While city and school officials remain months away from presenting a fiscal year 2025 budget, the School Committee heard an update on the Peabody Personalized Remote Education Program, which, should members opt to continue it, will be paid for entirely out of the operating budget for the first time next fiscal year.
The program’s executive director, Chris Lord, focused on two areas during his presentation to committee members last Tuesday. He examined both why students and families choose Peabody P.R.E.P., which offers students an entirely remote education, over traditional schooling, and what those families currently served by the program would do if it were no longer an option. Lord cited data collected from a survey of Peabody P.R.E.P. families, beginning with a look at its demographics.
The program’s demographics closely mirror those of the city at large, aside from a few key areas, including serving almost twice as many low-income students as other schools, and more students with disabilities and high needs. 23% of the program’s students spoke a first language other than English.
In the survey, 68% of families reported feeling their child learns better in a remote setting and 56% felt in-person learning was not a good fit. Another 49% of families cited the personalized experience their student gets with an adviser through the P.R.E.P. as a reason they prefer the program.
One parent cited their child’s struggles with anxiety and said they likely would not be as successful in an in-person format. Another reported their daughter has more friends than kids in regular, in-person school because of all the new friends she’s made with kids she wouldn’t have otherwise met until middle school.
Lord said Peabody P.R.E.P students take seven classes but don’t do so all at once. In the afternoons, the students get individualized study time and can focus on a particular subject of their choosing — Lord cited one student studying Chinese as an example — or go to work.
A whopping 74% of families surveyed said they would not return their students to regular, in-person schooling if the P.R.E.P were no longer an option. About half said they would try to enroll their students in one of the state’s two virtual schools, about a third said they would homeschool their child, 20% said they would seek an out-of-district placement, 11% said they would enroll their student in a charter school, and 9% said their student would likely drop out of school entirely.
Based on that data, school officials examined the potential impact of the program on the budget and found it would cost the city roughly $1 million to shutter the P.R.E.P., factoring in the cost of out-of-district placements for students, the lost revenue from the memorandums of understanding the city has signed with neighboring communities to allow those students to attend the P.R.E.P., and other costs. In all, Lord said, the total potential loss is estimated at $1.7 million, with roughly $700,000 in savings from closing the program.
“I’m really pleased to say it’s a warm, friendly environment. I believe we have a better mousetrap than some other virtual schools out there,” Lord said, noting that at the P.R.E.P. students are receiving live instruction, not watching recordings.
Committee members have broadly supported the program in the past, with the notable exception of member Jarrod Hochman, who has said he is not sold on the program being worth what it will eventually cost the city.
Committee member Joe Amico said he was once a skeptic, but now believes the program is a “win-win.”
“In terms of this program, I think we’re meeting student needs with success,” he said, noting that on the surface it is no different than many workplaces shifting to hybrid or remote environments. “It’s different, people who aren’t used to this look at it and say this doesn’t look right.”
Committee member Brandi Carpenter, too, expressed support for the P.R.E.P.
“Having an additional alternative for our students to be successful is really important,” she said. “As long as you have the numbers, you have my support.”
Hochman, though, doubled down on his skepticism.
He suggested students could simply attend one of the state’s virtual schools rather than the P.R.E.P., though Superintendent of Schools Josh Vadala noted Peabody is offering a different, more personalized model.
While Hochman said he was “all for alternative education” and believes “people learn at different rates,” he said he wasn’t sold that the students served by the P.R.E.P. would not also be served by another alternative education program like the Peabody Learning Academy. For Hochman, the financials just did not compute.
“We’re going to get a budget in a couple months that’s going to ask us to reallocate $673,000 for 116 students,” he said. “I appreciate that we’re helping 116 students and they’re benefitting from this… (I) don’t know that they’re not benefitting from the PLA.”
Vadala said the program will ultimately ask for less than half a percent of the schools’ operating budget to serve 2% of the district’s students.
