[15:21] [Music] [15:58] United States of America. and to the republic for which it stands. [16:03] One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [16:12] All right, I think that's better. Apologies for the sound earlier. Um, our first order of business is to approve [16:18] the board agenda. Is there a motion to approve the board agenda as presented? So moved. We have a motion from Director [16:25] Simon. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Director Langenfeld. Any discussion hearing? None. Would all in [16:32] favor of approving the board agenda say I? I. Any opposed say nay. With six in [16:37] favor and zero opposed, that agenda is approved. Our first uh recognition [16:43] tonight is Emily Pion for the presidential award of for excellence in [16:48] mathematics and science teaching. Uh we welcome Dr. Dr. Mary Wolverton, associate superintendent for elementary [16:54] schools, Denise Schnobble, the principal of Ramsey Elementary, and Emily Payan, second grade teacher at Ramsey [17:00] Elementary. Welcome. [17:07] Good evening, co-chair Duchaine uh Zargo, uh board members, and [17:12] superintendent McIntyre. We are very honored tonight to be able to recognize [17:17] Emily Pion who has been awarded uh a presidential award for excellence in [17:24] science, mathematics, engineering and science teaching which recognizes [17:31] outstanding teachers from across the nation. This award is a very rigorous [17:37] process and it uh involves um as noted all um teachers that um are interested [17:44] in this process in all 50 states. The nominees for this go through an [17:50] exceptionally rigorous application process and within that process they [17:56] have to demonstrate their deep content knowledge um and how that is applied to [18:02] a v excuse me a wide range of learners in a variety of teaching environments. [18:09] In this process, a panel of distinguished mathematicians, scientists, and [18:15] educators at the state level and at the national level review those applications [18:22] and engage those teachers in a very rigorous process in relation to being considered, moved forward, and awarded [18:30] um this um honor. Um, this year in the United States, [18:37] 336 teachers were awarded this uh, presidential award. Um, we're very [18:44] honored to have Emily as um, one of the teachers in the state of Minnesota that was awarded this. At this time, I'll [18:51] turn it over to principal Denise Schnabble at Ramsey Elementary who will talk about Emily's great work in as a [18:58] second grade teacher at Ramsey Elementary. Thank you. Thank you co-chairs Arco and Deshaine [19:05] and school board and superintendent Corey McIntyre. It is such a privilege to be here to talk about Emily. Emily [19:12] Pan has served the families in this district for over 11 years and I've had the privilege to be part of five years [19:18] of those. In that time, I've grown to know her as a dedicated educator focused on meeting the needs of all of her [19:24] learners. her expertise in identifying the needs and providing instruction and [19:31] engaging ways that stands out about Emily. She is a natural quiet leader not [19:38] only in science and mathematics but also within our building culture and Emily is absolutely so deserving of this [19:44] recognition. I'm happy to introduce to you Miss Emily Pan. [19:51] [Applause] [19:58] Good evening, co-chairs Arco Duchaine, and members of the board. Thank you so much for the incredible honor of being [20:03] recognized here tonight. Math builds more than just academic skills. It builds confidence, resilience, and [20:10] critical thinking. Research tells us that mathematics doesn't just predict later success in math. It also strongly [20:16] correlates with reading achievement, and overall academic growth. Math teaches us to look for patterns, to persevere [20:22] through challenges, and to solve problems creatively. Skills that are essential in every subject and in [20:28] life. Thank you to the board for your continued investment in STEM education. My administrators, past and present, for [20:36] your leadership and guidance. To my students, thank you for trusting me, challenging me, and reminding me daily [20:41] why this work matters. Last but not least, to my husband, son, and my mom for your constant inspiration, support, [20:48] and encouragement. This award is a milestone, but it's also a reminder to keep pushing, keep [20:53] learning, and keep advocating for the power of math to change lives. Thank [21:04] you. Congratulation on your award. We'll do a district photo uh with you. [21:24] Do you have any photo? [21:40] Great. We are going to include one other person in this photo and then um Emily's [21:46] mother, Margaret, who received this award um when she was a teacher in our district. [21:53] [Applause] [22:00] Well, while they're taking the photo, I'll just repeat that so everyone can hear. So, we welcomed Emily's mother to [22:05] join in the photograph, who also received this same award when she was a teacher. [22:13] [Applause] [22:24] All right, thank you so much. Our next recognition is for Anoka Middle School for the Arts Magnet Merit School of [22:30] Excellence Award. We welcome Becky Broadier, associate superintendent for middle schools and Tom Hagerty, [22:36] principal of Anoka Middle School for the Arts. Welcome. [22:44] Good evening, co-chairs Arco and Deshaine, Superintendent McIntyre, members of the board. I'm here tonight to share celebrations from our middle [22:51] schools and recognize staff and students for their excellent and achievements. We'll start with the NOA [22:56] Middle School for the Arts has been named National Merit School of Excellence by the Magnet Schools of [23:02] America, the National Association for Magnet and Theme-based Schools. The magnet schools of excellence is the top [23:08] award category and is only awarded to a select group of magnet schools. Mr. Tom [23:14] Hagerty, principal of AMSA is with us tonight to give you a little more information. Hey, good evening board, [23:21] board and chairs. Uh the National Merit School of Excellence is more than just a [23:26] plaque on the wall. It's a validation of our AMSA staff collective commitments in [23:32] arts integration in our classrooms and our school community. Uh when we talk about what this TR award truly means, we [23:38] have to acknowledge the multiaceted criteria by which it's judged, which includes student achievement, strong [23:44] family and community partnerships, and teaching in and through the arts. Integrating arts into the curriculum is [23:50] what we do at an NOA middle school for the arts and not only enhances the learning, but integrates creativity and [23:57] individual expression. uh gives our students the opportunity to choose how they want to explore, how they want to [24:03] create, how do they want to express themselves in ways that resonates with them. The award belongs really to the [24:09] people behind it, the students who inspire us, the teachers at AMSA who [24:14] guide them, then of course our family and community that rallies behind both of them, and of course our own [24:20] curriculum integrator who couldn't be with us tonight, Dr. Yolanda Danchek. We just completed a performance, our spring [24:26] musical performance, uh, Beauty and the Beast is what they performed this year. The courage and the confidence that [24:32] these 11, 12, and 13 year olds have is is just a wonder and astonishment every [24:37] time I see them perform. And this is the students and adults were producing. It's just truly amazing. Uh in addition to [24:45] this wonderful award uh as part of our specially school for arts we were awarded the rank of superior and arts [24:50] literacy magazine called the storm which is a student magazine edited and guided [24:56] by Yolanda Danchek as well. U and that's just another amazing part of this award. [25:02] We do want to invite all the board members. We have our arts fest uh a week from Thursday the 15th from 5 to 7 and [25:09] you're more than welcome. It's open to the community. We'd love to see you there. But I just want to tell you how proud I am to be the principal of of [25:15] Anoka Middle School for the Arts. Uh this community is just a great community to represent and I couldn't be happier. [25:21] So thank you for this. Congratulations. Thank you. [26:00] All right. Our next recognition is middle school student math and choir [26:05] awards. So we keep Becky Berdier, associate superintendent for middle schools and Tom Haggerty, principal of [26:10] Anoka Middle School for the Arts, um, and their team. Wonderful. Thank you. Since 1968, the St. Cloud [26:18] University departments of mathematics and statistics and computer science and information technology have held annual [26:24] mathematics contests for students in grades 7 through 12. On April 10th, top [26:30] math students from each of our ana middle ana Henipin middle schools joined [26:35] with 1,66 other student participants to compete for team and individual honors. [26:41] Anoke Henipin has a long history of excellence at the St. Cloud Math Contest and it was another banner year for our [26:48] middle school students including Jackson Middle School with first, second, and third place wins by individuals and two [26:55] first place team wins. Second place team win by Oakview Middle School, third [27:00] place team win by Roosevelt Middle School, among many other awards you'll hear about tonight from our schools. [27:07] Students from all six Anoka Henipin middle schools were top performers and I'm thrilled to introduce them to you [27:13] tonight. In addition, each year the American Coral Directors of Association of Minnesota forms special honors choirs [27:21] to provide enriched singing opportunities for students in grades four through 10. Anoka Henipin students [27:27] have a history of being selected to participate in the ACDA state honor choir and this year is no different. [27:34] Over 2,000 students prepare pre-selected materials and compete in a rigorous [27:39] audition process for placement into honor choir program with just 900 selected. Our extremely talented [27:46] students stood out from the thousands and had the honor of performing with the honor choir. Tonight we have [27:52] representatives from two of our middle schools to introduce to you and recognize. So with those uh that [27:59] context, we'll start with the recognitions from Anoka Middle School for the arts and Mr. Tom Horty. We have [28:05] three students we're going to recognize here tonight. Uh first is Colen Johnson who scored in the top 5% of our eighth [28:13] graders. Then it's uh Charlie Blancet who Charlie scored in the top 10% for [28:18] our eighth graders. And lastly, Daniel Bati, who scored in the top 10% of our [28:25] eighth graders. Those are our three students from Manoka Middle School. [28:37] Congratulations. So, we will do a district photo and then we invite family members to come and take pictures as [28:43] well uh of their students. Yeah. You let let Heather tell you where to where to go for the picture. There we go. [29:03] Okay, family, please come up. Yeah, come come right up. You can get [29:08] right up here to take a picture. [29:24] I think my son came. [29:42] Congratulations once again. [29:51] Oh yeah, I'll take it. Thanks, Linda. Good to see you. Our next uh middle school to be [29:57] recognized is Rapids Middle School. We keep Becky Berdier and we welcome Demand Seals, principal for Rapids [30:04] Middle School. [30:24] School board Superintendent McIntyre. Uh, thank you for having me to give me the honor of recognizing two of math [30:30] scholars here uh for the math recognition award. We have with us tonight Cameron Lumis and Jesse Dorsy. [30:39] Congratulations [30:48] guys. Congratulations students. Again, we'll do the district photo and then after that families can come up and get [30:54] their own photograph. [31:11] All right, family. Come on up. [31:41] All right, congratulations again students. [31:50] Our next middle school to be recognized is Jackson Middle School. So we will welcome Joel Young, principal for [31:56] Jackson Middle School and team. [Applause] [32:29] Are you going to introduce me or do I just Yeah, I'll reintroduce you. Okay. Okay. [32:35] I would like to introduce Miss Belinda Erdman's for the math recognitions. [32:40] Uh good evening board and chairs. Um, for seventh grade, we took first place [32:46] out of 23 schools and I have six students who scored in the top 10 and [32:53] 5%. So we have Summit Wy, [32:59] Kimber Novette, Timothy Tran, Delaney Collins, [33:08] Griffin Dolmire, and Isaac [33:14] Soren. And [33:21] then Isaac Soren also was first place out of 290 students. [33:28] [Applause] [33:36] Okay. And then for eighth grade, uh the eighth grade team also took first place [33:41] out of 27 schools. And I have 11 students who scored in the top 10% and [33:48] 5%. So, uh, scoring in the top 10 was Brody [33:54] Melberg, Kaden Eden, Mason [34:00] Parisian, Mia Daw, and then in the top five, Ivan [34:08] Oldroid, Andrew Cohen, Brida [34:13] Maul, Ivan Canut, or sorry, Evan Kudson, [34:20] I Samler, Jonathan Hennessy, and Patrick [34:27] Navertil. And then Patrick uh Navertil was third out of 439 students. [34:35] [Applause] [34:56] Oh, thank you. Congratulations. [35:15] for parents. Parents, come on. Parents, come on up. [35:54] Congratulations. [36:10] [Applause] [36:35] All right, as we're uh getting some space in the room here, we will stay with Jackson Middle School and uh have [36:41] choir honores come up next. [36:49] I don't think [37:14] Thank you. I am pleased to introduce Miss Ruth [37:20] Morgan for the state honor choir recognitions. Good evening. It's a privilege to introduce you to the [37:25] Jackson Choir students who auditioned and were selected to perform with the 2025 Minnesota ACDA 78 honor choirs. The [37:33] honor choir experience for these students is extraordinary. The growth they show as singers and musicians [37:38] filters into each of their choirs at Jackson. Their leadership influences many others in choir at Jackson to work [37:45] harder and grow as well. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the parents and families of these students [37:50] for making this experience possible for their kids. [Applause] [37:59] And the Jackson Honor Choir students are Ayaw Pjo. He sang bass. Lena Barnes [38:05] alto. Norah Crossland soprano. Addison Nelson second soprano. And Zariah [38:11] Williams [Music] [38:18] alto. Thank you so much. [38:24] kind of like the other [38:47] group to come up and take pictures. Congratulations. [39:11] [Applause] [39:37] in the background. [39:53] All right, our next middle school to be recognized is Northdale Middle School. We welcome Becky Broadier and Jeff [40:00] Leech, uh, principal for Northdale Middle School and team. Welcome. And good evening, co-chair Arco [40:07] and Deshaine, board members, Superintendent McIntyre. It's my distinct pleasure to be here tonight to introduce you to one of our outstanding [40:14] educators at Northdale Middle School, Miss Stephanie Pogaltz. Good evening. We have a few students from Northdale we [40:20] would like to um recognize tonight. Placing in the top 5% uh was Liam Jan [40:25] and Henry Carney. And then in the top 10% we had Addie Stimwidel, uh Mia [40:32] Pelton, Fatima Muhammad, Ferdosa Muhammad, and Lucas Hilker. [40:38] Congratulations students. [41:14] All right, families, please come ahead and take your own [41:21] pictures. Congratulations. [41:40] Congratulations. [41:50] Our next middle school to be recognized is Oakview Middle School. We welcome Becky Broadier, Gary Lundine, principal [41:57] for Oakview Middle School and team. Welcome. [42:07] Yes. All right, co-chairs Arco and Desaine, board [42:12] members, superintendent McIntyre. Uh, it's my honor to introduce Lauren Buzz, math teacher from Mo. He is going to [42:19] assist recognizing our math students. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to recognize several top award winners at [42:24] the St. Cloud State University contest. In the seventh grade division, individually at the top 5%, we have [42:29] Cameron Xman, Thomas Hansen, who also took fourth place in the contest as a seventh [42:35] grader, Matthew Ritter, who also took third place as a seventh grader individually at the [42:41] contest. In the top 10%, Whitney Shepard for our seventh [42:46] grade. In the eighth grade division, also our seventh grade placed second [42:52] place in the entire contest in the eighth grade division individually. in the top 10% Cole [42:58] Minotaur, Barra Quinahan, and Joseph Reed. [43:03] Congratulations [Applause] [43:14] students. One step to the right. Perfect. [43:33] All right, parents and family members, please feel free to come take your own photos. [43:54] We got to go to [44:05] Congratulations again students. [44:16] All right. Thank [44:28] [Applause] [44:34] you. All [44:48] right. Our next recognition is Oakview Middle School choir students. [44:53] All right, board. It's my honor to introduce Jack Slavic as our choir teacher. So, [45:00] Jack joins us tonight to assist us recognizing our choir students. Thank you. We have eight singers from Oakview [45:06] who made the state honor choirs this year. In the 456 honor choir, Balen Uveris and Emma [45:15] Sodderland. Adeline Stock could not be here tonight. in the seventh and eighth grade state honor choirs. Addison [45:23] Curtis, Mila Leerman, Izzy [45:31] Wood, Jacobe Jared, and Jacen Thunderberg. [45:39] Congratulations students. [Applause] [45:58] I'm just going to take a few photos straight [46:09] ahead. Next. All right. Family members, please feel free to come up and take your own photo. [46:44] All right, congratulations again students. [46:55] [Applause] [47:10] Our next middle school is Roosevelt Middle School. Welcome again to Becky Broadier and Kayla Raki, principal for [47:16] Roosevelt Middle School and their team. [47:41] Good evening board, co-chair Duchaine, co-chair Argo, and Superintendent McIntyre. So thrilled to be here this [47:47] evening. I want to proudly introduce Mrs. Becky Defoe to honor our scholars [47:55] tonight. Well, as you've heard, there were 439 eighth graders and we came third out [48:03] of 27 schools um for our team. And I had Nico AIO for [48:11] uh top 5%, Finn Appel for top 5%, Brandon Kurthers top 5%, Aiden Lavic [48:21] top 10% and Landon Thomas top 10%. Congratulations [48:28] [Applause] [48:34] students picture. [48:40] And then we're going to take a photo. [48:59] All right, families. Feel free to come right up and get a photo. [49:22] Congratulations again. Thank you. [49:36] [Applause] [49:46] All right. There's one more recognition that uh we wanted to do and that is to [49:52] celebrate National Volunteer Week. So, I'm going to share a statement that was from our community education department. [49:57] We had intended to share this at the last meeting, but with that one being postponed to today, we want to just take [50:03] this opportunity to acknowledge and thank all of the volunteers in our community with a special thank you to [50:08] those serving the students and staff of Anoka Henipin Schools. All of our volunte all of our volunteers have had [50:14] an incredible impact on our community. Last year, over 9,200 volunteers contributed [50:21] almost 173,000 hours toward developing, supporting, and enhancing a variety of [50:27] programs in our schools and our communities. This year, we're on track to meet or exceed those numbers. Our [50:33] volunteers are a really valuable resource, and their time and effort are so appreciated. On behalf of the Anoka [50:40] Henipin schools, thank you again to our volunteers for everything they do to show support to students, staff, and our [50:46] community. Thank you. [Applause] [50:57] All right, members, the next item on our agenda is item five, the consent agenda. [51:03] As normal, members can remove items for separate consideration and discussion if that's their desire. Um, alternatively, [51:10] is there a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented? [51:16] So, move. Thank you, co-chair Argo. Is there a second? Second. Uh, thank you, Director Simon. Any [51:23] discussion? Okay. Hearing none. Uh, would all those in favor say I. I. I. [51:29] Any oppose say nay? With six in favor and zero opposed, the consent agenda is [51:35] approved. I'm going to hold for a second and we're [51:42] going to transition the room from our recognitions to the rest of the meeting. Be right back. [52:20] I'm doing great. How are you? [52:37] Jesus. [54:20] Okay board, our next agenda item is the communications, delegations, and petitions section of our meeting. This [54:27] is time for commu community members to provide input directly to the school board about issues that fall within the [54:32] school board's authority. We plan this agenda item for 15 minutes, but our policy does allow for community members [54:38] um to have their time reduced in order to hear comments from all. So I think uh [54:44] given we have 18 cards to keep our 20 cards to keep our meeting on time, we'll [54:50] ask individuals to keep their comments to two minutes. Uh and I'll ask Cocher Arco to monitor a clock to help us stay [54:57] on time. If um you have written testimony, [55:02] we would welcome you to provide it to Miss Kofsky here so that that can be provided to the full board uh after the [55:09] meeting. A couple of procedural reminders. Our meeting participation [55:14] procedures are in place to assure open and orderly public comments as well as to protect the due process and privacy [55:21] rights of individuals under the law. If speakers use specific names of students, [55:27] identifying information, um names of staff or board members, I will need to interrupt and stop the speaker. Please [55:33] remember to direct your comments to the schoolboard co-chairs and members of the audience, please listen respectfully so [55:39] that we could hear all speakers. Uh if we can't hear speakers, we may have to restart the timer to allow everyone a [55:44] chance to be heard. Um any audience members that disrupt this portion of the meeting may be asked to leave for the [55:50] remainder of the meeting. With that uh we will get started. Our first speaker is Val [56:01] [Music] [56:09] Holtus. Welcome. Thanks for having me. Um, sometimes we hear that some of the [56:17] board members question their role and why they're even necessary if they're just to supposed to trust the experts. [56:24] Your role is to govern. You have been elected as a nonpartisan official of a [56:30] board, which is a unit of local government that specifically governs school district number 11. [56:36] Just like other nonpartisan elected officials, you must rely and trust that your local government responsibilities [56:43] are carried out by trained professionals. A nonpartisan elected city council or county commissioner does [56:50] not direct a highway engineer how to do his job or tell him what his tools should be or tell a social worker how to [56:57] work with families. An elected nonpartisan city council person does not determine what a water treatment plant [57:03] engineer does or tell the planning engineer how to plan for the next housing [57:09] development. According to state statute 123B.09 subdivision 8, school board [57:15] members must superintend the schools of the district, adopt rules for their organization, government, and [57:21] instruction. The board will adopt a calendar, balance a budget, maintain the physical plant of their school [57:27] buildings, and follow rules and laws. The board must be certain to be lawful [57:33] in order to qualify for state and federal funds. They must keep registers and [57:38] prescribe textbooks and courses of study. Prescribe in this case means to [57:44] lay down as a guide, a rule, a direction, and make a recommendation. [57:49] It does not mean to micromanage the teachers, creating a feeling that they're not trusted, under suspicion, [57:56] and that you are skeptical of their abilities. Despite the fact that many of them have years of education and [58:03] experience, 15 seconds remain. No one wants to work in those suffocating, [58:08] discouraging environments. The board needs to keep their partisan ideology away from the classroom. In addition, [58:15] the board needs to realize that they don't own the district and should not be the gatekeepers. You're at two minutes. Of whether or not their constituents are [58:21] given the right to improve their district through a referendum if they vote to do so. I ask you to respect the [58:27] teachers and other employees in this district and trust their expertise and realize your unfounded assumptions of [58:33] best instructional practice is detrimental