Everyone, I'd like to call to order uh tonight's meeting, January 13th, um Lakeville School District uh Board of Education meeting. If we could all rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> And we'll start with roll call to my right. >> Tony Reichenberger, Matt Swanson, >> Karly Anderson, >> Amber Cameron, >> Michael Bowman, Paul Carbone, >> Brian Thompson. >> Wonderful. Um, Director Baker let me know that she is will be here shortly. She's coming from um the 9:17 meeting and it just adjourned. Um with that um is there are there any additions to the agenda tonight? >> Okay. Hearing none. Um can I get approval um or a motion to approve the agenda? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Um uh motion by Carbone, seconded by Anderson. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Great. Agenda u is approved. With that, I'll pass it on to Superintendent Bowman for good news. Thank you and good evening all. January 13th, good news. Lakeville North and South High Schools select the 2526 Excel Award nominees. Lakeville North and Lakeville South High Schools have selected their nominees for the Minnesota State High School League's Excel Awards for this school year. This year's Lakeville North nominees are juniors Eli Tuer and Hannah Stucky. Lakeville South High School has nominated juniors Tegan Bishop and Aiden Connelly. Statewide Excel Awards recipients are selected by an independent panel of judges representing schools from across Minnesota. Award recipients will be announced in February of this year. So, congratulations on those nominees. [applause] and Lakeville educators open classrooms to future teachers. The school year, this school year, 46 Lakeville area schools educators are hosting prospective teachers and related services providers in their classrooms. These experiences range from short-term shadowing to semesterl long student teaching and clinical internships. Over the past 5 years, Lakeville educators have supported 240 placements, earning continued partnership requests from colleges and universities thanks to their professionalism and strong mentorship. We are grateful to our staff for their commitment to advancing the education profession. Way to go. Thank you. [applause] You can read more about the amazing things that are happening in our district at isd194.org. org/news. That is good news for today, Madam Chair. >> Great. Thank you, Superintendent Bowman. Um, next we'll move to public comment, and I I'll just read kind of the parameters for this session. Um, because our clerk is missing, um, the vice chair will will find the cards to to help with this. Um, uh, for public comment, the board will open up the floor for 30 minutes to allow the public to address the board with comments and concerns. To participate in public comment, individuals must have registered in advance using the form provided on the ISD194 website by noon on the Monday before the scheduled public comment session. There will be no board response during the session. Public comments framed as complaints and or concerns about students and or staff are not appropriate in a public forum due to da d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d da privacy laws. These comments should be addressed to the administration outside of a public meeting. Likewise, complaints about schoolboard members should be privately directed to the board chair and/or the superintendent. No formal action will be taken on a topic presented during public comment. As necessary, the administration will follow up with the appropriate personnel on any concerns that need to be individually addressed. Also, if necessary, the board will follow up during board communication at the next regularly scheduled board meeting. Individual remarks are limited to 3 minutes. The board will provide a signal when the participant has 30 seconds remaining of their time. Please try to keep audience noise to a minimum to allow everyone the opportunity to speak uninterrupted. And with that, we have quite a number of people. Um, and so we'll go for um 30 minutes, about 10 speakers. And so I'll call names. And if you're here, if you could um come to the front, please. Uh Laura Weaver Hello. We're here today representing Small Wonders preschool teachers. I grew up in Lakeville. I was born and raised here. I even went to Small Wonders when I was young and now I'm a teacher there. I wanted to become a teacher because of my amazing teachers I had in Lakeville. some of them even in this room tonight. At Small Wonders, we're the first teachers these children have in the district. We're setting them up for success in elementary school, but we are the only teachers in the whole district, not on the EML contract. [snorts] Our teachers in our same school are on the EML contract. ECF, ECSE teachers that we work really closely with. We are educated. We are experienced. We are the first teachers these young learners see and we deserve to be treated as such. We do the same amount of work as the rest of the teachers in the district. We plan and implement three different curriculums. We conduct assessments throughout the year. We hold conferences twice a year. We work close closely with special special education staff and students. We attend IEP meetings. We attend PLC meetings. We develop strong connections and relationships with parents and families. And the list goes on. That's just to name a few. We're not asking for much. We're just asking for a livable wage and a fair wage. and we're asking to be treated like valued and important teachers of this community. Just to give you a little perspective, a first year teacher in Lakeville makes $51,000 a year. One of our teachers who's been at Small Wonders for 30 years makes less than a first year teacher in Lakeville. That's really disheartening to all of us. We are only 18 teachers out of the whole district. Not Not all of us are even full-time. So, we don't think it'll affect the budget greatly. We want to attract and retain quality teachers in early childhood and with the wages we're getting right now, we're not going to do that. We really trust that you'll make the fair and long overdue decision to add Small Wonders teachers to the EML contract and pay scale. We really appreciate your time and consideration and attention to this matter. Thank you. Thank you. [cheering] [applause] >> [applause] >> Next speaker. The next speaker is Kelly Moyer. Hi guys. Um, my name is Kelly Moyer. I live in the Marian Pines neighborhood that sits between IPava and Kenwood Trail Middle School, south of 50 and north of the lake. Uh, my kids attend Lake Marian and will eventually attend Kenwood and Lakeville South High School. Um, I'm here because under the district proposal that we heard about this past week, our neighborhood would be required to attend East View Elementary. Um, my concern is not about my kids attending East View in particular. I went to East View 20 years ago. Um, it is about the long-term impact that this isolation from their already established community will have on their educational experience. So based on the data presented in the January 6 slide deck, only 25.9% of East View students are projected to attend Kenwood. Combined with the figure that only 26.4% of Kenwood students are projected to attend South, which is a very generous estimate, that means that only 6.8% of the community my kids will form at Eastview will remain together beyond elementary school. So, put another way, if my kids make 10 meaningful friendships at Eastview, which I believe they would, um, just based on this data and these projections, not a single one of those 10 friends would later attend Kenwood or Lakeville South with them. And while the long-term impact of that is certainly concerning, I'm here today because it was upon further evaluation of the proposal that we discovered the inequity of the district's intradist transfer policy. According to the proposed classifications of high growth and low growth schools and the proposed capacity rates at each school, we found that all three southfeeding elementary schools, JFK, Lake View, and Orchard Lake, and the most evenly split school, Lake Marian, outside of uh East View, will not be open to intradist transfer because they would be above the designated capacity rate. A capacity rate caused by the district's own proposed boundary changes. That means that none of the schools that could provide relational consistency for our children would even be open to intradistrict transfer, which the district has pointed to as the solution for students that would be affected by the proposed changes. Instead, it's clear that this is not an available option for all students, particularly for those in the south community. They would be denied a privilege that the vast majority of Lakeville students would enjoy and our children would have no creative options to be educated with the friends that they've already made at school and athletics and activities. So, I'm appealing to you guys um to just thoughtfully consider to vote no on the proposal or to delay a vote so that there can be more time for the district uh to come up with clear and fair considerations for the kids that will be affected and the intradist transfer policy. Thanks, guys. Thank you. [applause] [applause] >> The next speaker is Lindsay Drager. >> Well, everybody got my two points already, but here we go. I got more for you. >> Hi. >> Thank you. [laughter] >> We got you, girl. >> Good evening, board members. I'm Lindsay Dreger. I am also a uh community member and teacher elsewhere and uh parent in this district. Uh my daughter currently goes to Small Wonders and all of these lovely ladies have shared with you how important their role is. I would like to first talk about uh my neighborhood with Kelly. We are off of Jaguar Avenue. Um it's been established, it's about 90 to 100 houses, not even a half full bus of elementary students. Um we have been attending Lake Marian Elementary since it was built in 1990. And with Lake Marion and Lake View elementaryaries that are at or under a mile for most of us in the neighborhood and East View would be about three miles. On top of that, we have people in our neighborhood who are in their IEP speech program and the gifted and accelerated programs where those programs may not be available at other elementaryaries or would be competition for our students to get into those programs. on the pedestrians. Uh myself and other friends in my neighborhood enjoy walking their kids to class uh and biking and that three miles is a much less safe route to East View Elementary. I implore you to get in touch with city planning about going around that roundabout uh especially for pedestrians and vehicles. And turning left out of our uh neighborhood is much more difficult than turning right. And right gets us to both Lake Marian and Lake View Elementary. Okay. Uh to your points last week on the new developments, uh the proposed lines have cut off an established neighborhood to Lake Marian while adding a new development to the far east that has potential development and then keeping it to the west. So I ask that you consider looking at the distance for all families around a mile to a mile and a half to go to schools closest to them, mostly for pedestrians and traffic. On another note, again, back to the teachers at Small Wonders. My daughter is doing an amazing job, and I cannot say thank the teachers enough for this. Um, we're looking at about $200,000 or less per year in your budget to fund these teachers to be on your teacher contract. The biggest thing in my concern as a teacher who's been in about seven or eight different districts, getting the best contract that I could and the best pay that I could to make it worth my time is not in this district, and I would love to be part of it. Um, I would like to make note that this alone for these teachers takes away their opportunity for tenure. If they want to move to a kindergarten school, if they want to move to first grade like their licenses allow them to third grade, they don't get tenure. If you cut the Small Wonders program, they are displaced and have to go find jobs elsewhere. They've been serving our community for years. They've had students through here that are now teachers and they deserve the minimum of being on your teacher contract. Thank you. [applause] [applause] All right, the next speaker is Tiffany Arnik Arvik. >> Listen, we had to stack the deck. Okay, [laughter] we did. Hello board and superintendent Bowman. I am representing Small Wonders Preschool as an early childhood teacher in the district. I have both elementary and early childhood degrees. I have been teaching at Small Wonders for the past 30 years. Why have I stayed in this position for three decades while not being compensated and valued as my K through 12 teachers within the district? It is because this it is because this is where my heart is. I love my job. Early childhood is my passion and is the foundation for future learners. We as professional, experienced, and licensed teachers deserve and have earned respect. One way to show that we are equal is to include us on the EML pay scale where we should have been years ago. As a 30-year district employee, if my compensation adequately represented that of a licensed teacher in the Lakeville district, I would be making $25,570 more each year. Looking at my 17 fellow teachers from Small Wonders, they are all in similar payment deficits. I speak to my students daily about equity and treating others fairly while we as teachers in our district are not afforded the same level of respect. This is so disheartening as we feel as though our teaching is seen as inferior by the Lakeville School District due to our tireless efforts. We give our students their first opportunity to be identified for delays or additional accommodations. This work may seem like an easy task, but it takes years of knowledge, patience, and dedication to our students to give them the best start possible to their school careers. In conclusion, we as professional licensed teachers deserve to be treated and compensated equally as our fellow teachers in the district. It is time for our school board to value the contributions we bring to our district. Thank you for your time and we look forward to being included on the EML pay scale. [applause] [applause] >> The next uh speaker is Sherry, no last name, from the art department. >> Good evening board. My name is Sheri Mitchell and I have been an art teacher in our district for six years. I am at High View and at Lake View. And first I want to ask you to think about first um why is art important for our kids. And I just want you to think about that for a second. Um first we are more than prep providers. Art gives students practice to think outside the box to be innovative to make mistakes and learn from them. It increases fine motor dexterity hand eye coordination. teachers. It teaches creative problem solving skills and increases cognitive development. The most important thing to me as an art teacher is that every kid in my building gets to come to me no matter their ability. And art also um teaches kids empathy for themselves and others which is a lot of what we need right now in the world. Um the challenges that the art department faces in order to be effective in these ways is currently eight teachers serve nine schools. 