of mutual respect and common purpose that I believe maintains good faith and takes job-actions off the table.

Arrianna Proia: No. I did not support the NTA strike. In Massachusetts, teacher strikes are illegal for a reason, and the consequences fall hardest on students and families. I saw firsthand how deeply our kids were affected, especially those in special education and students with disabilities. For them, it was not just a disruption in learning but a disruption of daily routines, setting them back weeks, even months. Families lost work, and our community was torn apart. During the strike, I worked with families to advocate for ending it and putting kids first. Teachers absolutely deserve fair pay, but the union should have followed the law and kept students in school while negotiating their contract. At the core of this crisis was a breakdown of trust between the union, school administration, and city leadership. Without open communication and collaboration, both sides dug in, leaving families and students to bear the cost. Moving forward, rebuilding that trust must be the priority.

Ben Schlesinger: No. I focus on what’s best for the kids. The strike was terrible for the kids. And it was the most terrible for the most disadvantaged kids – the special needs kids who went two weeks without their services, the single-parent and low-income families whose parents had to decide between working and caretaking, and many others. It was a complicated situation and there was plenty of blame to go around. Many educators felt disrespected by the prior administration. The prior School Committee and the NTA did not negotiate effectively. The Mayor did not find a path to a solution. I understand and empathize with the concerns I’ve heard from educators. The Superintendent and School Committee have been working hard to repair relationships and get us onto better footing. I am committed to continuing this work, to listening to and respecting educators and collaborating effectively with the next Mayor to ensure that the adults are doing everything in our power to keep the kids in school.

Linda Swain: No. The strike was awful for our community—students, families, educators, and administrators. My family felt that pain as every Newton family did. From missed special education services to high school transcripts delayed for colleges, it was a difficult time. The strike reminded us how important it is to keep kids in school. We learned we need to listen better to teachers, and that tone matters. At the same time, we must avoid financial decisions that create unintended consequences, especially staffing cuts. To prevent future strikes, we need to rebuild trust through open communication and transparency. Mixed messages during the strike fueled mistrust. The Superintendent and Chair Brezski’s spring budget updates were an encouraging step in improving transparency.

Would you keep the district’s multilevel classroom learning?

Mali Brodt: No. Multilevel classes work well at the elementary and middle school levels because classrooms are naturally constructed that way, and teachers are trained to manage diverse learners within the same setting. This structure supports differentiated instruction and meets students where they are. The challenge arises at the high school level, where teachers are content experts but often lack the training and resources needed to effectively run multilevel classes across all subjects. As a result, implementation has been inconsistent. Multilevel classes make more sense in some high school subjects than others, and should be used thoughtfully and selectively. I support maintaining multilevel classes in elementary and middle schools, while ensuring high school multilevel classes are carefully planned, well-supported, and focused where they best serve students.

Christine Fisher: No. Every student deserves to be both challenged and supported. Multilevel classrooms can work when teachers have proper tools, training, and manageable class sizes, but they are not a one-size-fits-all solution. The district must evaluate whether this model truly helps students thrive and listen to feedback from teachers and families. If evidence shows it isn’t working, adjustments should be made. If we return to leveled classes, we must also provide ways for students to move between levels, with supports for acceleration and holistic placement practices. Students learn at different rates, and our policies must reflect that.

Victor Lee: No. As explained on victor4newton.com and in my Boston Globe Letter to the Editor, multilevel is not working well within the current NPS context, and I oppose extension of the practice – especially in math – to lower grades as some have proposed. Post-COVID, we have significant variations in student ability that strain the capability of even strong educators to perform in-class differentiation. Closing achievement gaps is important, but not if it is to be accomplished by lowering the ceiling of expectations. Multilevel classrooms have also not always helped their intended beneficiaries. NPS can explore other approaches — for example, automatic enrollment policies for advanced coursework in which students retain the ability to opt out if they choose — that employ an objective measure of readiness without introducing unintentional biases. Such approaches address equitable access to advanced coursework without compromising the academic standards Newton has been known for.