to our students. I ask you to stop the dysfunction this board is [58:40] becoming known for. Thank you. [58:49] Our next our next speaker is Penuri Graa [58:59] Hicks. Welcome. Thank you. I am here today to read a message on behalf of a [59:05] concerned Anoka Henipin parent who is also a teacher in the district and one [59:10] of the several teachers that I know who believes deeply in the power of public education, professionalism, and [59:16] expertise of her fellow teachers. At your April 14th meeting, some of you [59:22] ignored and dismissed the curriculum update recommendations from professional, licensed, and qualified [59:28] educators. Those of you who feel that personal ideology is a substitute for professional qualification, it is not. [59:36] You want to indoctrinate our students in your own per personal ideology. The very [59:42] thing which you are against, which is hypocritical. It was suggested that lecture-based instruction should be [59:48] dominant method in our classrooms. That is not developmentally appropriate for [59:53] elementary students or even other students based on their learning styles. Some of you question whether our [59:59] teachers are capable of leading classroom conversations that include diverse viewpoints. And perhaps worst of [1:00:06] all, you suggest that our district should do the bare minimum to comply with Minnesota's educational standards, [1:00:12] especially those that reflect ethnic studies and inclusive practices. You worry that diversity, equity, and [1:00:19] inclusion will hurt rather than help our students, but that is nothing further from the truth. Diversity exists in [1:00:25] public schools whether you believe it or not. Without our diverse cultures, we may have lost World War II. It was our [1:00:32] Navajo citizens and their language that developed the unbreakable code that helped us win. This is an example of an [1:00:39] important historical fact and one amongst the many that should be taught and not overlooked. It is not lost that [1:00:46] immigrants built this country. Their stories are part of our history, are important, and should be authentically [1:00:52] taught and told. The strength of our this country lies in its beautiful diversity and really we seek to make [1:00:58] this country equitable for all and include all citizens to make America [1:01:11] great. Our next speaker is Steve Nelson. [1:01:25] Welcome. Good evening. Thank you. [1:01:31] Well, I'm not going to give you a curriculum report tonight. I used to chair the systems [1:01:39] accountability committee years ago. You have now a CCAC, which is a community [1:01:45] curriculum advisory committee. You should utilize them to help you through [1:01:50] your political questions that you have as to how your curriculum should go, how you should be teaching your classes, [1:01:57] whether you should be lecturing, whether you should be doing workg groupoups, whatever method it is, you [1:02:03] should take their advice because these people I was on this committee for 13 years. I think I reported to the board [1:02:11] um five or six years in a row on on how the school district was performing and [1:02:18] I'm reading about you in the newspaper and it's not good publicity. So the point is utilize the [1:02:27] professionals that you have so that you can go ahead and move ahead without making this a political issue for [1:02:32] anything that you're doing. It doesn't have to be that way. She was there years [1:02:38] and years ago. Sorry, old age comes at a bad time, you [1:02:43] know. But I'm just saying that it's it's not that hard to to do this and get rid [1:02:49] of the politic part and just take the advice of the people you've hired, you've paid. Trust them because they are [1:02:56] curriculum writers. They're educated people. They understand what they should be doing. How much time do I have? [1:03:04] 30 seconds. 30 seconds. I I want to thank you for letting me have this time to talk to you about that. But it this can be so much more of [1:03:11] a positive thing for all of you if you trust the people you've hired and trust [1:03:18] the knowledge that they have. 15 seconds. So let your human resources deal with the rest of it. But take the [1:03:24] politics out and go with the process, you know, your curriculum mandates from [1:03:29] the state and then I think you'll be fine. Thank you. [1:03:40] Our next speaker is Jennifer [1:03:49] Wahberg. Welcome. Thank you. Good evening members of the school [1:03:56] board. The Child Nutrition Situs Supervisor Association stands before you [1:04:02] tonight, not only as district employees, but as individuals deeply committed to [1:04:07] the well-being of our school communities, our staff, our students, and their families. Less than two weeks [1:04:14] ago, we were informed of an 18 to 22% increase in our health insurance [1:04:19] premiums. Let's be clear, this is not a small adjustment. For many of us across [1:04:25] many multiple bargaining units, this is a substantial hit to our take-home pay [1:04:31] with the cost of living rising and wages that haven't kept the pace. Not to [1:04:36] mention a similar increase just eight months ago in September 2024. This added [1:04:42] financial burden feels like a step backward and sends a painful message that the district is not prioritizing [1:04:49] the well-being of its employees. We work hard every day because we believe in the work we do. We are dedicated to serving [1:04:57] our school communities with compassion and professionalism. But when faced with another steep insurance hike, many of us [1:05:04] are being forced into impossible choices between paying the mortgage or keeping our health insurance, between filling a [1:05:12] prescription or putting food on the table. These are not abstract numbers. These are real people. child nutrition [1:05:19] site supervisors, CNA, building supervisors, custodian, pair of professionals, office staff, teachers, [1:05:26] and more. People who show up day in day out because we care about our students. [1:05:31] We deserve stability. We deserve fair treatment. We deserve a budgeting process that doesn't make us choose [1:05:38] between our health and meeting our basic needs. We ask you, no, we urge you to [1:05:45] take a deeper look at the real life consequences of this decision. The human cost must be part of the equation. We [1:05:52] need solutions that reflect care, compassion, and common sense. Please [1:05:57] don't just consider the numbers, consider the people behind it. Thank you for your time and for listening. [1:06:13] Next speaker is Dr. Joey Baker. [1:06:27] Thank you. Good evening, Superintendent McIntyre, Chairs Deshaane and Erico, and the members of the board. My name is Dr. [1:06:33] Jodie Baker. I've been connected to Noa Henipin most of my life. I was a student K12 and I've been in multiple teaching [1:06:40] roles for the past 33 years. I still live in the district and I'm the literacy coach at Champlain Park High [1:06:46] School. So, I have multiple stakeholder roles and I care deeply about the education of our students. Four uh three [1:06:52] out of four of my college degrees are in education, which I only tell you because my most important role is learner. To be [1:07:00] a teacher learner means being vulnerable, being reflective, to embrace new ideas based on brain science, [1:07:06] learning science, and my experience as a teacher. The learning process involves being uncomfortable. So this evening, if [1:07:13] you're uncomfortable or defensive, I invite you to notice that and lean into it and consider how you can learn from [1:07:19] it. As I often tell my students who are experiencing discomfort, congratulations, you're about to learn [1:07:24] something. Some members of the board have recently proposed the idea of mandating 30 [1:07:30] minutes of lecture per class. Requiring teachers to lecture for 30 minutes a class ignores brain and learning [1:07:36] science. Requiring teachers to lecture for 30 minutes a class dismisses their professionalism and their ability to [1:07:42] determine which teaching method best meets the learners, the lessons purpose, and their students unique needs. [1:07:48] Lectures one of our tools as teachers. It's not the only tool. It makes no more sense to mandate a teacher conduct 30 [1:07:54] minutes of lecture per class than it does to tell a carpenter they must use their hammer 50% of the time. As [1:08:01] professionals, teachers know they have lecturing as a tool. Mandating lecture disregards teachers experience and [1:08:07] expertise. Students come to us with their own genius and experiences. They're not blank vessels to be filled [1:08:14] up by a teacher lecturing at them, especially not for 30 minutes. A Harvard University analysis of lectures [1:08:20] concluded current best practice recommend lectures be used sparingly and thoughtfully. There is an art and [1:08:27] science to teaching. Learning is complicated, fascinating, and magical. I implore the board and all stakeholders [1:08:34] sit in that messy, tense role of being a learner. Our students deserve that. Thank you. [1:08:40] [Applause] [1:08:49] Thompson. [1:09:00] Thanks. I was shocked when I saw the health [1:09:05] insurance rates for next year. If I stay in my current plan, my annual out-ofpocket premium will go from $9,60 [1:09:12] to $14,400, a 23% increase. This amounts to [1:09:18] 92% of my 2024 wages after taxes. Deductibles and co insurance amounts are [1:09:24] increasing as well. Meanwhile, the district contributes $18,600 to [1:09:30] $22,300 to a flexible benefit account for employees in the fixed flex groups and an additional [1:09:37] $840 to an HR for those on the family plan. These contributions alone are more [1:09:42] than the annual salary of a full-time PAR. If the board is looking for ways to cut the budget or increase the reserves, [1:09:49] perhaps you could downsize benefits for these employees to what bottom feeders like me are receiving. After all, isn't [1:09:56] this district all about equality? I confirmed with the district that they are the ones that set the premiums, not [1:10:02] Medicica. The coverage for the GLP1 weight loss drug increases the premium amounts by four to 5%. I should not be [1:10:10] forced to pay for this drug or any other specialty drug that I do not use. Just by removing this from the coverage [1:10:16] altogether, the district will save $2 and a half million dollars. I think the increase in high-cost claimment [1:10:22] severity, particularly among children, and the increase in the use of specialty drugs are the result of poor [1:10:28] decision-making by district administrators over the last 5 to 10 years, which in turn has led to [1:10:33] increased stress and anxiety levels for staff and students who are in the trenches day after day. Employees are [1:10:40] retiring early and positions are difficult to fill. There's no hope for recruiting new employees if we are not [1:10:46] able to retain the ones we have, especially with these astronomical rate increases. Once again, the employees at [1:10:53] the bottom of the totem pole continue to pay the price one way or the other. Consider these proposals. One, offer [1:10:59] cash in lie of health insurance coverage for employees who can't afford these new rates, or two, contribute an annual [1:11:06] amount to an FBA for them to purchase their own plan outside the district. I'm asking the board to not approve the rate [1:11:12] increases under any of the options being proposed. Send the labor relations and benefits department back to the drawing [1:11:18] board and do better for your employees. And lastly, I'd like to thank all the mega supporters here tonight who showed [1:11:25] up in red, including some of the board members because happens to be my favorite color. [1:11:33] [Applause] [1:11:46] There we go. Our next speaker is Kate [1:11:54] Wallheim. Kate. Okay. Uh we'll move to Trinet Langanger. [1:12:05] Langner, sorry. [1:12:11] Thank you. [1:12:17] Welcome. Good evening, Superintendent McIntyre and school board members. I [1:12:22] come to you um as a teacher in Anoka Henipin. I brought with me my name is [1:12:29] Jessica Lick. I am also a teacher in Anoka Henipin and a former graduate of Anoka Henipin. Yeah. So I am here today [1:12:36] as a teacher, a mom, a member of the community who has a real concern with [1:12:42] the issue of social emotional learning being taken away as a curriculum for us. [1:12:48] I know we just found out recently um through our principal that there were [1:12:53] three options for you and you were considering taking it away completely. [1:13:00] We are here to speak about our need for seal in our school. It connects it [1:13:07] connects each student whether they are regulated or disregulated. It brings us together as a community. Our principal [1:13:14] has does done an amazing job having monthly [1:13:19] um assemblies. These are words that focus on kindness, respect, [1:13:25] responsibility. What were your favorites? Honesty. Um and courage. And [1:13:32] to be here, I feel like I had to have the courage. My students, I teach third grade, I've taught first grade at San [1:13:39] Creek. And I know that these are students who come back who need to feel [1:13:46] connected to their community, to their school, to have some kind of um compassion for each other. So I am [1:13:53] asking you to um consider keeping it whether you make it shorter or um let us [1:14:03] keep it as it is. 15 seconds. Thank you. We will continue to connect, [1:14:08] communicate, and make our community better. Thank [1:14:18] you. Our next speaker is Barbara [1:14:33] Blake. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, school board members. I'm [1:14:39] here to express my serious concern regarding several points that were emerged from the recent schoolboard work [1:14:44] session. As a teacher with over 25 years experience, I hold a bachelor of science degree in biology, a chemistry minor, a [1:14:51] master's degree in curriculum instruction, and have completed hundreds of hours of continuing education. This [1:14:57] extensive background has provided me with deep understanding of subject matter, student development, and a wide [1:15:03] range of instructional strategies. I and my colleagues are experts in our classroom. We possess firsthand [1:15:10] knowledge of our students and are best positioned to determine the optimal balance of direct instruction, inquiry [1:15:16] based activities, and exploratory learning to maximize their engagement and comprehension. Imposing rigid [1:15:22] top-down mandates on instructional time and dictating specific pedagogical approaches risks undermining our [1:15:28] professional judgment and expertise. Such policies can stifle creativity, [1:15:33] limit our ability to respond to individual student needs and ultimately hinder the developmental thinking, [1:15:39] critical thinking skills. It is crucial that you trust us, the educators, to utilize our training and experience to [1:15:46] create a dynamic and effective learning environments tailored to the diverse learning needs of our students. We are [1:15:52] committed to fostering a love of learning and preparing students for success in an everanging world. [1:15:58] Furthermore, the notion of intentionally stress testing Minnesota state law regarding state standards compliance is [1:16:05] deeply troubling and misguided. Minnesota law requires that teachers teach state standards to all students. [1:16:11] If a teacher fails to meet curriculum standards, it can lead to various consequences including be putting up [1:16:17] being put on a probationary license, suspension, or even temper termination of employment. Consequences of teachers [1:16:24] of not teaching the standards would fall on the teachers. I urge the school board to reconsider these discussion points [1:16:30] and to engage in a meaningful and collaborative dialogue with teachers before making any decisions that could [1:16:35] negatively impact classroom instruction and student learning. Recognizing and valuing the professional expertise of [1:16:42] educators is not merely a matter of respect. It is a fundamental to the success of our schools and most [1:16:48] importantly to the success of the students we serve. Thank you. Thank you. [1:17:00] Our next speaker is Megan Schmidt. [1:17:13] Welcome. [1:17:18] At the start of formal education, Socrates drew knowledge out of his students through questioning and [1:17:24] dialogue, while Plato champion truth and structure. And so began the [1:17:31] ongoing pendulum swing between inquiry and direct instruction. 2,000 years later, we know [1:17:37] that the best method of instruction depends entirely on the students in the room. And no one knows those students [1:17:43] better than the teacher that is leading them. My name is Dr. Megan Schmidt. I'm [1:17:50] a mathematics instructional coach at Anoka High School. I hold hold a PhD in mathematics education from the [1:17:56] University of Minnesota and I have spent most of my career leading in mathematics education at the local, state, and [1:18:02] national levels. I am also a parent and a community member. In 2027, math will [1:18:09] join science and social studies in adopting new standards. And I'm concerned about a precedent of asking [1:18:14] teachers to teach next generation standards with last generation's [1:18:21] textbooks. We aren't going to create critical thinkers and creative problem solvers by asking kids to tune in to a [1:18:27] 30-minute monologue and to lower the bar under the weight of nostalgia. These new standards will demand a true mastery of [1:18:34] conceptual understanding, relevance, and procedural fluency. It's often said, [1:18:40] even in this very room, that doing math in public feels intimidating. But that fear doesn't stem from mathematics [1:18:46] itself. It stems from the school math experience. The learners in this [1:18:51] district deserve a different experience, one not built on formulas and fear, but [1:18:57] on meaning, empowerment, and mastery. combined with 21st century science and social studies. Our math specialist [1:19:04] Jessica Tucker and I would welcome the opportunity to engage in a future work session with the board to discuss the [1:19:10] deep mathematical knowledge for teaching that will be required to ensure an Henipin students are truly prepared for [1:19:17] college career and community life. Thank you. [1:19:29] Our next speaker is Laurel Moore. [1:19:43] Welcome. Thank you. All right. Good evening, co-chairs and [1:19:48] Arco and Superintendent McIntyre, members of the board. My name is Laurel and as a parent of three students in our [1:19:54] district, I am increasingly concerned about the shift toward inquirybased learning in our classrooms. While [1:19:59] exploration is valuable, I hear frustration from students who feel they're expected to solve problems or [1:20:04] understand concepts without adequate instruction beforehand. Our students want and need guidance in learning how [1:20:10] to read, analyze, and evaluate effectively. Direct instruction is a proven method for building foundational [1:20:16] knowledge, particularly for students who need extra support. This is where our focus should be and where our teachers [1:20:22] should be supported with the best tools and training. I trust that our teachers know that direct instruction is not [1:20:28] lectures. It there's far more to it than that in a simple Google search to find out what it is. I know they know that. [1:20:34] I'm grateful that our school board is prioritizing student learning and achievement. It's encouraging to see [1:20:40] meaningful discussions and applying lessons that we've learned from the science of reading to other curriculum [1:20:45] areas. I value your careful consideration in board meetings to empower teachers in providing [1:20:50] highquality instruction. Diverse perspectives on this board help ensure well-rounded solutions and better [1:20:56] outcomes for our staff and students. Anoka Henipin demonstrated foresight with the read Act, recognizing the need [1:21:02] for structured literacy long before the law mandated it. We have an opportunity to lead in other subject areas as well, [1:21:10] ensuring our students receive the instruction they need to be engaged and successful both in the classroom and [1:21:15] beyond. I urge the board to take decisive steps to prioritize evidence-based teaching methods and [1:21:21] curriculum that build strong foundational skills for all learners. Thank you for your [1:21:29] time. Our next speaker is John Woolhopter. [1:21:44] Welcome co-chairs to Shane and Arco, members of [1:21:52] the board, Superintendent McIntyre. I want to start by saying that I believe every person in this room is here [1:21:57] because they believe in providing a quality education to the students of Anoka Henipin, even though we may have different visions for what that looks [1:22:04] like. I'm here tonight to ask all board members of this board to show trust in your over 3,000 educators that work in [1:22:11] schools across the district every day. We are tired of the chaos caused by the actions and statements of some members [1:22:17] of this board. We are tired of the uncertainty and constant changes in leadership brought on by this board generated chaos. We are tired of having [1:22:25] our expertise, experience, and dedication questioned. We are tired of being portrayed as some sort of other [1:22:32] rather than the caring and compassionate educ advocates for education and students that we are. The teachers of an [1:22:38] Oeniban are members of this community. We shop at the same stores, eat at the same restaurants, attend the same houses [1:22:45] of worship, join in cheering at the same sporting events, and send our children to the same schools that we teach at. [1:22:52] The educators of In Noah Henipin share with the board a vested interest in providing the best education for all [1:22:58] students across the district. We want students to graduate from Anokenipin with the critical thinking skills and [1:23:04] knowledge that they need to be successful beyond the district. To that end, we need the school board to trust [1:23:10] the educators of anapin. Trust the teachers to interpret and apply required state standards in a [1:23:17] respectful and thoughtful way in our classrooms. Trust teachers to draw on our full repertoire of instructional [1:23:24] methods and strategies based on recognized best practices in order to meet the needs of our students. Trust [1:23:31] teachers to identify and recommend the materials that will best support the learning of the students in our [1:23:36] classrooms. 15 seconds. And finally, trust teachers to do the work that we have been hired to do to meet the needs [1:23:43] of all of our students in our classrooms with care and compassion. Thank you. [1:23:56] Our next speaker is Katie Yanovc. [1:24:14] Welcome. Thank you. Um, I am a teacher at Rapids High School and I teach I [1:24:20] have taught physical science before we had Earth Science Standards. I teach chemistry and I also teach biology and [1:24:26] AP biology. What I came to talk to you tonight about is the curriculum adoption [1:24:32] process in the district in case you're not familiar with it. It is an extensive process. It is not teachers coming [1:24:40] together one day and saying, "Yep, this looks good." The first step in the process is for the district to do an all [1:24:49] call for many different sources to send their curriculum materials. Teachers [1:24:54] look at them, evaluate them against a rubric to make sure they align with the [1:24:59] state standards. At that point, then teachers will [1:25:05] pilot more than one set of curriculum materials in their classroom for an [1:25:12] extended period of time. Then students, parents, and community members are given [1:25:20] several opportunities to provide feedback on the curriculum. [1:25:27] After that has been done, then the science study committee meets. I have [1:25:34] been a member of the science study committee since the year 2019 because this is how long we have [1:25:41] been working on implementing new science standards 6 through 12. [1:25:49] When you go to a science study committee meeting, there are also representatives [1:25:55] of the community, teachers, administrators, [1:26:01] and teachers who don't normally serve on the committee, but have piloted the [1:26:07] curriculum. It is only then when we work to build consensus, which you certainly [1:26:12] know does not mean everybody agrees on everything 100%. It is only then that [1:26:19] the recommendation comes to you. So my message is when you dismiss or do not [1:26:27] adopt curriculum after that process, you are not devaluing only the teachers [1:26:33] input. You are devaluing students, parents and community members input as [1:26:39] well. [1:26:50] Our next speaker is Kelly [1:27:01] Bilki. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, school board, for letting me speak today. Um, I have two kids that have [1:27:08] gone through a Noa Henipin education and I've been a science teacher at Kun Rapids High School for 25 years. We have [1:27:15] used in the past when I started teaching, we used the Miller and Lavine Dragonfly book. We had kids copy down [1:27:20] overhead transparency notes and we used worksheets from the CD ROM that came with the book. A few years later, I was [1:27:26] even even able to display PowerPoints on our classroom's 25-in screen. And if I planned ahead, we could go to the [1:27:33] computer lab to use the internet. I was on curriculum writing teams at that time to make sure our biology classroom [1:27:39] activities were aligned to the Minnesota state standards of the time which were very heavy on vocabulary and [1:27:44] memorization of scientific knowledge. I have seen a lot of changes since then both in pedagogy and in our student [1:27:50] needs. Since 2019, when the Minnesota legislature approved the updated science standards that are based on NGSS, we [1:27:57] have shifted our teaching from how I used to teach in the year 2000 to the phenomena based standards that NGSS is [1:28:04] based on. My biology colleagues behind me have spent hours studying and choosing versions of biology curricula [1:28:09] that are very different from the dragonfly book of years past. I piloted New Visions during try two of this year. [1:28:16] I normally teach mostly Project Lead the Way biomemed classes and New Visions approaches student learning the same way [1:28:22] Project Lead the Way does. Hands-on real world connections, making meaning in a student frame of reference, using [1:28:28] scenarios for applications of learning, and students discovering through doing. Nowhere in this type of learning is 30 [1:28:34] minutes of direct explicit instruction time recommended, as it has been by some of the schoolboard members here before [1:28:40] me. As far as I'm aware, there aren't any studies that prove this is best learning. Teachers are professionals in [1:28:45] their craft. And just as teachers would never tell a surgeon or an engineer how to do their job, it does not make sense [1:28:51] for someone outside of the field of education to tell a teacher what the best way to teach kids is. I would ask [1:28:57] that you have an open mind and trust the teachers in our district to make decisions that are best for students and [1:29:02] not use something like 30 minutes of direct instruction as the line in the sand for not approving curriculum. Thank [1:29:09] you. [1:29:16] Our next speaker is Trisha Thorson. [1:29:32] Welcome. Good evening. Uh my name is Trisha Thorson. I've been teaching biology for [1:29:39] 16 years now. The last nine of those have been at Andover High School. Over the last three years, I've been a part [1:29:44] of a team of Anoka Henipin biology teachers that have been researching and piloting biology curriculum for [1:29:50] implementation. Based on all of our research and our observations in the classroom, we have come to an agreement on the best option for our students. [1:29:57] This curriculum aligns with Minnesota science standards, engages students in learning at a deeper level, and it has [1:30:04] students doing science and applying their skills to new situation. The board's refusal to move forward with our [1:30:09] recommendation is insulting to our profession. And the longer that the process of curriculum adoption is drug [1:30:14] out, the more detrimental it is to our students. We are asking you to trust and support our teachers and allow us to [1:30:20] move forward with the curriculum that best fits our students needs. Thank you. [1:30:34] Our next speaker is Emily [1:30:44] Mcller. Welcome. Thank you. Hello, members of the board and our [1:30:52] community. I'm here tonight as a student. A student who is angry. angry because during teacher appreciation [1:30:58] week, we've done nothing to truly appreciate our educators. Instead of celebrating them, we continue to [1:31:04] disrespect and mistreat the very people who are the backbone to our schools. Our [1:31:10] teachers deserve better. And so do we as students. What's even more frustrating is watching this board make decisions [1:31:17] that are not rooted in what is best for all students, but instead what is rooted in fear. fear that is driving you to [1:31:24] dismantle DEI efforts that are essential to creating safe, supportive schools. [1:31:29] These decisions don't reflect the needs of the entire student body. They reflect the will of a loud few, the handful you [1:31:36] have chosen to see. While the rest of us are left behind, silenced, and most [1:31:42] importantly, ignored. Specifically, we see this within the 30 minute lecture [1:31:48] times. Research has proven that students only have one minute of attention span per their age and all students max out [1:31:56] at 15 minutes. This doesn't benefit educators. This doesn't benefit students [1:32:01] and it doesn't benefit real learning. I want to be clear, our system is not [1:32:07] perfect. But instead of working to fix what is broken, you are tearing down [1:32:12] progress of countless educators, students, and families that have fought hard to build. That's not leadership. [1:32:21] That is being a coward. As a student, I feel the consequences of your choices [1:32:26] every day in my learning, in my classrooms, and in the way that my teachers are treated. While you [1:32:32] undermine our educators and strip away DEI initiatives, you are telling me and so many others that we do not matter, [1:32:39] that we are not worth an investment, but we are. We deserve a district that [1:32:44] embraces every student, not just the one who fits a narrow mold. Critical thinking, not political censorship, [1:32:51] should guide our education system. We deserve a board that leads with courage and integrity, not fear and division. We [1:32:57] do not deserve this treatment from some of our board members who have been nothing but inconsiderate and uneducated [1:33:02] on education itself. Do better. We are watching and we are fighting for the future we have, not what we currently [1:33:08] are being treated as. [1:33:24] Our next speaker is Joe Rothstein. [1:33:33] Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. [1:33:41] So you know what when you see it, we see ignorance and we see arrogance. We see a lack of respect and common sense. We see [1:33:49] division and short-sightedness. We see conservativism and elitism. And we know [1:33:55] it. You were all elected into this role, but none of you were put there to tear apart our educational system, which if [1:34:02] you are honest with yourselves, is exactly what the three of you are doing. Your ethical and moral duty is to have [1:34:08] all students best interests in mind, not your own interests or personal beliefs [1:34:13] or those of the organization that helped to get you elected. You should not be trying to [1:34:18] micromanage the curriculum development process. You shouldn't be arbitrarily trying to decide what books are a part [1:34:24] of a student learning. Nor should you be trying to make unilateral ignorant decisions about how the district should [1:34:31] deal with social and emotional learning, diversity, equality, and inclusion. You [1:34:36] do not have that right, even if you believe that you do. You might not think that you feel [1:34:41] that you are better than other people, but your actions certainly show us differently. [1:34:47] One of the me board members was quoted as saying, "Let's be really receptive to feedback and let's make common sense [1:34:54] decisions and back our teachers ability to teach and our students ability to learn." End quote. Listen to yourselves [1:35:01] and work to justly and fairly serve your community. History is history. It [1:35:07] happened. We all have the right to learn about any of it and all of it. Not talking about it and not learning about [1:35:13] it does not keep it from having happened. nor does learning about it fully define who an individual becomes. [1:35:20] It helps create better informed citizens and a healthier society. Science exists [1:35:25] because of what is real and what happens in our world. It evolves when new things are learned. It does not exist because [1:35:32] what of what your beliefs are, what you want to have happen, or what you want to deny. With the over 3,300 teachers, [1:35:39] that's 59,000 years of teaching experience that come into the doors every day. Let the teachers do what they [1:35:45] need to do. Get out of our way so we can do our jobs, [Applause] [1:35:56] please. Our next speaker is Beth Lynn Himer. [1:36:11] Welcome. Oh, thank you. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for having me here. [1:36:17] Uh, Dr. McIntyre, co-chairs, um, Arco and Dasheen and the rest of the board members. My name is Beth Heimrell and I [1:36:24] am a proud Anoka and employee for 30 years. My very first class I taught right behind that before they renovated [1:36:30] this place on the second floor up here. And in those 30 years that I've been in an noipin, I have done hours upon hours [1:36:38] of professional development. And as an educator, we have learned to trust in [1:36:44] what we see each and every student needs, right? Not there is not a [1:36:50] playbook that works for every kid. If you were to come into my classroom, you would know that this student learns best [1:36:57] when they have a small group setting. This student learns best when I give them something to read and for them to find their vocabulary words with. This [1:37:03] student needs extra support in this. We have students that learn from their multi- [1:37:10] There are different intelligences. I know that's an older phrase, but like we have kids who are artistically intelligent. We have kids who are [1:37:16] musically intelligent, kids that are na natural intelligent. If we switch to and [1:37:21] I know someone earlier I heard them say something about direct instruction, but that idea of that everyone's going to [1:37:27] learn linguistically and only through auditory and is not going to work for everyone. [1:37:33] And if we all are here to believe in helping each and every one of our kids be the best they can be, we need to know [1:37:39] that those hours that we did learning how to get kids to engage in conversation, no one would ever say that [1:37:44] we don't get to teach them things. We have ideas that we share. But the way that we do that isn't through just our [1:37:51] voice to them. It's getting them to understand it and to question it and to have conversations about it. And we need [1:37:57] to make sure that we give our teachers the ability to do that. I ask that you trust the teachers with that. 15 [1:38:03] seconds. Holy cranky. 20 goes fast. What I will just end with this in today. I [1:38:09] understand budget cuts and I understand we weren't able to have our 30-year service, our little dinner this year and [1:38:14] everything and but my administrator came in, gave me my medallion, and I appreciated that and the kids cheered and it was fun. But the reality is, if [1:38:21] you truly want to honor the teachers who put in their time, that you listen to the things that we have been taught by [1:38:28] this district and all of our PD and let us teach the kids the best they can learn. Let them [1:38:35] learn. Thank you for your [1:38:44] time. The next speaker is Judy Dunn. [1:38:51] Judy Dunn. Okay. Uh Laura [1:39:07] Olsen. Welcome. Welcome. Thank you. Good evening board. Good evening, [1:39:13] superintendent. My name is Laura Olsen. It used to be Laura Kaiser. So, most of the kids in the district know me as [1:39:18] that. I've been an educator for 29 years, 23 of which have been in this district. I'm a mom. I've raised two [1:39:25] kids by myself as a single mother in Andover. And I recently just got married and moved to Ham Lake. I'm a taxpayer [1:39:32] and I'm concerned about the money that we've been spending on our social studies curriculum writing. Um, I'm here [1:39:40] representing all of my colleagues in social studies and especially my US studies teachers in seventh grade. Um, I [1:39:47] recently took part in a panel at a town hall meeting and I got to spend the evening with a couple of members of the [1:39:52] board and I asked a couple questions. I wanted them to point out exactly where [1:39:58] they didn't like what we had accomplished um, a year ago. I wanted to see well what part of that lesson or [1:40:05] what part of that standard did you not understand? And I'm asking you, the [1:40:10] board, to ask us, we are the professionals. I know everybody has their own soap board and they're [1:40:16] standing up on this box and they want to tell us what they think the standards [1:40:21] say, but we know what they say and we are the educators and we are not trying [1:40:26] to indoctrinate our children. Um, last year we went through that ginormous [1:40:32] process that the science teacher just explained for social studies. We looked at a new book. We agreed on a new book. [1:40:38] We were like gung-ho going for that new book and we were stoked. We were excited. And then it got derailed and we [1:40:45] do not have that book. I'm teaching with a book that is more than 12 years old. I no longer have access online. I'm no [1:40:52] longer able to change any of the ability for reading levels for my students. 