8,737 students. Four teachers travel. Three are full-time. One is a point.8. Orchard Lake currently has three art teachers. High View has three art teachers. Two of the teachers at High View only teach one class. In the six years I have been in this district, I have seen 16 art teachers come and go. And this year in particular, High View is in the DAPE gym, which has its own challenges and we make it work. So, we like numbers in this district. What would making this department full-time take? And I did some math and I used some numbers from the levy information and the county website for the fiscal year 2025 budget. And this is what I found for a levy per household for the year for one year would be $8.21 for the year per household. That's roughly two cups of coffee at Starbucks. So I invite you to come visit my classroom. I invite you to come on cycle day four when I get to travel to both schools and serve amazing kids. I invite you on March 2nd to our art show at Lakeville Art Center and please settle our contract. Please stop like please stop like fracturing our FTE so that we have to travel. Um we have one art teacher on our team that travels to three buildings and while she's an amazing teacher, she deserves better. Thank you for your time. [applause] Okay, the next speaker is Courtney O'Brien. >> Is Courtney here? >> Okay. >> It's us again. [laughter] >> Hi, I'm uh here to talk again about small wonders. Uh it is an amazing program that we teachers work really hard every single day. We grade our parents. We form relationships just like the rest of the teachers in our district. And at this point, we just want to be seen. We've called ourselves the armpit of the district so many times because our building, the amount of times that we hear people say just turn Crystal Lake Education Center back into a a elementary school is enough to pull one's hair out. [laughter and gasps] It is unacceptable that we are not seen enough because of all that we do for these kids. And when I tell you all that we do, that's barely tipping the iceberg. All that we're asking from you right now is to please be put on both a teacher um teacher contract but as well as the teacher pay scale. We deserve a living wage and at this point we're not there and there's not that many of us. Please just look at it. We've sent emails respond. That would be lovely as well. Thank you so much for all that you do. We understand your jobs are not easy and we understand that money only goes so far. But please consider us when you are looking at those numbers and you are considering our money. Thank you so much. [applause] >> Okay, the next speaker is Deborah Leman. >> Okay, one second. >> Okay, >> we'll move on to our next speaker while um we see if Deborah's here. Uh, Stephen Shore. Hello, [clears throat] my name is Steven Shore. I'm a resident of Lakeville. I'm a Lakeville North alumni and I'm running for the Minnesota House of Representatives in Northern Lakeville and I am here to speak on behalf of getting a teacher contract done. [panting and sighs] As one of the few people in this room who have gone through the output side of this school district, I I can think it's not unreasonable for me to say that I know as well as anyone. That it is our teachers that is our education system. It is not our it is not the smartboards that made me the person I am today. It is not the Chromebooks that nurtured [clears throat] my yearning to learn. it was our teachers. And as a union member myself, I know that contract negotiations are hard and difficult. But the teachers aren't just here representing themselves because their work is so important to the future of our children. When they come here asking for the resources that they need to make sure that our community has the tools to build a brighter future, they are negotiating for our children. You are elected by the adults of this community, but it is the teachers here who are speaking for the children. They need the resources to be able to support our future. For too long now, our country has focused on the now, on the politically convenient and forgetting about the future. But this is our future. Our children are our future and our teachers are the ones who are building that future. It is again it is not the gymnasiums that will make our kids grow up to want to be engineers to build the bridges and the the spacecraft of tomorrow. It is our teachers. And that is why I'm here to call for a fair contract for our teachers so that they can get back to work helping to build our future. Thank you. [applause] Okay, the next speaker is David Angler. David Okay, we'll move to the next speaker while we check the hallway. Uh, Lisa Ronin. >> Next. >> Okay. Next speaker, Teresa Wells. >> Carolyn Workala. >> Workah. Thank you. Thank you, by the way. >> Good evening, members of the board of education. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm here to urge you to prioritize and finalize a fair contract settlement. A settled contract is more than an agreement on paper. It's a foundation of stability, trust, and student success. When a contract remains unsettled, uncertainty spreads across classrooms, schools, and the entire district. Teachers come to work every day focused on their students. But the prolonged negotiations create an ongoing stress and a distraction to our ability to teach. Uncertainty around pay, workload, planning time, and working condition takes a toll on the morale. Over time, that strain leads to a burnout and turnover outcomes we can all agree are harmful to our students. Settling the contract sends a powerful message that this board values educators as professionals and respects the work we do. Competitive compensation, reasonable workloads, health care, and clear expectations are not just labor issues. They are retention strategies. Districts that settle contracts fairly and promptly are the districts that attract and keep highquality educators. There is also a direct connection between contract stability and student learning. When teachers feel supported and secure, we are better able to collaborate, innovate, and focus fully on instruction. Conversely, unresolved contracts create tension and division that spill into school culture and disrupt the sense of community our students depend on. A fair settlement also demonstrates fiscal responsibility and leadership. Prolonged negotiations often lead to increased costs, strained relationships, and a loss for the public's trust. Reaching an agreement not now allows the district to move forward together. planning, problem solving, and improving outcomes rather than remaining stuck in conflict. We recognize that negotiations are a complex and that the board has a responsibility to balance many priorities, but honoring the time, expertise, and dedication of educators should be central to those priorities. Settling the contract is an investment in stability, morale, and the future of this district. Tonight, we ask you to act with urgency and good faith. Settle the contract. Why are we going through this again? Restore certainty, rebuild trust, and allow teachers and administers to re return to their full focus on what matters most, students. Thank you. [applause] I just want to confirm David is not in the hallway. Correct. Okay, we have time for two more speakers. Alli Stankey. >> Okay. Amy Larson. >> And for the record, they're passing because they're all similar topics, [laughter] right? Okay. Um, Kelly Moyer already spoke. Okay. All right. Heather Lear. Good evening. My name is Heather Lear and I teach high school students English language arts at South. And tonight I wanted to talk to you about class sizes. Uh this is my 29th year of teaching in Lakeville. And in my experience, the impact of class size on a child's education cannot be overstated. Smaller classes not only allow teachers to build stronger relationships with students, but also allow us to have more opportunities to give kids more personalized learning and more immediate feedback. This is basic math. More kids in the classroom equals less time with each student during the class period and more assignments to grade outside the classroom. It's a simple time issue. There's only one of me and I only have so much time. I appreciate that the district already has guidelines in place for class sizes at the elementary level and state statute has created class size caps for online classes, but what about middle school and high school? The district has refused to discuss secondary class size guidelines as part of contract negotiations. But even more troubling, I have seen the FTEEs my department is allocated each year making a steady decline. Every year, Bill Homegrren reports to the board that our enrollment is increasing. Yet the number of teachers in my department keeps shrinking. I teach nth graders and nth grade is a pivotal year for kids. We know there is a correlation between failing classes in 9th grade and failing to graduate high school. So 9th grade teachers are instrumental in smoothing that transition. Not only am I teaching the standards in my content area, but I am also attempting to build relationships and community one 50-minute class period at a time. This year I have five to six more 9th graders in each of my nth grade classes. And with just five more students per class hour, it is so much harder to touch base with every kid every hour to get assignments graded and back to them in a timely way and to help the students who are really struggling. Every nth grade teacher on my bar team is feeling how much more difficult it is this year to track students, to create interventions, and to follow up with the kids. I know in the end all of this comes down to money and I understand there is only so much money to go around. But I ask you to re-evaluate how you are spending this money. The percentage of the district's budget that is spent on teachers, the professionals who make student learning possible, who invest in student relationships and serve the needs of students before us every day, who have been working 197 days with an expired contract. That percentage has been steadily decreasing over the past 10 years. And as we hopefully move toward the settlement of the teacher contract, I ask you to rep prioritize the focus of the budget and to reopen conversations around creating guidelines for class sizes at the secondary level. Thank you. [cheering] [applause] >> Okay. Uh, last speaker. I think you might pass. Mandy Dennis. >> Pass. >> Okay. All right. Last speaker, Mary Schmidt. >> Well, here we are again. Feels like it was just last year. Um, my name is Mary Schmidt. I've lived in the district for 30 years. I've been in working for the district for 25. I have three adult children who went through the Lakeville public schools. And thank you for your opportunity to speak tonight. I'm here to urge you to prioritize settling a fair contract and to remind us all that public education should not be run like a business. Schools are not corporations and students are not products. The goal of public public education is not efficiency at all costs. The goal is to educate children, support families, strengthen our community. When contract negotiations drag on, the human cost is too often overlooked. An unstled contract creates instability. Teachers continue to show up for students every day, but uncertainty around pay, workload, planning time, class sizes is increasing stress and burnout. Schools cannot simply absorb turnover without consequences like a business does. When educators leave, relationships are lost, consistency disappears, and students do feel that disruption. Running schools like a business often means prioritizing cost cutting over people. But in education, people are the system. Teachers are not line items to be reduced. They are professionals whose expertise directly impacts student learning. A fair contract is not an expense. It's an investment in stability, retention, and quality instruction. Settling the contract also sets the tone for district culture. And living in this community, I know this. When educators feel respected and supported, they will commit long-term to this district. When negotiations stall, that strain does filter into the community. We do understand the responsibility you carry to manage resources wisely. Fiscal responsibility does matter, but responsible leadership also means recognizing that public education requires long-term thinking. Short-term savings achieved by delaying or minimizing a contract settlement often lead to long-term costs through higher turnover, recruitment challenges, and declining moral. I'm in special ed. I see this every day. Settling the contract now allows this district to move forward, restores focus, rebuilds trust. Public education is a public good. It deserves thoughtful leadership, fair partnerships, and timely action. We ask you to act with urgency and good faith. Settle the contract for our educators, for our students, and the future of this community. Thank you for your time. >> [cheering] [applause] [applause] >> Uh this concludes our public comment section uh of the agenda. Thank you um to all of our speakers. Um with that, we'll move to um consideration of the consent agenda uh which includes uh board minutes from two board meetings, December 16th and January 6th. Um a proposal for an extended field trip um and also a resolution limiting open enrollment. Is there any item um that a board member would like to remove from the consent agenda? >> Okay, hearing none. Um could I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? >> So moved. >> Uh moved by um Carly Anderson. Um second. >> I'll second it. >> Second by Paul Carbone. All in favor? >> I >> Oh, you have discussion? >> Oh, okay. >> Oh, sure. Discussion. Go ahead, M. >> I do want to talk about the resolution limiting open enrollment. And just so that we've got clarity of what this means, I'm reading the resolution and the proposal. It says that it gives the superintendent uh to limit >> Brian, is your mic on? >> I can bring it closer. Yeah. It does give the superintendent attendant the ability to limit open enrollment by grade uh upon reaching 1% non-resident enrollment. And based on the numbers that I'm seeing that we are beyond the 1% right now. And so we're on average about 6 and 12%. And so as we're talking about elementary right now for boundary changes, we've got about 300 students roughly that are opening open enrolling into our district. And I just want to get clarity on on this resolution. Does this mean does this resolution give us give the board authority or uh to to move open enrollment students to different schools if we need to? or is this just saying the superintendent has the ability to reduce the enrollment numbers for future kids? >> I'll turn to Superintendent Bowman. >> Uh thank you, uh Director Thompson. Uh what it does is establishes the um the requirement under the law that we uh are are able to limit open enrollment. How we choose to do that and apply that is um part of the discussion I think with uh our our boundary adjustments um and the data that we've shared to date includes our open enroes um and you know we can I'm prepared to talk about that uh as it applies to our different models uh if that's helpful uh the any decision I think would be based on what the board's will is around uh the the modeling that we have and that we're going to discuss with boundary changes because I think that's the essence of your question and concern. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Go ahead, Director Thompson. >> So, so help me make because I don't think my answer my question was answer. So, what is the intent of this resolution? just to give you not you but give the school district the authority that we can reduce open enrollment to 1% if we choose to go down that path. uh the intent is to uh comply with statute that uh we acknowledge uh that we are over uh by grade and I think the numbers you have uh indicate that which then u so that that's a requirement of compliance uh how we apply open enrollment uh becomes >> our choice and our decision and I would say that it should be predicated on the models that we have and that we should sustain uh our open enrollment capacity to the extent that we possibly can because we have more students going out of the district than we have coming into the district under open enrollment. >> Yeah. >> And I think I've shared th that data with you um and again I'm prepared to talk to it in in more hard numbers um if we want to apply it against a model. This is a compliance requirement in order to move forward with any next steps with open enrollment. >> Great. Thank you. >> Great. Go ahead, >> director. And just the last comment is I mean we've got about 771 students open enrolled into our district. Uh which definitely shows that there is significant interest in in the um the education that our district provides. Uh that 771 assuming that state fund this the state funds roughly $75,000 a student brings additional revenue into our our school district that we can then ensure that it gets distributed across our various schools about roughly uh 5.5 to $6 million in additional revenue. The 300 students that I see in that are open enrolled for elementary is about $2.5 million. So, uh, just want to make sure that that number is shared as we think about boundary changes. Thank you, >> Dr. Swanson. >> And I just wanted to wondered if you could provide some clarity. Um, Superintendent Bowman, I mean, we still have the opportunity even as the board to set procedures. And I'm assuming the district does this as far as, hey, these schools are open for open enrollment. If you want to come to Lakeville School District, you can go to attend these elementary schools for instance to ensure that we're not sending them to the high growth schools that we're limiting intra district transfers to. >> That's correct. >> Okay, great. Any further discussion or questions? >> All right, with that um all in favor of um approving the consent agenda, say I >> opposed. Great. Um next we'll move to reports and discussions. With that, um the the first item under this section is a first reading of policy 620, which is our credit for learning uh policy. And just to remind both the board and community that um whenever we're making um content changes to our policies, we have a first reading and a second reading um in order for the public to respond to any um potential questions or concerns. So, tonight is uh just for discussion, first reading, and a vote will not be taken on this tonight. Uh Superintendent Bowman. Uh thank you madam chair, members of the board and ladies and gentlemen. Uh if on policy 620 that's in your board packet the redline version of that uh the first item is that the note has been stricken from 620. Uh the first note on uh page 620-2 alpha or item uh 4 A2 uh striking the if a student has an earn has earned at least uh insert number credits from the school district. We're striking that in uh transfer of academic requirements from other schools. Item B1B, uh, the comment if a student has earned at least parenthetically credits from the school district is stricken. on uh page 620-4 uh item five postsecary enrollment section D the note is stricken and in item E the note is stricken under eight weighted grades the preamble note is stricken and uh this is this is on weighted grades and I want to read what we're adding Under A, item A, the