Jenna Lauter Miara: No. I would not keep NPS’s current multilevel approach in high school because it was not implemented properly and it is not working well for many students and teachers. Although it was intended to give all students access to challenging material and address real and persistent achievement gaps, the current multilevel approach often waters down the rigor and provides less targeted support than some students need. That is not acceptable. I believe we need to level high school courses that require the stacking of skills, such as math, certain science classes, and world languages. If multilevel classes are maintained in other subjects, we must provide strong teacher training and clear standards, collect data and solicit feedback, and make necessary adjustments. I support keeping multilevel learning in elementary and middle school, where diverse learners can generally be well served in the same classroom, although there may be reasons to consider some leveling in courses such as 8th grade math.

Jim Murphy: No. I’d scrap the across-the-board requirement because sweeping change without family and faculty input, training, and support is never a good idea. However, they have had success in some subject areas, which I think should stay. My opponent proposes an “automatic enrollment” scheme that ought to raise eyebrows. It’s used in North Carolina and several other states, but the research on it is thin, and it focuses on standardized testing. My website will more fully explain problems with it; for now I’ll say it’s another top-down initiative, and tone-deaf at best. The broader problem, however, is that we’re too focused on credentialing and not enough on deep learning. This ignores decades of solid research on child-centered teaching, which emphasizes choice, curiosity, and the student-teacher relationship. Instead, we cling to methods derived from factory work, centered on standardization and managerialism. That’s great for consultants and curriculum sales, but not so much for kids.

Arrianna Proia: No. Multilevel classes may have been designed with good intentions, but here in Newton the early data shows they are not working. The students they were meant to help are falling further behind, and advanced students are being limited instead of challenged. We cannot afford to cap the potential of students who are ready to excel. When we implement major policies like this, we must measure whether they are achieving their goals. Right now, the evidence is clear that they are not. Every child in Newton deserves to be supported at their level of excellence, whether that means catching up with strong interventions or accelerating into advanced opportunities. That requires targeted resources, not a one size fits all model. We must be honest about what is happening, listen to families, and adjust course so all students can grow and thrive without unnecessary limits and the proper support needed.

Ben Schlesinger: No. The data says it isn’t working – MCAS scores in these classes are down and achievement gaps are widening. The teachers say it isn’t working – they are writing OpEds in the Globe and signing petitions for change. Most of the students and parents I’ve spoken to say it isn’t working – more advanced students don’t feel challenged and less advanced students feel intimidated. So it is time to move on. Some research says that under certain circumstances (small classes, multiple educators), multi-level classes can be effective. I will always be open-minded to Superintendent Nolin’s initiatives. If she wants to try a new pilot, and she says that NPS is able to provide the right support and measure the outcomes, I would be open to considering it. We do have to create opportunities for students to move between levels – that could be an enrichment program, summer school, tutoring. I’m convinced we can find a way. But we must move on from what we’re doing now.

Linda Swain: No. The multilevel classroom in Newton was created to expand access to higher-level coursework and help close persistent achievement gaps. Unfortunately, those goals have not been fully realized. I believe it’s time to explore other approaches—ones that ensure every student gets the support or acceleration they need while giving educators the tools and flexibility to do their best work. The new Math Pathways program announced by the Superintendent is an important step forward, offering targeted support for students who need more time, opportunities for enrichment and acceleration for those ready to advance, and flexibility to move between pathways based on data and readiness. I understand there are a few places in our high schools where multi-level classes have worked, so I’d be open to the idea only in limited cases. For me, the key is having clear data that shows it helps all students in the classroom without adding undue strain on teachers.

Would you support the district joining School Choice, which would permit parents to send their children to public school in communities other than that in which they reside?

Mali Brodt: No. I do not support school choice because my experience—and the experiences of many educators I’ve spoken with—show it often harms the district. Most students and families who opt for school choice are those already unsatisfied or struggling in their home schools, which can disrupt both the education and the culture of the school at large. School choice can create instability, divert resources, and detract from efforts to help all students thrive. Additionally, some may use school choice as a way to eliminate the opportunity for Newton teachers to enroll their children in NPS, which would undermine the dedicated educators who work tirelessly here. Our focus should be on strengthening Newton’s schools for every student here, ensuring equity, inclusion, and excellence for all.