15 seconds. All right. In conclusion, this [1:40:59] is what I want to ask. I'm here again. I'm in front of you. I want some answers. It's May. Am I writing this [1:41:06] summer or do I get to go on a vacation with my family because I still can't plan that. Am I getting a new book? Um, [1:41:13] this is the seventh year in a row maybe of me doing something else. I need some answers, please. Thank [1:41:30] you. Okay, that concludes our yellow cards. There's no more over there. Okay, very good. So, board members, our next [1:41:37] agenda item is item seven, the board calendar and district updates. We will turn it over to Superintendent McIntyre. [1:41:48] All right. Good evening, board members. Is this on? I don't Can you hear it? Okay. [1:41:54] Yeah. I'm going to just pause till get some transition time. [1:42:21] All right, board members. I'm going to jump in here and tonight with the superintendent's report, I'll be presenting items of interest to the [1:42:28] board and our community regarding activities and events and it's a busy time of year that we are proud of in our [1:42:33] district. And we do this to celebrate students, staff, and community members who are contributing to the [1:42:38] accomplishment of our mission, which is to effectively educate each of our students for [1:42:43] success. So to start us off, the Minnesota Scholastic Art and Writing Awards recognize students for [1:42:50] excellence. Gold Key awards are presented to students who achieve at the highest [1:42:56] level. Have a couple to recognize tonight. Andover High School freshman Marcy Karen was honored for her [1:43:03] sculpture Jawbreaker. You can see that on the screen there. Blaine High School junior Haley Linka was honored for her [1:43:11] painting Sisterly Boredom with three girls. I know all about this. Um, great [1:43:17] piece of work there. the gold art key award again both of them a number of students from across the district were [1:43:23] recognized with silver key and also honorable mention awards and that information is posted on our website at [1:43:30] ahschools us. I just want to take a moment as my second item tonight to uh publicly thank [1:43:37] our law enforcement partners for close cooperation and communication to ensure [1:43:42] that our schools remain safe and our communities are informed during some high-profile situations we've [1:43:47] experienced here recently in the community over the past few weeks. So, just to reiterate, that partnership [1:43:53] between school leaders and our law enforcement agencies really serve our communities and it really makes a [1:43:58] difference to ensure the safety of our students and staff and those efforts are greatly [1:44:05] appreciated. And finally, Enoka Henipin is celebrating and honoring staff members and the impact they make during [1:44:11] employee appreciation week this week, May 5th through the 9th. uh this week here and this these events [1:44:18] in the district coincide with the national teacher appreciation week and there are many activities scheduled [1:44:23] throughout the district by volunteer groups in our schools to show support for staff. The theme for employee recog [1:44:30] or employee appreciation week is you make a difference. It's a time to say [1:44:35] thank you to all of our staff to show our appreciation for all staff does for [1:44:41] our students and the communities we serve. Perhaps the group that appreciates our staff the most are our [1:44:48] students. So when it came to time to produce a video message that shows the true appreciation for all we do as a [1:44:54] school system, students stepped up to deliver that message. So let's take a look. [1:45:16] [Music] [1:45:26] Each day, our staff work to prepare students for life and inspire a future [1:45:31] without limit. Some days that can be a challenge. But each day we come back to [1:45:39] school seeking knowledge, inspiration, encouragement, [1:45:44] and support. We show up ready to learn. We are capable, but we can't do it on our own. [1:45:52] Our staff make a difference each day. At our school, they help us learn to [1:45:58] read, how to take turns and understand routines. Our teachers help us learn [1:46:04] about math and science and how to work together. They teach us about the world [1:46:11] around us and how to think critically and solve problems. [1:46:17] The staff at our school guide us and help us feel safe and welcome like we [1:46:22] belong. Staff care and help us understand how to navigate our schedules [1:46:28] and plan for the next step in our educational journey. As students, we are the future. And what [1:46:37] staff do today make a difference for us. It's here that we dream and imagine what [1:46:43] our future could be. Staff in our schools make a difference. Each and every one of them. Whether they [1:46:52] are serving up a smile, listening with care, someone we can count on, staff at [1:46:59] our school keep us connected, and keep things rolling smoothly each [1:47:04] day. Staff at our school make a difference each and every one of them. [1:47:10] [Music] [1:47:17] [Music] You focus on your purpose. You give it [1:47:23] your all. And each day we see how much you care. You may never know the [1:47:28] difference that you make, but we want you to know it is valued. Thank you for all that you do to support students [1:47:35] because in Anoka Henipin, you make a difference. You you you make a [1:47:41] difference. [1:47:51] Thank you. Thank you to our communications team for putting that together. And it's just a good reminder that it does take all of our staff and [1:47:58] all the roles in the district to really um do everything we need to do to bring out the best in our students. And uh for [1:48:05] me, just a good reminder that our staff are the backbone of everything we do to help our students thrive. So um from I [1:48:10] know you joined me in this. Thank you to all of our staff in every role in the district, nearly 7,500 employees across [1:48:16] the system. Thanks for everything they do each and every day. And uh that wraps [1:48:21] up and we will continue to see those activities throughout the week in our buildings appreciating and and honoring [1:48:26] our employees. So um coach Duchaine, that is my superintendent report for [1:48:31] this evening. Thank you. Thank you board members. Any questions for Superintendent McIntyre? All right. Our next agenda [1:48:38] item includes several resolutions brought forward by employee services. So we will welcome Dr. [1:48:44] Jennifer Cherry, executive director of human resources. [1:48:51] Thank you, co-chair Duchaine. Uh members of the board, Superintendent McIntyre, I [1:48:56] have three resolutions this evening pertaining to staffing. The first one is [1:49:02] a resolution relating to the non-renewal of teaching contracts of probationary teachers. Uh there are 10 teachers on um [1:49:11] this resolution who have uh are probationary teachers and uh their [1:49:17] contracts are being nonredo due to a reduction in student enrollment uh [1:49:23] financial condition of the district and other appropriate reasons. At this time, I'm recommending uh um approval of this [1:49:31] resolution. Thank you. Uh board members, are there any questions for Dr. Cherry on this [1:49:37] resolution? If not, members, before us is a resolution relating to the non-renewal of teaching contracts of [1:49:43] probationary teachers as presented in appendix J. Hearing no requests for [1:49:49] discussion. Uh would the clerk please call the role? Simon votes I. Hman I. [1:49:54] Audet I. Langenfeld I. Arco I. Desaine [1:50:00] I. With six in favor and zero opposed, the resolution in appendix J is adopted. You can present your next one. Thank [1:50:06] you. The second resolution this evening is to resend the inclusion of certain teachers names in the resolution [1:50:12] terminating probationary teachers. So, this is a follow-up um from our last business meeting and this is the the [1:50:19] wonderful news where we have an opportunity uh to hire back some of our [1:50:24] newer teachers that um we had to um issue non-renewals to in the last uh the [1:50:31] last business meeting. So, before you are 19 names of teachers um that uh we [1:50:37] are recommending um um bringing back uh for hire in the next school year. [1:50:44] Thank you board members. Any questions for Dr. Cherry on this resolution? Okay. If not, uh members [1:50:50] before us is a resolution to resend the inclusion of certain teachers names in res in the resolution terminating [1:50:56] probationary teachers as presented in appendix K. Hearing no requests for discussion, would the clerk please call [1:51:03] the role? Simon votes I. Hman I. Aat I. Langenfeld I. Arco I. Desaine I. With [1:51:12] six in favor and zero opposed, the resolution in appendix K is adopted. Um, please continue. And finally, this [1:51:19] evening in appendix L, uh you will see a resolution proposing the immediate [1:51:25] discharge of continuing contract teachers. Uh this is um uh in uh [1:51:32] compliance with Minnesota statute 122A. 40 uh subdivision 13 part 6. There are [1:51:41] three names. These uh names are um not public information according to the [1:51:46] Minnesota government data practices act. Is there any questions? I can um [1:51:52] follow up with those now. But it is a proposal to approve this resolution. [1:51:58] Board members, any questions on this resolution? Okay. If not, members before [1:52:03] us is a resolution proposing immediate discharge of continuing contract teachers as presented in appendix L. [1:52:09] Hearing no request for discussion, would the clerk please call the role? Simon votes I. Hulman I. Audet I. Langenfeld [1:52:18] I. Arco I. Dshane I. With six in favor and zero opposed. That resolution is [1:52:24] adopted as well. Thank you Dr. Cherry. Thank you. Our next agenda item is elementary and [1:52:30] secondary education item 9A, the elementary ELA initial curriculum [1:52:35] adoption and recommendation uh which is coming before us for approval tonight. We welcome Dr. Mary Wolverton, associate [1:52:42] superintendent, an Sangster, director of elementary curriculum instruction and assessment uh and the rest of the team. [1:52:57] Welcome. Thank you all for being here. Good evening, co-chair Shane Arco, [1:53:02] school board members, and superintendent McIntyre. This evening, our team is coming forward with providing an update [1:53:09] and a recommendation on the elementary ELA adoption. [1:53:16] The purpose of our meeting, as noted, excuse me, is to share the results of the elementary ELA pilot and study [1:53:25] committee feedback and present the recommendation for the elementary ELA [1:53:30] curricular resource for the 202526 school [1:53:37] year. And we will first begin with reviewing the information from the ELA [1:53:42] study committee. Good evening, co-chairs to Shane Arco, [1:53:48] members of the board, and superintendent McIntyre. On our um study committee [1:53:53] timeline, in November, the ELA study committee met to establish goals, become familiar with the read act, the reading [1:54:00] to ensure academic development act, and have a common understanding of the science of reading. In December, the [1:54:05] committee looked at an OKhenipin's