school district does not offer weighted grades for any students entering the ninth grade on or after the fall of 2026. Item B, the school district will continue to offer weighted grades to students who are entering their 10th, 11th, or 12th grade year in the fall of 2026 for courses that are identified as more rigorous or academically challenging as follows. Item one, a grade awarded in an advanced placement course will be multiplied by a factor of 1.25. Items 2 3 4 and five are stricken. Uh C8C, the school district will update its website prior to the beginning of each school year with a listing of the courses for which a student may earn a weighted grade. And then uh that was all the adjustments with the exception across references that are added at the bottom um that refer to policies uh 601, 613, 614, 616 and 624. So those are the changes uh in the first reading of policy 620. Madam chair, >> wonderful. Um just a little context I think from the policy committee. So reminding um the board and community that uh the Minnesota Schoolboard Association did a policy audit um and so uh the policy committee reviewed the next crop of policies um from that process and this was one of them that came up and um I know that um our our teacher learning department and uh high school administrators were also interested in looking at this policy. Um there was quite an extensive amount of uh review um from the the administrators in our district to look at how other districts um deal with weighted grades. And um while there is um there are some schools that continue to weighted grades there weighted grades, there are many that do not. And so um it was recommended that um from from both the policy committee and from the administration that we look into phasing this um weighted grade policy out. Um I think um what I'll also note just just because there's a lot of notes stricken from this particular one in consulting with um MSBA uh uh the attorney there on record said that um the notes are there just for our reference as we're updating policy but that those those are not to remain. And then a lot of the other items besides um besides the significant change to the waiting grade policy our our current policy just had a lot of blanks where it was like fill in the blank and we didn't have anything filled in. And so that that's what's getting removed. Nothing changing in terms of how we how we operate beyond um removing weighted grades for AP classes at this time. Um yeah, without any questions um from board members, Director Thompson. >> Yeah. So uh I I've got a point of view on this particular topic. Uh I I am in alignment with uh with the intent of the policy uh to to remove weighted grades. uh that way students who choose to you know enroll and and select whatever course they want to uh they they take on the responsibility of that respective course uh and and obviously for AP classes it it's definitely rigorous I totally agree with that uh and then you've got students that are taking PSO classes right now or college in a in a school classes right now and they're not getting the extra uh the weightedness I I have a question around kind of the the timing and the implementation And so, uh, the policy states that incoming freshmen will discontinue the AP weighted offering. The AP class will be offered, but the the weighted would would discontinue. Um, I I think I'm leaning more towards to end the weighted altogether. Uh, and and so the weighted GPA distorts in my mind academic learning. Obviously, you get a B in the AP class, you get an extra weight, you get an extra point. and now it it's uh you get an A in that class. If you continue it on knowing that the the waiting methodology is still is flawed, why would we want to just continue continue it for the next three more years for the 10th, 11th, and 12th graders? If you're a nth grader, uh you have the potential to take two AP classes and that and that's it. And so if we continue the methodology for the next three years for those students, it in my in my mind it continues to widen the gap for students who take AP and they get the AP weighted weight weighted grade for and those students that do not. Uh we've got seniors in high school that have a 3.3 GPA and are currently in the 34th percentile. And and obviously that probably doesn't uh make sense. And so I guess I don't know what the what the disadvantages would be if we just discontinue it all together. And so we we'll like to get some feedback from from from you guys. >> Um let's go to Director Baker and then we'll circle back to that. >> So I just want to comment on what Director Thompson um proposed there. Um, I would say since my my opinion is since we started it with the students that are already in school, discontinuing that um wouldn't be appropriate. I' like the students that are coming in that have never had the weighted grade, I feel like that makes sense to just start with that class, discontinue it from there on, but for the students that have already been participating in that, I I feel like it's kind of unfair that we changed our mind and we would go back on that. I believe what the um when we discussed it that the policy committee uh the recommendation from the administrators was was um what's in the in the updated policy here redlined and the the point I think that was trying to be made is that we've made a commitment to currently enrolled or incoming 10th 11th 12th graders um that we would have a weighted grade policy and so students have chosen courses potentially based on um that procedure being in place and So to honor um the commitment that we made when they when they started their uh high school career with us, it was recommended that we um metriculate those grades through that have had that um agreement, but then start um with with the eighth graders who are coming in as um 9th graders uh with this new policy. Is that Yep. Director Swanson? >> Yeah. Just one and we discussed this in the um the policy committee. I mean, if you have two tenth graders, for instance, one might take the AP course in 10th grade and then take another one might take it in 11th grade. And if we stop it, you know, you might have two different kids who took the same course in the same grade um getting two different one has a weighted grade, one has an unweed grade, you know, so then you create a disparity there when they're competing for class rank um and things like that. So, >> uh Director Anderson. >> Okay. So, I've always been really impressed when I go to graduation and I see all of our students stand up who have above a 4.0 no GPA. So, it's always very impressive. So, I can somewhat understand the I guess I haven't been part of policy committee. So, I'm trying to understand the context and maybe from our high school teachers in terms of or teachers principles um in terms of what is the reason for this change like um you said some schools or districts have are keep doing this and some have gone away. Y >> and then I guess my only concern would be if we don't have an incentive with weighted grades, are we going to end up with more students doing PSO and any potential costs to the district? >> Director Swanson and um Thompson and look to you Director Kbo next. Um to respond to that and um feel free others um Superintendent Bowman to jump in. I think um why this is being proposed is that we're continuing to have more um accelerated or um yeah accelerated options for students. And so our current policy only um uh kind of favored advanced placement. And because it's hard to evaluate um PSO versus advanced placement versus concurrent enrollment, um the idea was to just standardize um to to not go to weighted in order to help um equalize kind of those experiences for all students. But we still definitely want to promote those opportunities for students. Is there more to add? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. in U. Director McDonald can correct me if I'm wrong. I can't remember the percentage, but most schools now strip grades anyways when kids go to apply to college. That was some information we were provided. >> That was >> Yeah. So, um Tracy and her team alongside the uh high school principles did a deep dive into what's happening um basically in our area. Um and what we found around this is that um many of the districts around this and uh either as stated do not weight grades. There are some that do um but many colleges, some of the most common colleges that our students attend, they actually strip the weighted away when they're um looking at student transcripts because there's no way to compare because districts do different things. >> [snorts] >> The other thing that I would like to add and anyone um else can feel free to weigh in um on this is that what really started this conversation around this particular part of the policy was [snorts] that there is legislation that says that if you wait certain classes you have to weight all classes in in particular categories. for example, PSO, which means that you could have a 9th grade student taking an AP class that's weighted. You could have an 11th grader taking an aerobics class at Normandale that we would then be required to wait as part of their GPA, which certainly um we have no control over the content of that course. And so what uh part of the discussion was really to say the intent of waiting was really around providing rigorous learning opportunities. When you lose the ability um as a district to be able to help come alongside and make those determinations, it's really difficult to then say what we're waiting and what we're not waiting. So that was the initial driver. And I'm not here to say that like aerobics is not rigorous. It's really more about for me it's really rigorous because I am I am not sporty. You know that. Um uh so but it's really about we're agreeing to something that we don't really know anything about. So that was the driver. So then the decision point was we either wait all or we wait none. And that's really where the conversation started. Um and in terms of the phase in um I think the perspective our perspective is really around we want to make sure that when we are communicating things to students and families and they are making decisions about the educational paths for their students. [clears throat] We want to make sure that we are being truthful and accurate and provide them with the best information possible. And so there were some students and families, I'm sure, that made decisions based on a grade being weighted or not. And so we wanted to sort of honor our commitment in that way. It's much easier to just stop it. Even from a technical perspective, it's easier. Um, but we really wanted to make sure that we were following through on the commitments when those decisions were made, which is why the recommendation came forward to do the phase in. So thanks. >> Anything to add? All right, Director Carbone. >> Yeah. No, that was my question. Director Swanson grabbed it. Uh, in regards to at some point when you get to college, everything washes out. Yeah. >> And And hear you. >> Is it Is it picking up now? Can you hear me? >> Pull a little closer to your face. >> How about now? >> There we go. >> Okay. >> Um, I actually Director Swanson grabbed my question. >> Okay. I I wanted to talk about um at some point once they hit a college level or go into college or attempt to apply to college, everything washes out. So it's it almost becomes a mute point. Now you could argue the the fact that not everybody goes to college, but if you're applying for a job right out of high school, I don't know too many applications that ask what your grade point is. most of them are just have you graduated from from high school. So again, I'm trying to understand where the where you get leverage as a student on this. Um it's great for your ego, but I I I'm trying to understand where the leverage is, the the practical leverage, >> right, Director Thompson? >> Yeah. Um just just a couple comments. The grades that students earn in previous AP classes, we're not changing changing them in their transcript. They've earned it, they get it. that's what it was. Uh, but it's the it's the future classes that they they would take and and I get the idea of like, hey, if you take an AP class, we told you it's it's weighted, but they're still making the choice to enroll in the next AP class. They don't have to. I'd love to see the data in in in the AP utilization because it's like if you're if you're taking like let's say honors English in ninth grade, there might be a probability that you're probably taking AP biology versus regular biology. I'd love to know like how many students are actually taking AP classes without taking any honors classes going into 11th going into 10th grade. And so those who've already started in accelerated path are the ones taking the AP classes. And so there is for those that are not taking AP classes their freshman year like like what is the percentage that actually make that jump to go to AP? So, and if they're not taking AP, then we continue to widen that gap of those who take AP classes and are getting the extra extra weight just because they started early. And and so, you're giving an incentive for a model that we've already agreed isn't isn't relevant. And uh and and we've got a a school district that that will need to operate in a two GPA system for the next couple years as well. So the the the I I guess I'm having a tough time like like what's wrong with just ending it and then we're done. But those those are my thoughts. We can talk about it, but that's that's the data that I like to see. Just interesting. All right. >> All right. Director Swanson. >> Yeah. My question was uh related to what Carly was talking about and we may have had the same exchange with the same um high school teacher. Uh exchanged a couple emails with him. concern was, you know, are we going to lose kids to PSO if we're taking away the benefit of taking an AP class in high school? Uh, and then I think this question would be more so for Miss Brovald. um what are we doing on the concurrent enrollment side and expanding that offering to possibly fill that gap where students can then take a concurrent enrollment class and be guaranteed a college credit instead of going through an AP course now that has no weight and then you still have to take a test at the end of the semester in order to pass that and get credit. >> Yeah. Um uh Sandy Georgie and I have been um reaching out to the different colleges to find out more and learn more ourselves about concurrent enrollment and college in the schools. We've been working with the University of Minnesota, Normanddale College and uh the colleges uh that we currently work with um to learn more to determine how we move forward with that. So we are looking into it. We don't have any movement forward for um next year at this time. Um but we'll be putting that in place. >> Okay. I just know um I believe Nicole Adams had mentioned, you know, typically when you do have more concurrent enrollment options, you know, you do see a swing from that way, less kids are doing PSO, which benefits our budget as well and provides us more funds to use and resources for the district. Right. Our goal is to keep our kids here at school if we can and to offer them rigorous coursework is one of our goals. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> And I would hope with any policy change, especially this one, we could track um you know, especially starting with the nth grade class, what are the implications for AP enrollment? And if we see a significant decline, then we could as a board address um that potential challenge. >> Did you? Yeah, I was just say obviously if they take AP classes and that still counts the same for going into college whether or not that would count toward their college credits. >> It would just be I think those learners who maybe are taking a risk going into an AP class like not and and I guess what I'm saying is there's some comfort in knowing your grade will be lifted if you like let's say you are getting a B versus an A. Um, and so I would, yeah, I would just be interested in knowing kind of how that impacts numbers. >> Great. >> Director Thompson. >> Yeah, I think I recall seeing that our AP number of students was roughly 2,000 or so that were enrolled and about roughly 80% of them actually earned a a grade of a three, four, or five uh in their final exam. And that's 80% of them. So meaning 20% of the two 2,000 students, like 400 or so, are not taking the exam or they did and they didn't do very well. Uh, and so like I'm curious like are are and maybe they are or they're not are some students gaming the system because they get an extra weight and they don't take the exam at the end and so is is having waited continuing on for the next three three years uh we're le we're letting that continue on if that's the case as well. So >> Dr. Anderson, >> sorry, >> they still have to work really hard in that class. I mean, it's not gaming. You're still taking the risk of being in a more rigorous course. And so, I don't know if it's gaming as much. >> I think the good thing is like other districts we know have a policy like we're recommending and so it, you know, I think we could also look at what are our peers doing. And I think that was part of the analysis here that while some schools continue to offer weighted grades, it's becoming more common and to director Carbone's point that especially when students enroll in college, it becomes, you know, unweighted. And so to the extent that we can standardize with that, I think um would be helpful. So any other discussion for tonight? Okay, this will come back um at the end of the month um our last meeting for a second reading. All right. Uh we'll move to board member reports. Go ahead, Director Baker. [clears throat] >> So, I came from um our 917 meeting today, and 917, for those that are not aware, is our member district that um does some of our special services for students where we don't have a high enough percentage of the student population here. So, we have a membership district that does that. Um it serves our special education population for very specific needs. Um this is I was so excited to talk about this today. I knew I was running late because we were going over for the meeting and I had texted Director Cameron. I said, "Please make sure that we can adjust the agenda if um if need be, if I'm that late, because I wanted to um announce this that 917 um hosts their own inclusion awards for the member districts." And I um they're identified by other staff members within the district. And there were three um employees within Lakeville Area Schools that were identified for an inclusion award um through 917. And I just wanted to read those nominations and they actually were awarded them. But um the first one is Kelly Carlson and Kelly was recognized for her strong advoc advocacy and commitment to inclusive practices. She prioritizes student voice, access, and collaboration to support student success. Um the second staff member was Gerolyn O'Neal. They were um celebrated for her empathydriven approach and her ability to create safe, inclusive spaces where students can thrive academically and socially. And then the last staff member that was recognized as Eric Smith. He was recognized for his intentional efforts to ensure students with disabilities feel included, respected, and capable. He consistently collaborates with others to meet student needs. Um so the next thing that they will do is they will actually come to our buildings and recognize our staff members during the day. um which I think is a pretty cool thing. Um and I know that this year Lakeville schools um partnered with Family Connections to uh have inclusion awards within our district as well. So I know those awards are coming up again um within our district. So it'll be nice to hear about the different things that our staff is doing. >> Great. other [applause] other um board member reports. Director Anderson, >> uh hot off the press, um I attended the um teaching and learning advisory council yesterday. Um it was a wonderful meeting in which um there was a presentation on um the teaching learning standardsbased review and discussion of the resources that are expected to be adopted. Um so there was discussion on secondary math pathways uh secondary English language arts and elementary and secondary social studies. I just wanted to commend uh director Brovald um and her team. So Sandy Georgie was there. She's the director of teaching and learning prek through 12. Jennifer Schwaybach, she's the elementary teaching and learning coordinator. Robert Peters secondary teaching learning corner. Rebeccal also secondary teaching and learning corner coordinator. and Natalie Nelson, a secondary ELA coordinator. It seems like they've been doing a lot of work um and some exciting changes ahead and um that will come before the board in February and then it will be open for public in April May time frame. April time frame, April May time frame. >> Sounds great. >> Something like that. [laughter] We'll update you but it was >> sorry tried my best but yes it was a very good presentation so appreciate it was exciting to hear about I think um some of uh what I took away is um just some like you commented about kind of new advancement opportunities or accelerated learning opportunities and really feels like they're reframing how they're looking at that. So >> great Dr. Thompson. >> Uh, I don't have anything specific to report out, but I can I report out the kind of inquiries I'm getting and maybe we can get an update on some of those or is that not appropriate for this session? >> Um, if you could send me those just so we have the right personnel in the room to address them if that's okay with you. Okay, great. Um, go ahead, Director Swanson. >> Yeah, on Saturday I attended the Lakeville Middle School District Honor Choir, um, which is composed of middle schoolers from all three middle schools. our uh choir directors from both high schools helped lead that and uh yeah, they did an amazing job. The kids sounded really good. Um even even the young boys um yeah, it might be awkward, but they were great and did a great job. So, all right. Um I just have a couple here. Um last week I attended the community education advisory council. Um at that meeting we had uh Dr. Jeff Howison from the Minnesota State Demographic Center come and he presented about um Minnesota population growth um both throughout the state and in Dakota County and was able to show us some district level data as well. Um it was fascinating discussion. I think kind of the the general um uh summary from it is that population growth in Minnesota is stronger than our peers um in the Midwest. Um and the main reason for that is that um although our birth and death ratio um is seeing a declining uh population um immigration um in Minnesota is stronger than in other states and that's why our population is increasing or um staying steady. Um and so there's lots of discussion about the implications for keeping a um a healthy um growth in population in order to meet um business needs especially um in Dakota County. Um, also at that meeting, um, it was announced and, uh, this has been going out, I know, in newsletters, but the activities and sports festival, uh, that the district hosts, um, in partnership with many of the youth activities and associations will be held at Kenwood Middle School on February 21st from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. And then there will be a sensory hour uh, for families that need that from 2 until 3 p.m. Um, it's a it's a very um, exciting, busy event. So, it's great to see that happening. Today, um before this meeting, I was at the gifted advisory council. Um and it sounds like it complemented maybe some of the things um that the teaching and learning advisory uh learned about yesterday. The focus at that meeting today was on advanced math pathways um and learning how the district is um looking at uh new ways that was started in the school year 2728. I think I got okay. um uh that would allow more students to participate it in accelerated u math opportunities starting in upper elementary kind of going all the way through through high school um with the goal of allowing students rather than be tracked um to have kind of on and off pathways throughout their career here with uh Lakeville schools um to take advantage of advanced math um where it makes sense uh for their interests and and their skills. Um, I wanted to give a uh just a brief update about um negotiations with Education Minnesota Lakeville, which is our local teachers union. Um, I wanted to say that the district and EML uh continues to work towards a contract settlement. Uh, the board will meet in close session on January 27th before um uh the next board meeting to have continued discussion about the negotiations process. Uh the district and EML will then participate in our next mediation session facilitated by the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services on January 30th. Um I believe um all of us up here and and many of you sitting in the audience um the district and EML want to arrive at a contract that supports our teachers and fits within the financial realities of our district budget. Um and also wanted to let people know that uh further negotiation updates can be found on the Lakeville Area Schools website. Um finally I thought um at meetings I would just quickly um go through any upcoming calendar invitations that we have been um invited to. And so in the next uh couple weeks the one um that uh please look at see if you have availability is around family connections PTO that director Baker mentioned um they've invited us to participate in the awarding of the 2025 inclusion awards. um that PTO will be awarding three students, two classrooms, and seven staff awards uh throughout 10 locations in the district. Uh that is scheduled for this Thursday, the 15th. Um and it times range from 8:30 to 4 depending upon the school location. So um that's in the calendar invite from uh Kimlson. Uh so with that, um any other updates from the board? Okay, I'll turn it to superintendent for his report. >> Yeah, I just got one thing. Um the everybody came back from winter break and getting around the schools and seeing all the great work that's going on in there. Very appreciated the um it's always interesting when the start of the school year and then after we have breaks uh how quickly things get back into uh routine. And you know that's testament to great uh uh building administration, great teachers that are making sure that we get back into our routines. I just want to say thank you. Many of you are here tonight. So I just want to reach out and say thank you. And in the interest of I think others uh other items on the agenda, I'll leave it at that and again just say thank you. >> Great. Thanks, Superintendent Bowman. Uh with that, we'll move to item number seven, recommended actions. Uh the first is a resolution relating to the authorization of the issuance of our school building bonds and calling an election. I'm going to turn over to Superintendent Bowman who has an update on this for the board. >> Yeah. So the reason that's here um at the uh meeting during the um process that we did the approval um the there was a question about the term acquisition and uh ultimately we struck that from the ballot question. Um, and in the conversation I had with the previous board chair, um, I reached out to our bond council and, uh, it was made clear to me that the term acquisition and I think the the concern was that it referred to the acquisition of land, which is not part of this. Um, however, I learned very quickly that um, the technical term of acquisition, I'll read you the definition. And so everybody is in the no. Um but the the reason acquisition and betterment of the schools and that phrasiology has to do with bond law and with uh debt service law. And far be it for me to be overly technical, but I just want to make sure that uh the record is straightened and that we do um approve the the language. Acquisition by definition uh is or includes purchase, condemnation, construction and acquisition of necessary land, easements, buildings, structures, any machinery, materials or equipment. And so um there's a liability um exposure if we do not include that uh as again our council or bond council has made clear to me. So, I'm just bringing that back to affirm the record and to make sure that that is uh voted on by the board appropriately and correctly. So, >> so tonight we need to approve the new um the new item. Uh yes, Director Swanson, >> this one was my bad. So, I'll defer to council. I still I still think the wording is awkward, but uh I'll defer to our council's opinion on this. So, >> all right. With that, um is there a motion to approve uh the resolution? Go ahead. >> Motion to approve the resolution. >> Great. Thank you. Uh uh first by uh Director Swanson. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. Second by um Director Rekenberger. Any discussion? Further discussion? >> Okay. With that, all in favor? >> I >> opposed. Great. And just a reminder to our community on this one that May 12th is um the day to vote for this bond. So, thanks. All right. Um last item on the agenda um is a update from the district on the attendance area plan. And um before we kind of kick off with that um I just wanted to give a little context here. Um so this is uh the let's see we've had this is our third meeting now. Um our fourth meeting sorry discussing the attendance area plan. Um, I I think it's important to remember for ourselves and for the community that the school board uh charged the superintendent with bringing forward recommendations to address the imbalances in our school related to student enrollment based on a set of parameters that our board set. Um, as we all know, High View uh elementary and century are are overpop populated at the moment, creating unequal learning experiences for students in our district. Uh the superintendent as a result compiled a team to look at solutions to this problem that took into account a variety of things including student learning needs, staffing, and budget constraints. I think as we all know there there are and will continue to be unknowns with this work as continued housing developments complicate the district's ability to forecast student enrollment patterns. Uh the team has compiled um the information that we do have to date including feedback from our community to present the best possible options um kind of given the information that we have. Many models many many have been tested um and that the goal um is to really minimize impact on families while addressing uh the over capacity issues uh for the district. Ideally, a decision is being requested tonight, which I think Superintendent Bowman will stress, um to allow the district to plan for staffing needs. We have also heard um from many families who would like us to make a decision so that they can start planning for next academic year, especially around child care issues. Um and so with that, I think I'll turn over to the district Superintendent Bowman to um update us on where we're at with this decision. >> Sure. Hayden, can you uh bring up the charts? All right. Thank you uh Madame Chair, members of the board, ladies and gentlemen. Uh I will walk through a couple of things here uh to speak to where we are with attendance area alignment and also to address our meeting from Friday and uh a model that we're calling E2 that uh is directed at answering the questions and concerns that uh were brought up from the community from board members and others uh in the in our staff. So, uh I think this works. Okay. Um this is the agenda. I will go through and rewalk the planning timeline. Uh talk about attendance area objectives, planning criteria, model E1 and E2 and what that proposal is and then a comparison between model E1 and E2. E is referencing elementary and then M1 proposal is middle school. Our transition support plan and how we uh intend to support our students and families uh based on either or any of the models. And then uh I have schoolboard uh requests for information. That's what RFIs stands for. And I can go through each and all of those. So here we go. Let's uh first of all talk about the process and where things in in my mind as superintendent dealing with this problem set back in 2324 school year. Our attendance area adjustments process was led by a vendor or a third-party consultant teamworks. February 27 of 2024, the school board selected model that was known as D3 and uh that anticipated additional adjustments needed within the next five years. That anticipation was not accurate. And that's a red flag to me as a planner looking at where we are today and what our community I hear our community saying about the instability of the process in terms of frequent boundary change adjustments. That's a concern. I think that's a thematic concern expressed by many of the emails that we have received and other conversations that have been directed at not just school board members but uh my planning staff as well as me. 2425 school year growth occurred even faster than projected. January through March of 2425, the planning team and school leaders of the district staff recommended some minor adjustments to High View and Century attendance areas. And on March 11th, initial proposal was brought to the school board. And between March and June, continued discussions occurred. And on July 8th, limited preliminary adjustments approved for High View and Century attendance areas to new developments only. I'll say that again. Limited pre preliminary adjustments approved to high view and century attendance areas to new developments only. So, there's a lot of uh consideration or concerns expressed about um legacy or uh families that have been in the community and that that led to that conclusion. 2526 school year started our pro our problem and I think is the key issue that we're trying to navigate at this point. High view at 106% and Century at 94%. We are full at 85%. Just to put context to those numbers, the current planning group consists of 17 school leaders and district staff. In October and November, we reviewed public feedback, gathered the 2324 school year information, refined and narrowed the planning criteria with the emphasis on balancing enrollment capacity among schools. And if you remember, going back to sorry um now I'm just clicking slides. If we go I don't know how to go backwards. Oh, maybe this one. There you go. That's from my good That's from teachers teaching me to not panic and hit the right buttons. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Stephanie, wherever you are. Um, but to 2425 school year, uh, July 8th, um, we we set the condition that led to 106 and 94%. That's what we did. And I'm not saying you, I'm saying we administration did that and it's not sustainable and I think everybody can agree with that current planning group and the 17 school leaders and going through all of that criteria all the way back to what teamworks put together. We went through all of that and have done so iteratively in October and November. We reviewed the public feedback in November November 25th. We reviewed planning criteria and objectives with the school board. We said them out loud. We shared them with the public. Um that's important. That's very very important because it set the condition for what we were going to do with our plan development. And um I just think that as we continue to talk and continue to learn that we as a planning staff, we as administration are looking for what is the criteria that we're supposed to prioritize. Okay. So that's that's what happened. November and December, we recommended adjustments reviewed and refined by the planning group. December 16th, proposal was shared with the school board. January 6, we had a community meeting, an additional schoolboard discussion, and here we are, January 13th. So, I think all of that over that amount of time is the work that has gone into where we are today. And um I I think we've done deep due diligence on trying to put all those pieces together. The other thing I I want to just be very candid about, the school board and administration does not have control of the variables of the growth of the city of Lakeville or the city of Elco Market. We have to respond to that. And I'm not trying to pass the buck. What I'm trying to say is we have to respond to that. And that is going to continue. I think that all of the things that have been talked about with the strategy of this is we are a growing community. There's an interest in our community and in our schools. So I I want to just make sure that as we talk about this and I think I heard a several sagacious wise teachers say think about the future. Don't solve the problem today. solve it for long term. So I'm I'm trying to say uh that's an important factor and and we should do that. We and I'm talking about administration. I'm not trying to tell the school board what you should or shouldn't do. What I am do also want to share is these are the uh planning groups that were put together internal to the district. Uh you can see the positions. Um, we also presented plans and models to multiple groups and schools for input and refinements. And if nothing else, I will I will listen and I will try to assimilate and apply the best ideas that I can given the criteria that we're working with. So I I'm not stuck or married to any one solution and I think people know that about me. So here is the attendance area alignment objectives. Just to review, this is where we started that ensure room for long-term growth, maintain a diverse and balanced student body, and maintain desired daily experiences. Those those things were objectives that mattered to planners. These are the guidelines that shape attendance areas. Establish initial occupancy at 65 to 70%. Why? Because in order to set conditions for long-term growth, we would have to drive ourselves down to that percentage of fill. Establish initial occupancy between 75 and 80% of school capacity in areas that have minimal growth potential. That's assessed by looking at developments, talking to the city, assessing what they say about the the timing of those developments being filled and what types of housing is occurring in those neighborhoods. And then we made a designation of high growth and low growth based on the boundaries in in model E1 as well as E2. Maintain racial and socioeconomic diversity to the maximum extent possible. And there were some questions about whether there's statutes governing that or not governing that. Um, and to that question, um, I just want to, as long as we're on it, share that, um, the the concern uh, with whether there are legalities or non-legalities associated with it. There is um Minnesota statutes and um a checklist that we work using MDE guidance um district-wide protected student percentage calculated by grade span. Each affected school tested against the 20% uh percentage point rule that we aren't creating either socioeconomic or racially isolated schools. That's when you get more than 20% in any single school. Um, and so we're we're using that as criteria. Uh, I think it's consistent with the strategic plan that we have. I think it's consistent with what MDE guidance is. And um, I acknowledge others may disagree with that, but that's what we used. And I just want to make sure everybody understands our why. And um, maintain the integrity of housing subdivisions to the extent possible. Very difficult um, to do that. and make the other criteria. But to the extent that we we could, we did. And then minimize the movement of students from current schools to the greatest extent possible. And I'll just say if you look at it on a percentage basis, nobody likes that, right? It's it's like saying that individual people don't matter if you are able to hit a low percentage, but if it's if it's you, it matters. And I understand that. I empathize with that. I'm try to be compassionate about that. But I also know I can't grow and I can't stabilize unless I move some students. And that's because of where we sit today based on previous decisions. With middle schools, establish an initial occupancy of 65 to 70% for schools that have growth potential based on future capacity. Establish initial occupancy 75 to 80% for school capacity in areas that have minimal growth. Develop attendance areas to provide relief for Century Middle School because that is where the concentration problem exists. Maintain racial and socioeconomic diversity to the maximum extent possible. Reduce movement of special education students to the maximum extent possible. And then maintain integrity of housing subdivisions again to the greatest extent possible. and try to keep attendance areas connected and as logical as possible. And I know we're indicted for, you know, it's not logical if you take this this neighborhood or this subdivision versus that one. Um, and and I won't push back or argue on that. Two things can be true at the same time. So for elementary uh one, what I show here is where we are unchanged, how how we would look unchanged on the left for our school year 2627 by school. And then if you look at the school labels, you'll see that we designated each of those areas based on those boundaries as low growth or high growth and then tried to plan accordingly uh with with leveling that out. So the the um the percentage change is on the right hand side with proposed elementary uh E1. And then at the very bottom you will see the numbers of students that would have to enroll into that particular school over time to reach that 85% um fill in that school. So, that's how that chart reads. And you can see uh well, I'll just leave it at that. Do I you want me to leave it up for a little while longer? Okay. [sighs] So, uh with plan E1, 568 total movers in our system of elementary students. 160 would be multiple movers, three different schools. 211 moving back to original school. 11% of our elementary students are movers in this model and 5% of all uh enrollment is represented by uh 568 total movers in elementary. So that's how that breaks down. So alternate option E2. So based on a um our meeting on Friday, based on inputs from others, uh there were many questions asked um with regard to could we do some redesign and again I want to be candid and clear that we take that seriously and we looked at developing another model that could attempt to meet those. Now I've provided you all with answers to your questions. I am prepared to read your question and read your answer an answer and our answer to those questions if that is beneficial. I have um quite a few pages but I'm willing to do that if it's helpful. >> Was everyone able to review it prior to the meeting? >> Okay. So I don't think we need need to go through the matrix of the questions at the moment and if you want refinement we can >> if you want to bring it back up I I'm happy to do that. What I want to just emphasize and I'll I'll go to the next chart here is from the conversations from the questions these are the guidelines that we extracted or extrapolated. Is Heather Le still here? >> Oh, do I have another English teacher here? [laughter] Extrapolated. That's right. Correct. Okay. I work on vocab. I want to be good at it. These guidelines do shape uh how we looked at model E2. Um and so the first reduce occupancy for High View Elementary to to a level of school capacity that has some room to accommodate growth. Minimize movement of students from current schools to the greatest extent possible. Maintain racial and socioeconomic diversity to the maximum extent possible. Reduce movement of special education students to the maximum extent possible. Maintain integrity of housing subdivisions to the greatest extent possible. And keep attendance areas connected to the log logical uh setup that uh we possibly can. So that's what we extracted from the the conversation. So this is what we came up with. uh elementary K5 unchanged in 2627 is on the left. That was the same chart you saw with uh E1 and then on the right shows you how we would look applying uh that criteria in this proposal. So, uh, uh, Christina Huddleston Elementary would be at 61%. Cherry View at 78%. Um, East View at 79.9 almost 80%. High view we'd bring down to 75.3%. Uh, JFK 77.2%. And then Lake Marian at 80 and Lake View at 82. Oak Hills at 75 and Orchard Lake at 76. I think that's 76.8. Can you help me out, Brian? Doc, Director Thompson, >> is that 76.8? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, one [snorts] thing I can't do at my advanced age is see even with my glasses on very well, and I apologize for that. Um, but that's that's what we would start our next school year at. and that where you see high growth um and on some of those schools that that what that means is we're in short order going to have to we're going to probably exceed 85%. I can't tell you with definition that in one school year, one and a half school years what that what occurs there but that addresses some of the concerns about a phase in process. Right? So phase in uh would be executing or implementing on this model and then right away continue to be in boundary adjustment uh discussions for our school system. Um for us internal it we could call it phases for I think the community it's just okay you're now you're in another boundary change and I just there's a difference between what we see and know and how our community assimilates or sees that and and those are differences right and it's okay it's but it's still how does it what are the optics on that so we can do that that would be manageable it will not solve our long-term problem. It will not stabilize us in terms of boundary adjustments. So that's I just want to emphasize that aspect of this model. It has 185 total movers. You can see that's considerably less. 153 multiple movers. That's less 32 moving back to their original school. 3.6% 6% of our elementary students would be impacted and 1.5% of all uh students of our student body would be represented by that. Um so that model uh I think does answer a lot of the questions and concerns. It focuses on on high view uh in the elementary concentration problem. Um, but it does not set a condition for us to not be right back in in the boundary change mode. >> Baker, I just want to reiterate that one of the things that we've been receiving over emails is the implic implication of multiple movers. And when I look at this plan comparatively to the other one, we had 160 multiple movers in E1 and 153 multiple movers in E2. So, um, while it does decrease the amount of students that are moving, for students that are multiple movers, it's relatively the same. >> Correct. Uh, Director Swanson and >> and just to be clear on that one, it's because it's a Summerland neighborhood, right? Um, my understanding is the district has looked multiple times at different options and how we can address that and not have them be multiple movers, but in E1, you know, they're moving and in E2, it's the same exact move, right? >> Yes. So, I'll uh I'm going to ask Douglas to explain that because I'm sensitive to the concerns that have come with regard to that. I've looked at trying to find a different way. Um so, Douglas, if you would. >> Thank you. Good evening board and staff and community. Thank you for this opportunity. So, in answer to the question, yes, it's because of the Summerland and the Crescent Ridge and uh up to the north, the High View Ridge as well as the um I'm blanking on the other one on the north side there going to Cherry View. Those those are all areas that were moved into High View. And because of our previous what we call tapestry model or fruit salad model, uh the west portion of Summerland went to Cherry View. The east portion went to East View. And the two on the north side went to Oak Hills. And so it's very difficult without doing going back to the tapestry model to get those to where they're not moving back to a different school. >> And I guess the point I'm I just want to make is um my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, I mean the district has gone through a lot of different possibilities here as to Summerland. Um and there's really no way to make this work is my understanding. density of students in in that area uh makes that prohibitive. >> That's kind of the bottom line. And to I know we we've used term fruit salad tapestry patchwork. Just to define that what what that process was. Essentially, we would circle a new development area and designate it to um a school based on what the fill was and what the growth is and um and doing that all over the map. And that that was how we sustained ourselves until we built High View and opened that up. uh and then it became nearly impossible. Now that's not to say we can't do that to try to sustain ourselves for another short period of time, but it will not resolve for us the major issue of concentration and the issue of coming back to do um more boundary adjustments after this school year. Dr. Carbone. >> Yeah. Thank you, Michael. Um, E2 has has uh many less total movers and and I think I interpreted what you said a moment ago that E2 really doesn't have a lot of stability to it. I mean, I'm sorry that you're >> um so is that >> that's exactly correct. And those are the numbers. >> Okay. So, if if I come I'm sorry. Good. [clears throat] >> Be a temporary solution. Okay. So, so if I come back to E1 though the the original um E1 when I asked the question what kind of stability does E1 have one year, two years, three years um there wasn't a lot of confidence that there was a lot of stability in E1 either. So, and and go ahead. Well, I would I would say um I have confidence in E1 or I wouldn't bring it forward and suggest that we're getting stability, but if you just again look at the numbers and they're right there, >> right? um our our fill and our growth assessment um is the best that we can do with the information that we have and it sets a condition far better than E2 does. Um I I would love to be able to say I can get you 60 months of stability with that, but I can't control what the city chooses to do and where they choose to put developments. I can ask. We could collectively ask, but I can't control that. I also can't control what people choose to do with regard to moving and how many kids they have and those those variables I don't have control of. But I have projections that historically give me the confidence that I I can say we could figure out for 36 months what it is that we are able to do in E1. I know in E2 I cannot do that. I can only say one year, one school year. And again going back to the conversation around phasing, it then becomes, okay, what are we going to do with the next boundary change to get to school year 2728 with not having an overly concentrated school and be back in the high view problem, maybe having moved it to Cherry View or or East View. >> Okay. So, Michael, despite a lot of dialogue that took place over a period of time, >> you're still a fan of E1. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'm not I'm not a fan. >> Well, a bad bad choice of words. >> Okay. your selection is still >> as a superintendent of this district and walking in and seeing this problem and knowing what our teachers need and understanding the criteria that sets a condition for the for some stability. E1 has the best opportunity to do that notwithstanding the frustrations legitimate complaints that our families have. >> Right? And I don't want to dismiss those ever, >> right? >> But to me that becomes a transition plan and that the the stability for the future is more important to me because doing the now so we can do it next year I I don't think is I don't suggest that's the best solution. >> No. and and from many of the emails and private conversations I've had, people don't want to do this every year. I mean, that's no secret. So, okay. Thank you. You you're still you're still leaning towards Z1 then. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Thank you, >> Director Ekenberger. >> Um I really want to first I want to thank you and I want to thank your staff for um answering our [clears throat] questions and being as receptive as you were to some suggestions and ideas from the working group meeting we had last week. Um, I was particularly interested in seeing what this would look like, um, as a half step before a much more, you know, comprehensive, broader, um, boundary change if it had to come to that. Um, and from what I see here, it um, you know, just just looking at High View, just trying to solve that one problem before, um, looking at, uh, the other problems, um, with school district boundaries, it does not solve any long-term problem. Like you said, it just basically it's a band-aid for one year and we have right back where we started again a year from now. >> Well, there are there's the potential, too, that it would migrate from High View to another school like Lake Marian. Um, Cherry View always gets my concern because things happen faster there. Cherry View um is a high growth uh school. Um so I Yes. >> Um you know and and the other point um >> Tony, can you speak into the mic? >> Sorry. Sorry. Um the other point and it was one that was actually brought up in the public comments. So, uh, little small endorsement for emailing schoolboard people and public comment. It actually, you know, we do listen. We we do take that in. We do, uh, um, factor that into our thinking all the time. Um, relates to the, um, interest district transfer um from, uh, you know, to a high growth or low growth school and, um, the capacity issues there. um would it be uh viable to increase to bump up that cap from 70 to 80% say um for just that one year as an exemption given that um there we know that there's going to be some people more people who want to do intry transfer staying at that individual school that they're at right now. >> Are you referring to model E1 or E2? >> E1. >> So with E1 um sorry I have to go back because the these are the numbers that matter. Um we have control of intra district the pace at which we fill a school um we have to have positive control of that and I think there was a a critique of um you know intra district if it's low growth it it um there there was a somebody who criticized that and and they're not wrong because if we if we don't keep positive control of that and keep these numbers stable, we run the risk of creating a concentration problem. Again, we would be able to look at that um and moderate it, I guess, or calibrate it uh accordingly. But I don't want to tell our community, you know, what wherever you want to go. Um you know, I can't I was in St. Paul schools. They have no boundaries in St. Paul schools. They absorb that by transportation costs that are far far greater than we would even be able to afford in our budget. Um so we have to have the calibration control over that. So it moderately we can do that but that's the best answer I can give you looking at these numbers and trying to control that fill over years. Um backwards mapping that and saying uh at this school can we risk going maybe higher for a year and then back down that would be positive control. We we could assess that um and it would be within the current um intra district guidelines or priority uh language that we operate off of today. >> Thank you. >> Great. Director Swanson, >> I did have a question regarding um one of my RFIs and we talked about it last Friday. you know, the idea of, hey, for if we take E1 for instance, and we have schools that are, you know, below the threshold, can we, you know, allow kids to metriculate through their current elementary school? Um, and then that area just becomes whatever the new zoning is, right? Uh, and then there was an issue of cost, you know, what would it cost, you know, to have the additional bus stops. Um and the numbers that were provided for the cost of the bus just appear to be related to the number of students. Is that how the district calculated that? If we have for instance, you know, 53 students would be one bus, 21 maybe another bus, 127 kids would be two buses. But if if that's the the case, wouldn't we be losing buses at other schools and saving the cost there? Because aren't we just shifting the kids around? I mean the same bus will one bus will pick up I don't know how many kids fit on a bus but regard I mean you don't stop you don't confine the buses to a specific area as long as they're going to the same school they're going to pick up however many kids they can and you base the routes on that right >> so given [clears throat] the constraints of time we weren't able to do a deep dive analysis as you describe unfortunately we would certainly like to be able to do that. Given those time constraints, we gave it the best estimate we could in consultation with Dave Moore, bus company representative, >> so that um in the time given given the number of students, this is what the estimate would be. >> Because I mean, realistically, we would you'd need more stops, right, is what you'd need. >> We'd need more stops. We would have to look at the the routing based on the uh kids where they live. Uh and um it it would not be no cost. Um our estimate was at a total of 560,000 uh when you when you put together the uh the 116 grade five movers and the 285 uh siblings, which was another element of this that was not asked. But we understand too that if you if you move uh a a uh student a fourth grader to fifth grade, which was I think the question, then you I think necessarily you have to allow for the siblings. Um because now you're splitting the household to two different schools. Um so >> but again, I mean, we don't so we don't know what the cost is. I mean that number is based on >> that number that number is based on the number of kids. That's correct. >> Yeah. >> Dr. Anderson, >> I also want to thank everyone both of you as well as um your team for answering my many many questions. Um so I guess I want to clarify just for myself and for the public. Is this E2 model a partial implementation of the E1 plan? Is there is it it's totally different? >> It's totally different. Well, it's totally different in the sense that it's it's solving the high view problem, but it's not moving >> anybody >> anybody else anywhere else. >> Well, that's E1 moves other kids in other neighborhoods and redraws boundary lines. The redraw the boundary lines are are focused on High View in E2. If I'm misstating that. So I guess I'm wondering like if the majority of the students moving were the Summerland Crescent Ridge. So that is like part of the plan that is E1, right? That's like the majority of the students. So when you're talking about phase um because I do want to be sensitive to the fact that E2 moves nearly 400 less stu students at this time. Um, and I know a lot of, um, I want to be sensitive to emails that talked about, uh, various challenges kids may have with transition, um, kids with autism and other special ed needs, things like that. Um, so I want to be sensitive to that number. Could this be like a how we're talking about M1 M2 where essentially E2 is more phase one the rest of um E1 may come 2 years from now etc. Like is that what you're talking about with the phase system? >> Yes. >> Essentially implementing the rest of the plan. So it wouldn't be the case. I guess I want to verify if in two years we have to come back to the table. We're not gonna move Summerland and Crescent Ridge kids again. >> Does that make sense what I'm asking? >> Well, you I don't think >> I I I think you probably would. I I can't I can't definitively say that. What I can definitively say is you will have concentration u that will occur most likely in your high growth areas that you'll have to mitigate through boundary adjustments or doing the patchwork uh scenario. one of those two things would have to happen. >> Yeah. I mean, I I think my my question al along this entire time is we're talking about a two-year plan versus a 3 to four year plan if we're not feeling confident in a five-year plan. Um, and that's that's where I'm more wondering if we look at this in two phases if that would be more digestible for the public because if people impacted now are not impacted in two years, they it might not feel as painful versus if they are, >> right? But then you'll have a new set of >> people impacted. >> Correct. >> But then we might also have people phasing out of their school in that time where it's not impacting the later kids. But yeah, it trickles out. >> Correct. Um, but there'll be others behind over a five-year period. So, you'll just have a different set of people in that condition. >> Director Swanson. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm tracking with what you're saying, Carly. It's I mean, E2 is part of E1, but it's just one component of it is what you're saying. Like E1 could still be the goal, right? But are we getting there over two years? Are we getting there over three years? And I guess the question is what is the value you know to families in the district to have one more year in the current school um except for Summerland unfortunately right um and it's a good question I mean that I think the board should consider is there value I mean we're one more step removed from the last major boundary adjustment so it's not as many moves and as few of years but [snorts] uh >> great Director Thompson Yeah, I appreciate the E2 design. Um, I think how I am seeing how I'm interpreting that again back to what you were saying is that it is part of it is similar to E1, but right is how I Okay. [snorts] Um, I was envisioning E2 would be just a the the band-aid version uh which is what we discussed on Friday where we would just move the Pinnacle uh reserve area which is about 150 students into Cherry View and and that was it. So we only two schools would be impacted. High view and Cherry View. Uh which would be which could feed into the the longer term vision. Uh but E2 seems like one of those where it's not a long-term fix. If you can do a long-term fix, you're better off with E1. Uh but I'm personally not aligned with the E1 designs, but that's a separate conversation. Uh it I know that we talked about it on Friday that um did you run any numbers on what that on Friday's discussion where we just moved Pinnacle and that was it like where did we land because High View and Cherry View would be the only two schools that would be impacted in in that respective move. >> Yes sir. I believe that's in the appendix of the document that was shared with you. >> Okay. And there are within there, I'm going off of memory, it's 191 total with all three subdivisions, the pinnacle and then the two above pinnacle reserve and moving all those into the Cherry View area would bring it up to over 85%. >> Go ahead. So when you say the subdivision, are you talking uh all three subdivision is across the uh that tree line? And so you got 191 kids, not 150 that we were that we discussed on Friday because I I thought we discussed on Friday it was about 150 kids versus 190. >> Okay. So yes, in in the append appendix here, the pinnacle reserve has 89 current students in there. It would bring uh Cherry View, I'm sorry, I overstated, 79.4%. Uh if we move all of those students in there, which would leave little room for growth and would decrease High View to 373 students with only 53% occupancy. I'm going have to I I'll pause and look look at that. >> Any other questions right now? >> Michael, do you want to proceed? >> Sure. Thank you. Okay, middle school. Um, all right. This thing back to having trouble. Middle school. So on the left is middle school 6 through 8 unchanged in 2627. Um so if if we don't do any adjustments uh Century would go to 102.7% Kenwood at 85 and Maguire at 80.5 with the middle M1 uh 92.7 is where Century lands, Kenwood at 88.3 and then Maguire at 87.3. So all those are very full. Um the mitigation strategy is predicated on um uh additions going in to based on our addition plan with um Maguire and Century um which uh would obviously change that the M2 model. Uh I know there's been a lot of consternation around that and we want to go back to the drawing board and and relook that. But for u the purposes of the discussion, M2 is designed to assimilate those additions that we have on both uh Century and Maguire. So that's the objective there. um which would then bring us into tolerance or we'd be able to lower our overall uh uh capacities at all three of our middle schools and assimilate that big fourth grade class that will be going in the sixth grade and 28 um for for our school district. So um we have 137 movers under M1, nine returning to original schools, 5% of uh middle students is represented by that and 1% of all of our students in the school system. Um and then you can see how the maps are laid out there uh on the left for M1. And then again proofing that our demographics are within prescribed tolerances predicated on uh socioeconomic racial uh requirements that we applied to the model. >> I'd like to say over the weekend I I um was in some situations where I met parents that I haven't met before and many of them were going to be affected by if this went into effect. I was um surprised that they were very supportive. They appreciated that the lines followed the high school boundaries um and that um even though some people would be moving middle schools, they appreciated the approach that that the high school boundaries have um matching this. So for take that for what it's worth. [clears throat] So elementary. So I I think there were questions around transition and I I do want to address that. Is it okay if I move ahead with that? >> Go ahead. >> Um schools uh we we as a school district um and our principles they understand transitional management and administration in our buildings and they do a great job with it. if you've been to any of the activities um and and I would say if you go watch how they handle kindergarten that's that's a good indicator um but schools are going to work to ensure that all the new students and families feel welcome valued and in in a space where they can succeed. We have good schools across our system. All families are going to receive an email that's going to welcome them. Um, it's going to include new school information. During the school day, principles are going to go visit with their new students in their current school, so where they're at now. Uh, each school is going to host a meet your new school event in May, and this will include tours and parent information. uh will provide alternate options for our students uh with sensory needs, which you know that's an important element of anything that we're doing with our students. A caregiver transition guide will be created to help parents and caregivers support their children, principles, counselors, teachers, and case managers. Obviously, when appropriate, we'll collaborate regarding the needs and the classroom placements for transitioning students. We also know that social relationships are important and friendships and social needs will be considered as they are for all of our students. And then schools are going to host an open house or curriculum night for all families in August, September. And families who are new to the school will be included post transition. So after we get rolling, each elementary school is going to host an all family engagement event. Counseling support will be available to students and then home room teachers will be aware of any transitioning students and monitoring for support needs uh that our students have in our middle school. Uh very similar. They have incoming uh sixth graders on an annualized basis and all families are going to receive an email. They're going to get a video from the um the school principles and each school is going to host a meet your new school. Alternate options will be available for students uh with s sensory needs. Our schools will host parent information sessions caregiver transition guide just like we were doing in elementary. Schools are going to host an open house for our families and school leaders will send personalized voicemails to our new families to aid in that prior transition uh phase. And then at the post-transition first friends program will be used to connect our students. Um advisory teachers and all team teachers will be aware of any transitioning students and monitor for their support needs. And then counseling support will be provided to our students who are in transition. Special education in addition to our supports that already exists for our special education. where outreach for special education staff in addition to school and district communication. An IEP meeting will be offered to all special education families on request to support their transitional needs or if the staff uh deems that that an IEP meeting we can talk to the families and and seek that students can participate in meet your school events and elementary families will be able to meet with their case managers on assessment days. So post transition our case managers will support students and monitor for their needs. Our students will receive specialized services integrated with first friends and that's a program that our middle that that our uh middle schools run and then families will be integrated into all family events and school activities. And these are the things that we do. I just wanted to make sure we list them for you