Christine Fisher: No. Newton’s first responsibility is to its own students. I would not support joining School Choice if it diverts resources, staff, or focus from our community. Our classrooms already face challenges with enrollment shifts, staffing shortages, and budget pressures. Adding outside students could stretch schools further. Instead, we should strengthen our neighborhood schools so every Newton child has access to excellent education close to home. That means investing in teachers, programs, and supports that keep Newton schools strong and ensure families continue to see them as the best choice for their children.

Victor Lee: No Position. This is a complex topic that was only raised toward the end of the last school year that requires more discussion and reflection before I take a final position. Currently, I am hesitant about (but not immutably opposed to) School Choice and believe we need to focus first on serving the kids of Newton and reversing the root causes of significant numbers of Newton kids exiting the system (e.g., decline in academic rigor, instability from a strike and budget challenges). We also need to see if we can shore up the budget better with options like advocating for higher level of state SpEd reimbursement, pension liability timetable adjustments, and maybe a Proposition 2 1/2 override. If we can do that, then the monetary incentive of joining School Choice might change. We also need to understand better what the impacts of School Choice might be financially, particularly if students with more complex, costly-to-serve needs come into the system.

Jenna Lauter Miara: No. While I am in favor of carefully examining every opportunity to bring new revenue into the district, I am currently not convinced that School Choice is an effective revenue tool or a good fit for NPS. I have learned from speaking with parents and educators in other districts that School Choice is a risky and frequently losing proposition because the students and families who participate often have high needs that require district resources well beyond the amount of funding received. For now, NPS needs to prioritize serving its current students well and is not in a position to risk additional burdens that outweigh the relatively modest funding attached to School Choice students. I am of course open to learning more and changing my position if warranted, and look forward to Dr. Nolin’s future presentation of the issue.

Jim Murphy: Yes. By law, a district’s participation in school choice is assumed unless it opts-out by June 1 of each year. We currently opt-out, but I’d be willing to reconsider if shown that it makes good fiscal sense (reimbursement for school choice students is capped at $5000.00 per student) and if we track the number of students with careful consideration of our own school population projections. The latter point is crucial because, once we take students in, they have the right to stay until graduation, even if we later opt-out of the program. My response to the building closure question below will provide additional insight on my thinking, but here I’ll say that it’s important for Newton to tackle the issue of declining enrollment with an eye toward long-term solutions. That means being very, very careful if we decide to participate in school choice.

Arrianna Proia: No. While I support expanding educational opportunities for students, I do not believe Newton should participate in School Choice. Our district must first focus on ensuring that all students within Newton have equitable access to high-quality education, adequate resources, and well-maintained facilities. Opening our schools to out-of-district students without first addressing enrollment pressures, building needs, and funding challenges could stretch resources even thinner and create inequities for Newton families. I believe we need to continue strengthening our schools so that every child in Newton can thrive.

Ben Schlesinger: No. I agree with most of what Superintendent Nolin has said and done, but on this topic I felt she did not adequately make the case last year. From a financial standpoint, the revenue we would get – around $5,000 per student – seemed likely to be consumed by the cost of the program, especially given the unpredictability of the applicant pool. The upside was not big enough to make this worthwhile as a financial play. And there’s more than the financial side. NPS needs to restore trust with the community. We need to get back to having parents who are confident their students are getting the best public education in the state, and that confidence needs to be backed by data. Once we’ve restored that trust, we can revisit the benefits of opening our system to students from other communities.

Linda Swain: No. I am open to exploring creative ways to raise revenue for NPS. However, currently I am not inclined to support joining School Choice for three reasons: 1. In speaking with families across the city, I’ve heard strong opposition to School Choice, and the voice of our community matters; 2. It runs counter to Newton’s vision of neighborhood schools; 3. Many families outside of Newton may choose to attend NPS for our special education program. I think we have more work to do to strengthen and enhance these efforts before considering School Choice.

Would you support keeping the schools’ DEI initiatives even if it may mean losing millions of dollars in federal funding?

