Reading Public Schools · Match investments to outcomes
Different positions should be judged by different outcomes.
MCAS is relevant to some investments, but it is not a universal scorecard for counselors, nurses, administrators, EL staff, special education staff or other supports. The fair question is: what was each investment intended to improve, and what happened?
Use the right yardstick
Start with the purpose of each investment.
The district should not be asked to prove every staffing addition through MCAS. It should be asked to identify the intended outcome for each investment and show the most relevant evidence.
| Investment | Relevant outcomes to examine |
|---|---|
| Adjustment counselors / social workers | Attendance, chronic absenteeism, referrals, behavioral incidents, student well-being, caseloads |
| Elementary assistant principals | Principal workload, instructional-leadership time, discipline, staff support/retention, school climate |
| EL / multilingual learner staffing | Language-proficiency growth, EL achievement, caseloads, service delivery |
| Academic Achievement leadership | Academic growth, intervention results, course rigor and student performance |
| Classroom teachers | Class size, course sections, student growth and achievement |
| Nursing / health support | Caseload, coverage, health-service demand and response capacity |
| Data / administrative support | Operational workload, reporting capability, staff time saved and measurable service improvement |
This is the distinction.
The staffing history is a factual question. Whether the outcomes justify the recurring cost is a policy judgment. Showing the intended measure for each position keeps those two things separate.
Academic outcomes are one part of the picture
For academically focused investments, absolute trends matter alongside relative rankings.
At RMHS, the share of Grade 10 students meeting or exceeding expectations declined from 2022 to 2025 in each currently reported subject.
| RMHS Grade 10 | 2022 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| ELA meeting/exceeding | 79% | 68% | −11 pts |
| Math meeting/exceeding | 70% | 63% | −7 pts |
| Science meeting/exceeding | 65% | 58% | −7 pts |
The investment has not been followed by better academic outcomes.
Reading has added substantial staffing and student-support resources in recent years. Yet on these Grade 10 measures, academic outcomes have declined rather than improved.
That does not mean the new positions caused the decline. It means the decline happened despite the additional investment.
When we're spending other people's money—and asking them to contribute even more—we owe them more than good intentions. We should understand what each investment is accomplishing, why academic outcomes are moving in the wrong direction, and whether newer positions remain necessary at their current staffing levels or could be better allocated.
More spending may be part of the answer. But first, we should understand the results we're getting from the spending we've already added.
Inputs versus outcomes
A higher ranking doesn't answer the question.
Boston Magazine's rankings include factors such as class size and student-teacher ratios. Adding staff can improve those measures—and therefore potentially improve a district's ranking—even if student academic outcomes do not improve.
That's why the ranking shouldn't end the conversation.
Before asking taxpayers to fund another permanent increase in spending, show us what improved for students.
Identify which investments are producing those results, which are not, and where resources could be better allocated.
Keep the claim narrow
Good schools can still deserve a budget review.
Reading can have strong teachers, high graduation rates, successful graduates and valuable student supports while still asking whether every recent recurring expenditure is the highest priority. Those propositions are not contradictory.
We may look better compared with everyone else without necessarily being better compared with ourselves.
Sources & notes
The record
The analysis on this page draws on publicly available school-budget, student-outcome and comparative district information.
November 3, 2026
SHOW US THE OUTCOMES.
Show voters the evidence. Examine the reasonable alternatives. Cost them and show us the tradeoffs before setting the size of a permanent override.
Back to priorities