so that um you can see what they are in more detail um with each of our schools and our uh both our elementary and our middle school levels. So again, we're asking tonight uh asking to you to approve the 26 27th attendance areas E1 and M1. Uh, I know there's more conversation to be had, but that's where we land and stand for any further questions that you may have. >> Great. Uh, thanks, Superintendent Bowman. Um, yep. Before we um launch into that, I think it seems like we have two options to kind of discuss tonight. Do we want to pursue kind of the the long-term um plan as been recommended by the district and u the team that has put this together or are we interested in a more phased approach um where we would only do E2 with the goal of eventually getting to like an E1 model. So I think that's our objective. Um but I realize there's a lot of discussion that needs to happen before we get there most likely. Also, if there are um questions that that Superintendent Bowman and his team answered in the document, but you want further clarification or more details, uh feel free to to bring those up. So, with that, um uh Director Thompson. >> Yeah, I want to make sure that I that I'm on the same page with the the numbers, Douglas, just to make sure. Again, on Friday, we discussed that uh I I shared that the enrollment numbers for all of our elementaryaries were not at capacity and uh there's actually plenty of room for potential growth and and the suggestion on Friday was can we just make a a temporary move and see how the developments materialize, which kids are actually coming in and then we actually do a more of a major shift adjustment in the 2728 school year. Uh on Friday I suggested that in High View area, you know, we would there is a a creek/forest or bunch of trees that that go diagonal within the Pinnacle Reserve area is actually uh just the top half. Uh and then I think I calculated about 151, but what I'm hearing is about 200ish or so. Uh I just want to make sure I'm not suggesting all of the Pinnacle Reserve to move to Cherave. It's just that that that dotted line across that creek is what I was suggesting suggesting. Um based on Friday's discussion and the math, uh that 150 kids in that bucket would move to Cherry View and that would free up Summerland or Summerland and Crescent Ridge to stay within the High View boundary zone. And that would give us a year's worth to see okay how many kids actually show up within the the reserve within the uh you know the Ritter Meadows and Glacier and Voyager and so forth and then we make the major change thereafter. Uh my proposal is a very small band-aid but that's with the assumption that the numbers are right and it's not 190 kids but 150 students that are currently in that particular pocket. um if it is 190 then that particular model doesn't work u from my proposal for from Friday's conversation but I just want to make sure that we're on the we have the right data that that would be my temporary band-aid recommendation and then we move into a much larger impact where okay do we have the right design for the larger scale uh based on the actual homes that actually materialize and the students that actually move in >> so I think if I'm understanding things correctly um director Dr. Thompson uh that scenario was run but but it didn't create enough reduction but um Douglas or Michael um >> well that's that's correct and and so again um I'll just I'll just say this if we want to solve the problem for the upcoming school year um we could do that or we could do the model we recommended E2 two. We will be doing this >> again probably or most likely next school year. I could maybe buy uh a school year with some patchwork. We would obviously have to bring that to you because any boundary adjustment we're going to have to bring to you. Um so that's that's what we're doing. That's what we're saying out loud. That's what we want to do. >> Great. Uh, Director Anderson, >> is that based on the Castalano neighbor and um I forget Autumn, what's it called? Is that based on those neighborhoods developing or where is the where does that clear bubble with capacity happen that you're expecting? >> Miss Kasano >> Kasano and Dr. Thompson. >> Yeah. In the Hu area, you've got a bunch of homes that are already built within Kasano. and Klanos actually has a top half and a middle half in the current design. The top half goes to High View and then bottom half goes to East View. Uh the recommendation in in my re in our proposal on Friday was the bottom half would be zoned to go to High View so that that neighborhood stays intact. The school that the neighborhood that would be to the west of High View, Autumn Hill is currently zoned to East View. Let them stay at East View. And again, the whole intent of this minor band-aid temporary whatever scenario that I'm suggesting is to let the parents and the students that have already moved a year and a half ago to like or two years ago to just have them stay in their current location for a three-year term knowing that next year we will make a move and knowing that those students will move. But it minimizes the amount of three-time movers throughout the course of of the past uh you know. Yeah. Yeah. three the three time movers that have that have moved in their elementary years. Uh again the only change that I would propose is to have uh the the pinnacle location assuming if the number is accurate uh that would be the only one that would move in this temporary band-aid but again acknowledging that we will have to make a major shift next year and acknowledging we're going to leave things as is for a three-year term and then come back and revisit. So I think um director Thompson to that point I think what the district tried to do with E2 is think about your idea and I think others of how could we phase this their proposal is just that your particular lines with Pinnacle don't meet the objectives but that these do. So, they're still not moving um they're only moving High View kids out, right? That's like one of the main concerns that we have. It's just a different group than what you are thinking of moving. Is that am I correct on that? [clears throat] >> I'm afraid I wasn't paying close attention to what you were saying. I apologize. Basically, I I think what I'm trying to get to is that the E2 model is a version of Director Thompson's in the sense that are there are there students that we could just move out of High View as a phased approach to get to E1? Um, and this is the proposal you're suggesting to do that rather than the Pinnacle neighborhood. >> E2 is our suggestion. So, the reason for the confusion, I apologize for the confusion in the numbers. So, you're closer. It's 156 right now. Y >> it does fluctuate from day to day because of enrollments and withdrawals. [snorts] And >> I was working off of in the appendix the E1 model, not the current state. Got it. >> Okay. So, if we were to go off the current state and just move those 156 to Cherry View, that would be 811 students >> at 87.8%. >> Yep. And that would bring High View then down to 586 statement uh students with only 83.7% capacity. >> So that shifts the problem >> from High View to Cherry View. >> But but High View right now is at 106%. right now. And so again, if the our goal agre if we agree that 85% is kind of like it's full, 87% is much significantly better than 105 and then getting high view down to 85%. Like it solves the problem for it solves the immediate problem and it gives the board a longer road uh runway to decide, okay, how do you want this to go? Let's look at the rest of the developments to see if they devel if they materialize. Um, and because because again I'm not align like personally I'm not aligned with a little the little part of Oak Hills uh that that got cut off off of off of IPA. And so like there are some miscellaneous things that I'd like to go double check. Uh but if if we're rushed to make a decision, the immediate band-aid would be what I'm suggesting, you know, 87% 85% uh and and then all of our schools leave them as is. Oh, all you know, all of them would be wouldn't be adjusted at all. >> I think um we'll go Director Baker in a second. I think given Superintendent Bowman's outline of how we got to where we are, this has been a multi-year process with data forming the decision that we're getting to tonight. I don't want people to feel rushed, of course, but I also want people to know that this is informed by by more than just like the last month, right, of conversation. Um, and ideally the objective is to make a decision tonight not to redraw boundaries or move lines. And so if E1 or E2, just to talk about elementary, is unsatisfactory to the majority of the board, then we can have that discussion. But if the majority of the board feels like one or one of these options is a good solution, um, I I would encourage us to to to move towards that if if if people agree. Um, Director Baker, >> I was just going to um, chair question what our intent for the discussion was because um, the way that you framed it I and you did a great job just um, clarifying that was that we were e talking about either E1 or E2 um, not different models because we could sit here all night and tweak the different models and make different things and still would end up without a decision. So, um, I appreciate your clarification on that. So, I'm understanding that we're we're just going to discuss E1 or E2 and make a decision if there's a majority of the board that feels that way. Is that correct? >> Correct. Okay. Yep. >> Director Thompson. >> So, so I will I want to acknowledge like this is what happened last time. We got a proposal, an E1 or a D1 or whatever it is, and the board didn't have enough time to provide feedback for the bo for the district to go back go back and make edits and bring it back. That was part of the proposal that Teamwork shared that we would that the board would be involved in. They're going to make designs. They're going to come back to the board. We'll give you a couple proposals and then we want your input because if the board is the one that makes a final decision, all right, we are the ones that get in trouble when the boundary is wrong. And then we give our feedback to the district and say, "All right, go back and iterate and bring it back." It's very much like a product development life cycle. If product is developed, we we uh we demo it, we make edits to it, and then the the the the the development team makes edits and they come back. And so what happened last time is that we got two proposals, and we had to make a choice. And and this is where we this is where we landed. Again, I'm not suggesting that the proposals are 100% wrong, but the board needs to be able to provide feedback and we're doing the exact same thing that we did two years ago. >> Can I respond to that because that's not exactly 100% correct. Um >> go ahead, Director Baker. As the board, we were given two proposals and we started again looking at some of the emails we were getting and making adjustments to the proposals that the district gave us based on feedback that we received. So the original proposals that the district gave us is not what the board went with. We made adjustments to those at the board table like we're doing right now and now we're sitting here again. Now we I agree with um Superintendent Bowman. we can't predict um how the enrollment's going to increase, but when I look at um E2, I've got five buildings there with issues. Um I see the under capacity one is an issue, too, because we're paying the same utilities to run that building as we are the other the other ones, and we are way under capacity in that. And it's a low growth building, so it's not going to grow. I see the other ones that are high growth buildings, especially High View and Cherry View, needing only 60 kids to again be within that situation and that could happen over the summer with the growth that happens. So to me, that's not us solving any of the issues that we're having right now. And I do feel like if we have to sit here at the table again next year and have boundary decisions, no one's going to be happy that we maybe saved their kid from moving this year and then they have to turn around and move them again next year anyway. So, I caution the board from making decisions based on um some of the trying to tweak these proposals, which is why I was trying to ask like, are we voting on E1 or E2 or are we sitting here tweaking and making our own proposal? Because yes, that is what happened last time. We tweaked the proposals that the district gave us and yes, now we are sitting here. >> Dr. Anderson, >> I I largely agree with what you just said except I feel like the tweaks actually came to us from the administration based on the community feedback that was very robust. So I don't feel like I don't remember us saying move these things or that. It was like it was an iterative process with community input. We have all these meetings. I'm not saying it's a right way or wrong way to do it, but I just want to be I don't think we were tweaking lines. It was like this was the feedback from the community and in retrospect sometimes maybe it's just going with the data originally by teamworks would have been the you know best decision but hindsight's 20 2020 >> I think also with this process we have seen from like the December meeting until now even though it's still being called E1 that the district has listened to feedback from this table um feedback from community members and h and it is a proposal than what was presented at December 16th to try to accommodate more of the concerns. Um, and so I just want to point that out. Director Swanson. >> Yeah, Director Thompson, I appreciate what you're trying to do and I and I just so I'm clear. Um, you're pointing at the pinnacle because then they wouldn't they're not multiple movers, right? I believe they were multiple movers from the previous one, but then but they're uh but it's just a small group that we would be moving and then no other elementary school would be impacted for at least one year and then we have a longer runway to make decisions and folks would have three years in their current state >> because it seems like E2 would do that as well and would push us towards the E1 goal is kind of what I'm looking at. I I mean >> yeah I I don't mind I I don't mind E1. It's hard to argue with E1 and how it level sets everything and that's what we want ultimately, right? I guess what I haven't seen I'm just telling the board is have we ex has it been sufficiently explained that there is no good transition plan that and that we should just do it in one year. I guess my my hesitation is I'm not like again I like E1. I like where it will get us. The question is how do we get there, right? And I haven't seen necessarily the defense that it can't be done in more than one phase. I mean I think this board should have a plan in the very near future like this is where we're going to and this is how we're going to get there. I wouldn't want to push this off until next year. Even if we do E2 tonight, I mean we should continue to have discussions so we know what we're going to do. um in the years to come even if we're going to say okay this this group's moving next year this group's moving that year so we don't have to come back to the table and discuss this but then you do have flexibility to adjust you know if there's exceptional growth in the south um and I guess my question similar to the busing question um I don't know that we've exhausted our options and questions as it as it pertains to why we should do it now necessarily as opposed to phases >> and again I I I'd also question whether or not we need to make the decision tonight versus in two weeks um given that our staffing, you know, doesn't get posted until later in February. >> Well, the posting process, uh I think I tried to share this in the information I gave you. Uh there's there's a lot of meetings that have to happen. >> I can appreciate that. >> And um you know, across the entire district, school by school. Um, and and I think the more that gets interdicted, the the challenge for us becomes setting the condition for our teachers to be able to know where they're going to where the situation's going to land them. And I I just want to be respectful of that and emphasize that concern that I have and and why today matters. There's registration as well. just you know another element of it that I think we have to be cognizant of in this process. >> Great. With that, is anyone interested in pursuing one of these options or go ahead? It looks director Carbone. Do you want to I >> not to put you on the spot. I see you thinking. >> Yeah. No, I my Michael Mike Michael my question is last year we had a set of variables that are moving and you're trying to pin those variables down and come up with a plan that's that's going to work for some period of time and it appears that last year for whatever reason didn't hold. This year again, we have a set of moving variables that we're trying to put a plan to and hopefully get some longevity out of. And and there have been discussions or comments about let's do half now, half later, or let's do one thing and do it later. But my question is later is still going to be different variables that are all moving and we're going to have to try and put a plan on it. If all the variables would stay static and six months or a year from now we had the same variables and we could look back and say good idea, bad idea. But because the variables aren't going to stay static, aren't we going to be in the same pickle six months, a year from now than we are right now? >> Well, these numbers tell me no. Not six months working in school years. If we do E1, we won't be back in six months trying to replplot this. If I understand your question. >> Yeah. Because because what I'm Yeah, I don't know if I'm articulating this well enough, Michael. What what I'm trying to say is a year ago variables are moving. You have a plan. This year variables are moving. You have a plan. I'm not sure because variables don't stay static and they keep moving. I'm not sure that a year from now if we put this off a year from now we're going to have any better information to make a decision because variables are going to be different. >> In that manner, I agree with you, sir. >> That's my point. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Can I jump in here with that? >> Yeah, sure. >> I um if I'm remembering right when our when this board made the decision to just move the horseshoe um that was unbuilt to be assigned to East View, right, as kind of a stop gap. I think at least I felt we knew that we still had a capacity issue, especially at High View, but that that would tie us over even though we knew it wasn't it was not ideal. Um, and so I don't think it was like a a solution last year per se. It was more just like how can we buy time um to get to where we are today. What what I like about E1 is that it at least with the numbers as with the information that we have at the moment, it sets all the schools in a position where to uh to director Thompson some of your points. If we're wrong about any estimates, like this new neighborhood comes in and there's 5 million. I mean, not five, but there's lots of children that come, all of the schools can in theory accommodate that for a certain amount of time before we're in another highview like situation. Um, I mean, we're not sure how long that is, I realize, but with E2, and I appreciate E2, too. I mean, I don't want to move kids more than we need to, but I feel like having Christina Huddleston sit way in the 60% when we have other schools approaching um the maximum capacity. And that's not even considering any new enrollment that might come in between now and next fall. I just worry that um we're we're going to like I do think this conversation over and over and over again at at this table isn't the best for public support. It's not best what's for for students. It's definitely not what's best for staffing schools. And so I can get behind either plan, but I I really appreciate that a robust team from the district is proposing E1 who know the data, who know the who's ran countless scenarios. Um, and this is the one that they're bringing to us. So I I can appreciate both perspectives. Um, but that that's where I'm at right now. Director Baker. Yeah, I was going to add that um after our meeting on Friday, I spoke with some of the members um of our administrative team that were on that um team that were working to make these proposals. And um I can't speak to how long they've been working on it. I know it's an extensive amount of time. I I'm not going to put an exact date on it because I don't know and I don't I want to honor the work that they did, but I want to say there were over 20 administrators and people within our district that were working on this plan. Now, I want to be clear that when they brought it to the board, we've had some time to look at it, too. This isn't our first meeting. We've talked about it. Um, we did add another working session in there, but they're the ones that really did the work. They're the ones that bring the proposal to us with what they've dug in. In fact, like I was talking to them about different scenarios that I was think had been thinking about in my mind. They're like, "Yeah, we were in that scenario. Yeah, we did that. Yeah, we looked at those different neighborhoods. We looked at all those pieces." So, I guess I feel confident in the work that our district staff has done behind this plan. Um, knowing that they did make some adjustments based on the feedback that they got from us. Um, they they did do the things that we re we requested. Sorry, it's getting late. Um, and reduce the amount of multiple movers and um reduce the amount of students that were moving in general and and so they did make some of the um tweaks that we asked them to do. So, um I would agree with you, Director Cameron, that um I'm confident in E1 just based on the fact that um the district office staff and our building administrators have worked very hard on it and have looked at all of those pieces. >> Douglas, >> thank you again. I did want to bring some clarification to your question that I hope will help. >> Sure. To the best of my recollection, I have been called after 21 years here a fixture of the district. >> So you're not a variable that keeps it's not that okay. >> Exactly. [laughter] >> That the conditions that I recall of the previous adjustment, the numbers actually did indicate we were going to go over capacity [clears throat] at High View. It was just two years out. And also to my recollection, the superintendent of the time, not this one, pointed out that fact that we were going to have to come back in two years and do it. What we didn't anticipate was that would happen a year earlier than what the projections showed. That's where the variable was that we didn't quite nail down on that time. In this proposal, we're looking five years out. We're not seeing that same scenario. >> Okay. >> Dr. Anderson. >> So, [snorts] can I just clarify? I think I asked this earlier and I'm not sure I got my response and I'm not I I I'm not saying I'm behind E2. Just want to clarify. Um, where would that problem where is that problem going to emerge in one or two years that you're seeing? >> Under which? >> On E2. >> Under E2. So Lake Marian and Cherry View would be the most likely areas that we would experience issues with on the high side, but then on the low side, Christina Huddleston is an obvious concern. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Director Swanson. >> Yeah, I had a question. Sorry, Douglas, now that you've walked all the way over there. Uh I mean, a problem in a year or a problem in two years? That would be a hill I'm not willing to die on. Sir, [laughter] >> what what I would say, uh, Director Swanson, is um, again, I'm just looking at the numbers and, uh, this this is talking about school year 2627. This is what we would anticipate looking like. Make sure I don't I'm losing numbers right now. Um but 2627 um [snorts] there is the the potential if the board wanted to do patchwork that is a new development is in the [snorts] high view area and we say in an extreme case I'm just for illustrative purposes did I use that word right? Okay. For illustrative purposes, we get a neighborhood or a a a development in High View and we take it those those students and we move them to Orchard Lake. Now, we won't do that, but just for illustrative purposes. You start getting into that till you're at a point where you have a concentration problem. again. Is that is that something we can do for two years, three years? That that's a question mark that I can't I I truly can't answer, but we have done that in the past. So, um I forget who asked the question. Um I think it's director Swanson. So, I mean that's that's an an opportunity as well. Um but that's going backwards to what we've done in the past. That's that's not addressing bringing a ninth elementary school online. Uh but it buys you time. We can all we can buy time and then the question becomes, well, how much time before you're back at it again? That's kind of the challenge. >> I'm not in favor of that. I'm not saying I'm in favor of doing patchwork again. But >> well, it it's not I'm not I'm not saying it's a negative solution. It's just we have to be willing to understand what that might potentially mean. And you know, it's a smaller it's a smaller set of our community. Is it is it best for kids? You know, all those kind of questions come into play. And I just want to be candid and clear about what we're seeing and what we're not seeing. >> Director Thompson, >> can you go back to the E1 uh metrics? Sounds like E2 is dead. So, let's just we'll move that one off to the side. Uh but with the E1 model I I think I So for Cherry for Christina uh I'm sorry for Cherry View you've got 129 uh availability for growth. And so you've got the number 656 and just make sure that I'm on the same page with how you're calculating the 656. It's the number of students plus a growth factor of 1.0325 or something like that. Does that sound about right? Got it. And so then that means all right we anticipate 656 students there. Then you add on top of that where you think the growth is going to come. And so for Cherry View, you've got Glacier and Voyager, which has about 150 units. Uh assuming 1.25 kids or I'm sorry, 1.5 kids or something like that. And 46% of them are going to be in elementary. I've got like I'm targeting about 100 kids ballpark in Cherry View and Voyager. So you'd have capacity for Cherry View in that respect. Uh for uh High View, you've got a ton. I don't you've got maybe 84 is what I'm thinking for, you know, Klano and Autumn Hill that might feed into that. So, you've got capacity. You got 118 and then not including whatever might grow on the east side of of of High View. Um I do have concerns with like Lake Marian having 104 just because you've got it feels like you've got a lot potentially baked into that. You've got and and I think what I recall do you have is it Ritter that's aligned to Lake Marion or so you've got Ritter, you've got Bareris, you got Amelia, you got Cedar, you've got Kayla Crossing and when I you know ballpark estimate that that's like 300 kids that I see coming into Lake Marian and you've got we've got group >> but they're not coming in the same day. >> They're not coming in the same day. >> It's going to be over time >> but they're going to grow. And um those factors you have to take into consideration to some extent because I don't want to I don't want to h be hyperbolic about I got 300 kids coming into Lake Mary. >> They're not coming right away but there there's development that's happening. And so I think the the concern that I have is I see Oak Hills uh Orchard Lake and Christina like could we get them to 85? I mean those are landlocked areas that we're not going to have any growth over there. And I guess that I mean that's an extra 100 kids that we could redistribute into somewhere else that that might be that might have additional growth. But that's I don't know a few thoughts. That's >> our accounting for that is predicated on how much room we left or didn't leave. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And for me, like I mentioned earlier, what I like about E1 is that there's no school right at 85. So if we're wrong, right, it gives that an cushion, but it's still obviously filling the low growth schools much higher than the um high growth schools. So >> yeah, >> is there interest amongst this board in making a decision tonight on this? I make a motion to uh pass the proposed elementary E1 boundary redraw. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. Any further discussion? >> Director Thompson, >> I just want to acknowledge that I do feel that we are putting ourselves at risk with Lake View at 80% and JFK at 80%. You've got a ton of stuff on the west that and and all the way down to Elco and New Market. And so I I get it that as those grow that might be the data that we need elementary school further west, but it takes 3 years for something like that to come online. >> Can I speak? >> Director Anderson, >> sorry, my mic is on and I'm like, can I speak? [laughter] Um, I did, Brian, I did ask about that in my questions because I am I have across this time been confused about low those that are identified as low growth versus high growth. And I think part of this is where it seems like that growth is going to take some time to occur. And so and in that time in some of these areas like JFK they might be losing students just based on [clears throat] metriculation and not the same growth in that that area of JFK. That's doesn't make sense. So um I feel this is where I feel like we're not I mean I've kind of said how long is this going to last and we don't know. Um, but it does seem like it's it's going to last through a period of time before those developments come. Fair to say, Mr. Bowman. Okay. >> Director Thompson, >> when we approve this, are you are you are we approving the uh the int district rules and the policies that's all associated with it? Is that a separate conversation that we're going to have or are we approving just the boundary makeup and that's it? >> We're just approving the boundary makeup right now. >> Well, um yes. uh we can have a follow- on discussion about intra district and to that I would say the same thing I said earlier is we have to calibrate and uh based on our guidelines um we would want to sustain that without jeopardizing it in order to achieve the longevity that we're seeking here and you can see the numbers of fill that we see there um with open enrollment that is a discussion We could certainly have u condition setting for that is the compliance document we did today. And you know the the conversation then becomes do we need to modify that uh in our guidelines and instructions to our community while maintaining compliance with the law and also understanding that the tertiary impact second third order effects. If you limit open enrollment as we currently have it designed, we may lose funding because families will make other decisions and you know the quantifying that risk is difficult at best. But um it is not to mix metaphors here but it's kind of like weighted grades and what's going to happen with PSO and all those things. So, we don't know, but our implied task and requirement is to monitor that and be able to articulate what that turned out to be. Any other discussion? Okay, we'll go to a vote. Um, all in favor, we'll do voice vote first. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> Okay, let's do voice vote. Can you do roll call? Um, Kim, sorry, just to make sure. >> Ed Thompson, >> no. >> Tony Rber, >> yes. >> Brian Thompson, >> no. >> Amber Cameron, >> yes. >> Harley Anderson, >> yes. >> No. >> Baker, >> yes. Okay, motion passes. 43. All right, moving to um the middle school. Is there further um questions on the middle school model M1? >> Go ahead, Director Thompson. >> I like the I like this model. So, [laughter] >> great. >> End of discussion. [laughter] >> Can we put into the record Allelujah? I make a motion to pass M1. >> Is there a second? >> I'll I'll second it because >> any further discussion. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Director Thompson. >> Yeah. I So, when I look at M1, it's we're you've got to we've got to remove a not remove, we've got to transition a 100 students out of Century in some capacity into another middle school. And if those century students are generally designed to go to north, um, uh, moving them to Kenwood is probably the appropriate path. So, as I look at the map, Kenwood needs to just go further northeast or just it's got to it's got to go clockwise is how I'm is how I'm seeing that. But then if we add 100 kids to Kenwood, then then we've got to move some of the kids out of Kenwood to move them to Meuire. So then all of the Kenwood boundary has to then go counterclockwise into Meguire because those kids are going to go to South High School is how I how I see it. So you're moving 100 kids from Sentry to Kenwood, then Kenwood's full, and then you got to move 50 kids out of Kenwood into Meuire and and then so that it's somewhat, you know, equal. Now, I'm not aligned with M2, but that's a separate conversation uh once we figure out what the uh the levy results are and and what that looks like. um it is a solution for the next year is how I view it as maybe the next year for the next two years but I don't think there's a really a an ideal pathway where we grab more Kenwood kids um I don't think there was a pathway where the McGuire kids go north on the east side into Century and grabbing north kids where you know the brackets crossing area those kids go currently to Kenwood and then but they're designed to go to South and so having them go further into Meguire makes probably the best um sequence for those students and so there there really isn't much of an op. We don't have an option. We really don't is how I see it. So >> any other director Sansson? >> Yeah, I mean I would agree. It's it's not a great situation to be in but we have to move kids out of Century. That's just what we're stuck with. Um see I'm in favor of M1. >> Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. All in favor of approving uh middle school M1 plans say I. I >> opposed. All right. Motion passes 70. Um with that, we're at the end of our agenda. Um could I get a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Okay. First by um Director Carbone. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Director Reikenberger. All in favor? I I >> opposed. All right. We're adjourned. Thank you.