Mali Brodt: Yes. In today’s polarized national climate, it’s more important than ever to keep our local values strong and centered on what truly matters to our community. While national trends often push divisive rhetoric that overshadows constructive dialogue—we must focus on protecting our kids and fostering a safe, inclusive environment here at home. Newton is stronger because we embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which enriches our schools and community. Keeping these values at the forefront helps us resist harmful national pressures and instead build a supportive, respectful space where every student and family feels valued. By prioritizing local voices and commitments, we ensure our community thrives, grounded in kindness, respect, and shared purpose.

Christine Fisher: Yes. I support initiatives that ensure all students feel welcome, included, and able to succeed, because belonging is directly tied to academic achievement. At the same time, I recognize that losing millions in federal funding would harm staffing, programs, and classroom resources, ultimately hurting students. I believe we can and must do both: maintain inclusive schools and protect critical funding. As a School Committee member, I would work with other districts and the State to oppose any federal actions that threaten funding for DEI efforts, while ensuring our local policies are both practical and sustainable.

Victor Lee: No Position. This is too hypothetical right now and too broad a question for a topic where important nuances lie in the details. We would have to understand which specific DEI initiatives would be at risk and what the exact funding impact would be to make informed decisions. Generally, I believe that we need to ensure NPS offers spaces where all students can feel safe and that they belong, and we need to make sure that all students have opportunities to achieve their full potential. Those are the guiding principles that would inform my decision making. Regarding the loss of federal funding, most of our federal funding (~$3.5M) is related to IDEA, and even the Trump Administration has been wary of cutting that. Title I funding is a relatively small portion of the NPS budget and unlikely to be severely hit. The open challenge is understanding how state funding to NPS will be hit by federal funding changes. Those can be addressed in partnership with Governor Healey if/when the time comes.

Jenna Lauter Miara: Yes. At a time when national politics are increasingly polarized and divisive, it’s more important than ever for communities like Newton to uphold and live our values. That includes support for inclusion, fairness, and full participation of all community members regardless of identity or background. And we can very likely find ways to do that without sacrificing funding. Running an organization that funds legal aid programs across Massachusetts, I work closely with nonprofits grappling with similar questions and I’ve spent considerable time analyzing Executive Orders and other federal policy pronouncements. I know that there are many effective initiatives that support diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging and that are well within the law. I can help NPS navigate the evolving landscape and make informed decisions to allow continued progress on these critical issues so Newton can be a model of a district where every student feels welcome and valued and has the opportunity to thrive.

Jim Murphy: Yes. Let’s be clear: The Trump Administration fully intends to gut education, so it’s not like meeting any of his demands will prevent the loss of funding. Fortunately, Massachusetts is using Fair Share Amendment money to blunt the impact of those cuts, and to provide additional special education funding from which NPS will benefit. I worked to pass that initiative; my opponent did not. His concern with school funding is much more recent. It’s truly disheartening that “DEI” has become such a catch-all invective, but we should remain true to the most vulnerable in our schools. A fundamental mission of public education is to equip our youth to maintain the values of democratic self-rule, and that means embracing diversity in our classrooms, promoting equal opportunity for all, and making every parent’s child feel included and valued. Those are preconditions for learning; it’s also America at its best.

Arrianna Proia: Yes. I support keeping Newton’s DEI initiatives even if it risks losing federal funding. We need to keep diversity, equity, and inclusion while also striving for excellence so that all students can thrive. That means ensuring the policies we adopt can be measured and are truly working. We should always do what is best for our children, not follow the political agendas of politicians. Newton schools should be inclusive, challenging, and a place where every student has the opportunity to succeed. That includes breaking down barriers, expanding access to advanced coursework, and addressing disparities, while making sure no student is capped in their potential. Abandoning equity would harm our students more than the loss of federal dollars. If federal dollars are withheld, we should work with the city, state, and community partners to secure resources and protect the progress we’ve made toward creating a truly inclusive school system.