reading data aligned to multi-tered systems of support. And then in January [1:54:11] of 2024, they reviewed the current resource wonders along with the Minnesota ELA 2020 standards. In [1:54:18] February of 2024, a recommendation and rationale were created from the committee that a new resource was [1:54:24] needing to be piloted. In March of 2024, an all call of curricular materials and [1:54:29] a review of those resources took place. And then in April of 2024, the committee [1:54:34] reviewed resource types along with an Anoka Henipin rubric that would be used [1:54:39] to analyze those resources. And in June of 2024, EL [1:54:45] opened up great minds, wit, and wisdom and amplify CKLA core knowledge, language arts presented to the [1:54:51] committee, and then they completed an evaluation of those resources. [1:54:58] We then move to piloting um the recommendations and these are the [1:55:03] configurations of resources that were piloted in grades K3 with four different [1:55:08] options and then we have the grade four and five pilot configurations with two [1:55:14] options. Next is the ELA pilot moving into fall [1:55:21] of 2024. And in trimester 1, we started with round pilot round one. And then [1:55:28] moving into August, we had teacher training for those pilot teachers on the materials that they would use just for round one. September 3rd through [1:55:36] November 22nd, the te teachers piloted their round one resources. And in the middle of that round one pilot, we [1:55:43] learned of the CKLA third edition release that would take place in December. So on November 5th, the [1:55:50] teachers received some training on the resource they would then pilot for round two. They received a survey for round [1:55:58] one from November 11th through the 26th that were completed by the pilot teachers. And then trimester 2 began. So [1:56:05] December 2nd through March 6th, the teachers would pilot their round two resources of which they were trained [1:56:11] back in November. January 2nd, those piloting CK those who were piloting CKA [1:56:17] would switch to their third edition resource that had been released. We then [1:56:23] learned um in the midst of that January of the release of a resource called W [1:56:29] Arts and Letters which was created from Whit Wisdom. February 18th, pilot teachers would participate in the deep [1:56:35] dive of the arts and letters resource looking at that in relation to wit and [1:56:41] wisdom. And then February 25th through March 6th, [1:56:46] the survey for round two pilot teachers was sent out and completed. That concluded the piloting [1:56:53] of the resources for K5. And we then brought the study committee and pilot teachers together April 1st and April [1:57:00] 8th to review the pilot data and generate recommendations. And from that Candace [1:57:06] will share the pilot teachers feedback. Good evening co-chairs Duchain [1:57:12] and Arco, members of the school board and superintendent McIntyre. You can see [1:57:18] um on the next slide there the overall this is our summary of the dimension [1:57:24] data for K3 knowledge building. So you can see from a statistical standpoint [1:57:30] that this data reflects the strongly agree and agree um for the pilot [1:57:36] teacher. Again, CKLA outlined in blue for each dimension and Whiten wisdom [1:57:42] geodess outlined in green for the um each dimension with the overall of K3 [1:57:49] knowledge building um resulting in CQLA being 75% compared to the 55% of Whiten [1:57:58] wisdom and geodess. Next we have K3 skill building. [1:58:04] Um and this was um the foundational skills andor the word recognition [1:58:10] components for kindergarten through third grade. Again the agree and [1:58:16] strongly agree for each of the dimensions um summarized outlined um CLA [1:58:21] in blue bridge to read in red. Um you can see a little more discrepancy here [1:58:27] on the phonological awareness and phmic awareness phonics and fluency but then [1:58:33] CQLA um in instructional supports and material managements having higher [1:58:38] scores um along with assessment overall they're very close which leads us to our [1:58:44] overall options for implementations pairings um on the following [1:58:50] slides and next we have the four five again summaries um CKLA in um and this [1:58:59] is uh comprehensively with foundational and knowledge building together in one [1:59:05] resource. CKLA is in blue, witten, wisdom and functional morphology in [1:59:11] orange. Um this also is um interesting to look at the results in the dimension [1:59:17] summaries as well because um Whiten wisdom and functional morphology outperformed um CQLA which again leads [1:59:25] to the pairing options for the voting for the study committee and pilot teachers on the following slides. [1:59:36] That led us to um different options for the um pilot teachers and the study [1:59:41] committee to provide us feedback on from April 1st and April 8th. One of the [1:59:47] options was CQLA K5 comprehensively. The next option is CQLA [1:59:54] K5 paired with bridge to read K3. Um and another one was K3 RK5 um CQLA [2:00:03] comprehensive bridge to read K3 and then functional morphology for FI. Those are [2:00:09] results of those three surveys put together in that option. And then the last option was the wit and wisdom K5 [2:00:16] bridge to read K3 functional morphology 45 which leads us to the overall [2:00:22] results. [2:00:32] Okay, sorry. Good evening, co-chairs to Shane [2:00:37] and Arco, members of the board and superintendent McIntyre. As you can see, these are our overall survey results [2:00:44] where we had 71% of our um teachers that selected the CKLA um K5 [2:00:52] and bridge to read for skills K3 and functional morphology 45. So, the [2:00:58] committee's recommendation offers an evidence-based curriculum rooted in the science of reading. And this option most [2:01:04] closely adheres to the criteria previously defined by the ELA study committee in terms of content, word [2:01:10] recognition, writing, and [2:01:19] handwriting. So now I'd like to bring you through the budget budgetary expenditures [2:01:24] um for this ELA adoption. So if you look at the first line item that is bridgeto [2:01:30] read oftentime we are told that there is no cost associated with bridgeto read. So you might be surprised to see that. [2:01:36] But there is a printing cost of materials. And then also for professional development, those costs [2:01:44] are estimated costs at this point. And the 15,000 for professional development [2:01:49] reflects teacher salaries if we are to provide professional development in August outside of the duty days of the [2:01:56] school year. And then of course the largest purchase here is CKLA, which is the [2:02:01] comprehensive K5. We're a little over 4.5 million for um student materials, [2:02:09] student licenses, and teacher licenses. And that is over a 7-year [2:02:14] period. Then the professional development outline for 228,300 is for the first year of um [2:02:23] implementation. And the next slide I'll go into more detail about what that looks like. And then finally, functional [2:02:29] morphology. that is also a seven-year um over a seven-year span and that C that [2:02:36] is for teacher licenses and then the professional development is for one year [2:02:41] at 27,850. So when you look at materials professional development we're right [2:02:47] around $5 million investment in our ELA [2:02:54] adoption. So, Bridgeto Read um professional development, like I said, [2:03:00] this is year one. Um all teachers who do bridgeto read have an initial three-hour [2:03:05] training. So, most of our teachers have already been trained, but we have some [2:03:10] um teachers that did not participate in the Bridgeto Read pilot and we will have new teachers. And then we have ongoing [2:03:18] coaching support um through serve Minnesota and our literacy specialists who have supported bridge to read um [2:03:25] quite extensively in their role. And then when we look at CKLA they [2:03:31] provide an initial training for teachers which is a full day. Um part of that day [2:03:37] is just letting them know what is CKLA, how do you get how do you use the website, but then they also get some [2:03:43] planning time. So when they are starting the school year, they know um really where to start. And then very important [2:03:50] that our leaders have an understanding of CKLA as they're the instructional leaders in the building. So they will [2:03:56] receive a program overview um for three hours. And we also have an opportunity [2:04:02] to have, and that's not on here, but we just found out about it, a session for our principles and hopefully also our [2:04:08] literacy specialists to learn about the mindset shifts that will come along with [2:04:13] um this new curriculum. And then we have um coaching that um we will be able to [2:04:19] take advantage of flexibly for our leaders um six hours per building um [2:04:25] during the next school year. And then finally, functional morphology. That has [2:04:31] an initial six-hour training for our teachers and then an ongoing implementation support and consulting [2:04:37] for our district level team so they can support the teachers at the [2:04:43] building. And so now we're going to talk about implementation for year one and then beyond. And I will turn that back [2:04:50] over to Michelle. So implementation for year one this [2:04:55] spring we're working with we will work with the communications department to develop a communication plan for our [2:05:01] principles for the teachers and families and our community members um hosting an [2:05:07] open house for the staff to come and preview the materials as well as then our literacy [2:05:12] specialists are working in aligning those um Minnesota 2020 new ELA academic [2:05:18] standards along with bridgeto read function morphology and CKLA and getting all those pieces aligned together and [2:05:25] then providing a CKLA program overview for leaders in this spring as well in [2:05:30] that plan. Then in June, um our curriculum writing teams are looking are working on [2:05:37] adjusting the report card to reflect those new standards. Uh reviewing and finalizing the alignment of the [2:05:43] standards with bridge to read, functional morphology, and CKLA as our literacy specialists won't have that [2:05:49] completed. um before then and so we'll need to finalize that in August. Then [2:05:55] will be the launch of CKLA initial training for teachers that full day and then bridgeto read initial training for [2:06:01] staff as well. In October we have the functional morphology initial training [2:06:06] for grades four and five. um so they can attend that CKLA launch in August um [2:06:12] training then have that later inter um introduced that function morphology [2:06:21] piece. Here we have for year one a table kind of outlining the implementation [2:06:27] support for our teachers, our literacy specialists and our administrators and district leaders. So you can see all the [2:06:33] different um types of support and who the people will be um receipt having [2:06:39] that support over the year. And then we will continue to monitor and adjust um [2:06:44] determining any additional supports that might be needed to refine to um sustain [2:06:49] that implementation over the life of the adoption by receiving stakeholder feedback and ongoing review and student [2:06:57] achievement data as well. [2:07:03] All right. And that brings us to year two. Again, we would have to provide that training for new teachers and [2:07:09] teachers again switching grade levels because the components are different per grade levels. Um, then we would look to [2:07:15] line align do deep dive into the instructional components. Um, and again connecting back to that why of letters [2:07:22] and our OLA professional development that we've had over the last couple years. Some of those key focuses would [2:07:27] be assessment, writing, vocabulary, language development. Another component of year 2 implementation would be across [2:07:34] district communities of practice where all educators would be aligned um with [2:07:40] like um schools to share instructional practices and work collaboratively and [2:07:46] refining the implementation along with principles and literacy specialists. and would also be looking to integrate the [2:07:53] intervention