Ben Schlesinger: No Position. I truly hope we don’t wind up in this situation, but given the recklessness of the administration in Washington, we must be prepared. Losing millions of dollars would mean losing dozens of our talented educators. That is the simple reality of our budget. Putting kids first means we recognize the impact that loss would have on our kids, and we weigh it against the impact of making changes in our system. The details matter. If we can avoid losing so many educators by, for example, changing language on our website or job titles in the Ed Center, the students would be best served if we make those changes. But if the demand is to ban books or classroom programs that are core to our values and materially enhance our education, then the harm to our students would be too great. I know my instinct is to fight back, don’t appease, don’t surrender. But if optical or low-cost solutions save dozens of educator jobs, I know that our commitment to belonging will still shine through in our schools.

Linda Swain: Yes. Every child matters—regardless of race, background, religion, income, or sexual orientation, etc. NPS must help every student reach their full potential, and hate has no place in our schools. In 2024 alone, there were 74 hate incidents within the City of Newton, most of which were antisemitic. Every student deserves to feel safe and supported, and it is our responsibility as School Committee members to ensure our nondiscrimination policies are upheld. I define educational excellence as enabling every student to thrive—whether they need extra support, greater challenge, or something in between. True excellence is impossible without equity and inclusion. With less than 10% of the NPS budget funded federally, the financial risk of maintaining DEI initiatives is manageable—and essential.

Are you prepared to close one or more of the city’s elementary schools if data supports doing so?

Mali Brodt: Yes. I am willing to consider closing an elementary school if the data clearly supports that it is in the best interest of the whole district and its students. Sometimes we have to face hard truths and make difficult decisions, even when they challenge our emotions or nostalgia. It’s better to have schools that are full and vibrant, where resources are used efficiently and students benefit from strong programming and peer communities. Decisions like this must be driven by careful data analysis, not sentiment alone. Ultimately, the priority has to be what serves students best—ensuring quality education, equity, and opportunity for all. When we put students first, we can make the tough calls needed to strengthen our schools and community overall.

Christine Fisher: Yes. Closing a school is one of the most difficult decisions a community can face. Schools are central to neighborhoods and families. My priority would be to focus first on keeping and growing enrollment, ensuring that our schools are strong, vibrant, and fully serving the community. At the same time, we must be realistic about overall population trends, financial constraints, and program quality. If data shows that maintaining all schools is unsustainable, consolidation may need to be considered, but only after exploring every alternative to optimize space and resources. Any process must be transparent and collaborative, with families fully engaged, so that decisions are clearly tied to what is best for students.

Victor Lee: No Position. Again, the devil lies in the details. It will ultimately depend on what the data in question is. Right now, I am resistant to the idea of closing or combining schools like Ward and Underwood – especially since neighborhood schools are an important element of the elementary experience in NPS and if there are any grades where lower student-to-teacher ratios are important, it is in elementary. We also have to be clear on what we would hope to gain from closing schools. With around 87% of the NPS budget relating to staff and reductions in staff not being something that can change on a dime, closing schools would have to be about longer term savings and necessities. In order to assess what the longer term future of NPS would be, we have to understand first if declines in enrollments that are likely to be the driver of closing elementary schools can be reversed by the focus I am proposing on restoring the academic rigor, funding, and stability of the school system.

Jenna Lauter Miara: Yes. I’m willing to make hard choices to benefit NPS students, and that includes closing an elementary school if it’s best for those students and for the district as a whole. Students’ experiences are improved by modern facilities and right-sized schools. Neighborhood schools are wonderful, but at some point the benefits are outweighed by the downsides. If a school is too small, teachers lose out on important opportunities to collaborate with grade level teams, vital programs like MTSS are challenging to implement, and students may be socially isolated. Within a few years, nearly two-thirds of our elementary schools will have been renovated. We need to have a clear vision for the remaining schools, whose communities have been left in limbo for too long. All options need careful consideration, including combining two schools or converting one building into a K-2 school and another into a 3-5 school to preserve neighborhood schools while also improving student and teacher experiences.

Jim Murphy: Yes. Prepared, yes; liking the possibility, no. Ultimately, it turns on school population, which is affected by demographic trends, private school opt-outs, and housing affordability. There’s little we can do to control the general school-age population, though school choice might help manage the impact a little. Private school opt-outs are a different matter. If NPS can offer more opportunities for students whose parents might otherwise choose private schools, then we can keep more of them here. I’m talking about classrooms that are about exploration rather than test-preparation, special education supports that allow more students to be successful, and extracurriculars that are fully funded. Then there’s housing, and on this I believe School Committee members must be more than just managers. They need to be advocates, and housing is an area where strong advocacy can have a big impact. Get the housing right and maybe we don’t have to close schools after all.

Arrianna Proia: No. I am not entering this role with the goal of closing schools, but I believe we must be honest and transparent with our community about the challenges we face. The superintendent has been clear that we need a comprehensive five-year strategy that looks at all elementary schools together, including enrollment, the neighborhood school vision, and facilities. Closing one school in isolation risks disrupting families and students without addressing the bigger picture. If enrollment and facility data ultimately show that change is necessary, the School Committee must review all options carefully. Any decision must prioritize students first, ensure equitable access to high-quality education, and include meaningful community engagement. Closing a school should always be a last resort, only after exhausting other options, and it must be done with transparency, compassion, and a clear plan to minimize disruption.

Ben Schlesinger: No Position. Our neighborhood schools are the lifeblood of NPS and a big part of what makes Newton such a special place to live. No one is eager to see their local school close. At the same time: a) we have many schools in need of serious renovation or replacement; b) some schools have seen severely declining enrollment; c) the cost of building new schools has spiked – the new Countryside will cost $75 million. NPS commissioned a demographer, who forecasted that the school age population in Newton will increase as Baby Boomer homes turn over to young families. We also hope that the percentage of students in private schools will keep declining – it historically sat around 18%, peaked during COVID at 25%, and is now back down around 22%. Both factors could change the enrollment math. We owe it to our communities to do the work to try to drive up enrollment, and see if we can get all our schools to the healthy and sustainable sizes that justify renewing, rebuilding or reimagining them.

Linda Swain: Yes. I believe in a data-driven, transparent approach when making major School Committee decisions. If a comprehensive review—including educational, equity, community, and financial factors—supported closure, I would support it. But if based only on finances, I would not. Newton has a long tradition of neighborhood schools, which are part of the city’s fabric. Walking my kids to Cabot felt like a rite of passage, and I know how meaningful that is to families. Key data points should include factors such as: class sizes, student outcomes, access to programs, travel distances, neighborhood impact, enrollment vs. capacity and projections, cost per pupil, operating costs, capital needs, long-term budget projections, equity of access, and public input.

What one big idea or initiative would you champion, once elected?

Mali Brodt: I support an initiative focused on fostering student belonging by creating a school culture where every student feels safe, respected, and included. This means implementing proactive, comprehensive anti-bullying programs that teach empathy and conflict resolution before problems arise. Social-emotional learning and support are key—helping students develop self-awareness, manage emotions, and build positive relationships. We must prioritize a positive climate by training staff and students on inclusion and equity, and by intentionally bringing diverse voices to the table—including students, families, and educators—to shape policies and practices. Encouraging multiple perspectives builds understanding and trust. When students feel connected and valued, their engagement and joy in learning increase, improving academic and social outcomes. This initiative would ensure that our schools are places where all students thrive and feel empowered.

Christine Fisher: I would champion a districtwide review and update of our technology policies. Significant work has already been done on cell phone policies, but families, teachers, and students continue to raise questions about screen time, devices in classrooms, and the use of AI. The policy should address not only how students use AI, but also how staff and administration use it responsibly. AI can be a powerful tool for learning and administrative efficiency, but it must be implemented thoughtfully, with safeguards to protect student learning and privacy. The School Committee’s role is to set clear, consistent policies that reflect community values and support outcomes. With careful guidance, we can maximize benefits, minimize risks, and prepare students for a digital future while keeping learning at the center.

Victor Lee: NPS spends a significant amount of money on Special Education (SpEd), and rightfully so. However, current Chapter 70 formulas and circuit breaker reimbursements are not keeping up with the change in the complexity of needs and growth in SpEd that NPS is experiencing. We should not be getting back only around 47% of our dollars spent for SpEd transportation and around 75% for SpEd instruction. I want the School Committee, union, City Council, and the Mayor to partner with our State Representatives – and potentially other districts – to advocate for reimbursements that better reflect the reality of NPS today. If we can work together on this important initiative, I believe we can put our budget in a better position and improve relationships across the board that will make collective bargaining for the next union contracts a less stressful process for all. This won’t be easy, but it is feasible and actionable. I’ve already taken initial steps and begun building the necessary relationships.

Jenna Lauter Miara: Digital health and balance has been a top priority since the beginning of my campaign. Step one is an effective K-12 policy that makes cell phones physically inaccessible to students while they are at school, with reasonable accommodations as needed. Removing phones from school frees students to learn, explore, socialize, and grow – while also reducing classroom disruptions and strain on teacher-student relationships. This change will be a major adjustment for all of us but it’s in our students’ best interest, it’s supported by research, and it will improve academic and social-emotional outcomes. Thoughtful and rigorous implementation will be critical. That includes meaningful engagement with students, families, and educators, clear expectations and procedures, strong administrative support, and consistent enforcement. It will also be important to clearly communicate schools’ emergency procedures so students feel safe, and to provide alternatives for student-caregiver communications.

Jim Murphy: I have two: The first is to discuss NPS’s public health response to what the Trump administration is doing to medical research, vaccines, and preparedness. That way, if we find ourselves in another public health emergency, I believe we’ll can all be on the same page. The second is making the NPS Portrait of a Graduate the nexus of our policy-making and planning. It lays out a good picture of what graduates should take with them. However, I don’t much see it in the long-range plan that was recently passed. I know the long-range plan will shape policy, but I’m not as convinced the Portrait will have as much clout. Now that MCAS will no longer be required for graduation, there is work being done to come up with new requirements. As of now, that work includes a portrait of a learner. If we advocate for this effort, it could allow NPS to really put its Portrait at the center of teaching and learning. I’m already involved in this at the state level and would champion it here as well.

Arrianna Proia: One major initiative I would champion is expanding Newton’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). MTSS ensures that schools use data-driven decision making, progress monitoring, and evidence-based strategies to sustain student growth. It is not just about interventions, but about how all systems in a school fit together to provide high-quality education for all students. Where MTSS has already been implemented in Newton, it has proven successful in supporting students’ academic and social-emotional needs. Expanding this framework citywide would help ensure every student gets the right support at the right time, while also creating the capacity to expand access to AP and honors courses so advanced students are not capped but challenged. Every child in Newton deserves both strong support and the opportunity to excel, and expanding MTSS is the pathway to making that a reality.

Ben Schlesinger: The biggest thing I can do is help restore trust. Trust between NPS and educators, NPS and parents, educators and parents. That means doing a lot of empathetic listening to a lot of stakeholders, to understand all the causes of the trust deficit we’ve built over the last few years. And it means communicating very openly about what the schools are doing, why they are doing it, why it’s a good thing. This is not an executive position, it’s an oversight position. But in addition to doing the core work like building trust, I will advocate for a deeper strategy on AI. Educators are rightfully concerned about the impact AI is having on their students and we should all be paying attention. How can we teach students to use AI as a lever and not a crutch? How can we prepare them to enter a world where AI will have changed jobs like the PC did 30 years ago? We should also think about how AI can help our educators by lightening their workloads and freeing time to focus on impacting students.

Linda Swain: One initiative I would champion if elected is expanding the Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS). Many parents have shared concerns that their children aren’t always getting the right level of challenge or support. MTSS helps NPS provide each student with what they need at the right time—greater challenge for some, extra help for others—so all students can reach their full potential. The new Math Pathways program, announced this fall and set to launch in the 2026–2027 school year, is a strong example. It offers enrichment when a student is ready for more, timely support when they’re struggling, and flexibility to move between pathways as they grow. I’m excited for its implementation and believe we should bring this approach to other areas. In the long run, a strong MTSS system benefits students and helps the district use resources more efficiently, saving money while keeping kids at the center of decision-making.