resources to better align to our tier one [2:07:59] practices. And again, um for the year two to for substained implementation, um [2:08:05] teachers, literacy specialists, administrators, and district leadership would be involved in coaching cycles, [2:08:11] walkthrough cycles, and check-ins throughout. Um again, we would be um [2:08:17] seeking stake uh stakeholder feedback and reviewing that student achievement [2:08:22] data to see better how um to support the ongoing um implementation of the [2:08:27] resources. [2:08:35] And our recommendation at this time is that the board consider and approve CKLA [2:08:41] comprehensive K5 bridge to read for grades K through three and functional [2:08:48] morphology grades four through five which best meet the needs of the Anoka Henipin elementary stu students. Um, we [2:08:56] would implement this in all grade levels, K5. And our recommendation is to adopt and purchase CKLA comprehensive [2:09:03] K5, bridgeto read K3 and functional morphology 45 for the 2526 school year. [2:09:11] And at this time, we would like to thank the board for your support during this [2:09:16] process and open it up for questions and comments. Thank you very much for the [2:09:22] presentation. Board members, do we have any questions or comments at this time? [2:09:31] Uh, Director Lingfeld. Thank you. First of all, thank you. I I can't [2:09:37] tell you how important this work is to me personally. Um, I believe that it's [2:09:42] vitally important that every child in our district can read. And so, I've been [2:09:47] engaging in it very as much as I can throughout this process. I think one of the things as I've looked at this and [2:09:53] reflected on my own experience starting with really getting involved in understanding bridge to read and and [2:10:01] then um looking at letters did not go through the training actually watched the bridgeto read training as well and [2:10:08] and um have been in many classrooms this ELA adoption process has been a journey [2:10:15] and a really important journey I know that the curriculum that we are looking to purchase [2:10:21] has empirical data to support it. Um I spent a lot of time just looking at wit [2:10:26] and wisdom and CKLA had the privilege before we even went into the final um [2:10:33] chapter so to speak um to meet with all of you. They were all available and [2:10:39] answered all my questions. went through all the units to understand what was there and I know there were some changes [2:10:46] and I I I left there feeling very um informed and felt that if I had [2:10:53] additional questions I could I could reach out to you as well. Then when we got into I was not a member of the [2:10:59] selection committee. I know uh co-chair Duchaine and director uh Audet were but [2:11:07] um I was able to join uh the two evening debriefing pilots and in that process [2:11:13] really heard back from what our piloting teachers as well as administrators had [2:11:19] and gave us that feedback which I think was so very important and to have it was during those critical conversations [2:11:26] sitting there really listening to our teachers uh talk about their experiences. I was actually invited to a [2:11:33] fourth grade classroom then to observe functional morphology and I I went as quickly as I could and and really got as [2:11:41] informed as I could. So I think as we look to all of these pieces um and I [2:11:47] know that just a curious question about where we are with letters training and Ola training. That would be the other [2:11:53] piece of this. And then also we did receive a concern from two community members um who are concerned about a [2:12:01] couple of the um topics in in the units. And I know that we talked briefly about [2:12:08] that. I looked at all the units as well during that time and shared those with. So maybe we could talk about if there [2:12:14] are concerns about units where where just a few in terms of not so much um [2:12:22] content thinking they might not be um at an age, you know, they might be too much [2:12:27] for a little one. They're worried about the topics aren't really right for age groups. And that would be American [2:12:32] independence and and those kinds of things. But I know they aren't a major part. I just wanted to make sure that [2:12:38] was there. So just thinking through just an update where we are with letters and OLA and then also talking about as we [2:12:47] look at the units and you start doing the writing and aligning of standards how that would look in our two-step [2:12:53] process and I know you're fully aware that the board is supportive of a two-step process. We'll purchase the [2:12:59] curriculum and then and approve that and then next step would be to go through those units. Correct. Is that what we're [2:13:06] thinking? Okay. So again, sincere gratitude. Um I know that um many [2:13:12] teachers are looking forward to this and really um want the best for our kids to [2:13:18] be able to read. So I I really am excited about it. um looking forward to [2:13:23] I just uh talked um and had a an important conversation earlier today about what Mississippi did and invested [2:13:31] in the incredible increases that they've seen with their students and uh it was a [2:13:37] full hands-on full investment to move it forward. So anyway, I want to thank you [2:13:43] for all of that and I don't know if you want to [2:13:48] answer the ELA questions. And um Ann, maybe I could have Ann give an update in relation to letters. We as we've been [2:13:55] mapping out and looking at our professional development calendars for next year, specifically in relation to [2:14:01] building PD and district PD. Um, Anna's been monitoring staff at the elementary [2:14:08] level that have completed letters or going into letters as well as Ola. So, I'll let you kind of speak to that. I'll [2:14:15] start with Ola. Um, this year we had three about 400 fourth and fifth grade [2:14:22] teachers, talent development teachers, and special education teachers at the elementary level who took OLA. It's 53 [2:14:29] hours of professional development and um all but three completed um with 80% [2:14:36] accuracy which is what the state is requiring. So that is a huge feat for all of those teachers. And then in terms [2:14:44] of letters, we've been working on letters since 2022. And we have um approximately 400 [2:14:52] teachers um K3 plus literacy specialists, literacy intervention teachers, ML teachers who have completed [2:14:59] that training. And it's about a three-year training just because it takes longer. So when we think about who [2:15:05] is left, we have about um60 teachers who are enrolled in it now [2:15:13] who still need to finish. And then we are working on the numbers of new teachers. We're working with principles [2:15:19] to determine how many, but at last count we had about 40 that would need to go through OLA and about the same amount [2:15:27] that would need to go through letters. And of course, new teachers coming in, that's always a variable that we account [2:15:32] for as well. I would add one more um variable to that. Um in addition to your [2:15:37] question, at the elementary level, all 25 elementary principles, the directors [2:15:44] and myself went through two years of letters for administrators professional [2:15:49] development. And I think we're one of the few districts in the state of Minnesota that have completed that. I [2:15:54] think maybe one of two. And then perhaps you said this, how many of our teachers are already trained? I know you started [2:16:01] this years before it was required. So I think if we look at both um OLA and [2:16:09] letters and I'm trying to like we have so many charts with all of these numbers on them. So we will for sure tell you [2:16:14] the exact number but I think we're probably right around 700 teachers that have completed the work. That's so [2:16:20] excellent. Thank you. Okay, board members, anyone else with [2:16:26] questions or comments? Uh, Director Hookman, sorry. Yeah, thank you all so much. It um I was [2:16:33] able to come in and look through the materials with you, answered all my questions. It was wonderful and insightful. Uh really appreciate that. I [2:16:39] know it's been an enormous task u working through it all and especially just grateful for all the teachers [2:16:46] leaning into this working hard to get the training to learn so many new things and um to be prepared for um new [2:16:53] curriculum next year. It's it's still going to be a lot of work but they've been working hard. It's it's great to see uh for those who don't know the [2:17:01] science of reading isn't a single program or method. It's a evidence-based framework built in decades of rigorous [2:17:07] peer-reviewed research. um from cognitive psychology, neuroscience, [2:17:13] linguistics, education, developmental psychology, randomized testing and trials, longitudinal studies following [2:17:20] kids from kindergarten through high school. So, it's really great that we're following this method um of research and [2:17:26] comprehensive approach um that includes word recognition, foundational skills, [2:17:32] phenomic awareness, phonics, but also language comprehension. I mean, you had it up there on those charts. all the [2:17:38] things that these teachers are doing. It's really amazing. And to uh embrace this researchbased approach to uh get [2:17:46] our skills for our students turned around and get those test scores rising again. Um I know the countless hours and [2:17:52] there's so much more ahead. Uh really appreciate the work that everyone has done. Um because we know um we need [2:17:59] every child to to read and especially in those early years. It's really a skill that's essential throughout life. So [2:18:07] very hopeful and excited in uh the core CKLA [2:18:12] and uh hopefully we see a resurgence in literacy around the district. Thank you. Welcome. [2:18:23] Okay, Director ARC. Okay. Thank you, co-chair. Um, okay. So, [2:18:31] the board is about to take a vote on whether or not to adopt a new or perhaps old and principal curriculum for reading [2:18:37] instruction in the In Noah Henipin schools. And while I I love to hear all the research behind it, I also love [2:18:43] context. So, I think it's worth taking a moment to reflect on how we kind of as a nation more so than just the district [2:18:49] got here and why this vote is necessary in the first place. So it goes back to in around the 1980s [2:18:55] and 1990s, new ideas about how children should learn to read became popular in American schools. Instead of focusing on [2:19:02] teaching kids how to sound out words through letters and sounds called phonics, many schools adopted methods [2:19:07] that relied on students guessing words using pictures, sentence structure, and context clues. These approaches over [2:19:13] time proved to be ineffective and harmful to reading development. A major influence on these practices was the [2:19:20] reading recovery method first developed in the 1970s by Mari Clay, a teacher and researcher from New Zealand. Her [2:19:26] approach emphasized the three queuing strategy, encouraging children to guess words based on multiple clues rather [2:19:31] than decoding words through systematic phonics. Influential educators including Gayu Panel and Irene Fountainis and [2:19:37] later Lucy Caukins help helped to popularize these methods. Their programs became widely adopted across the US [2:19:43] despite lacking strong foundations in the science of reading. In 2000, the National Reading Panel, after reviewing [2:19:49] decades of research, issued a clear report. Children need systematic phonics instruction to learn to read successfully. Teaching them to guess [2:19:55] words based on context does not work for most students, especially for those who struggle. Despite this scientific [2:20:01] consensus, queuing based methods remain widespread and popular. Programs under the label of balanced literacy, which [2:20:06] often included very little structured phonics, continue to be trusted by many schools experts and teachers. At its [2:20:12] peak, the teachers college reading and writing pro program curriculum developed by Lucy Caukins was used in about one of [2:20:19] four elementary schools in America with over 170,000 teachers attending Caukins training institute in New York to learn [2:20:25] these methods. By 2018, as criticism grew louder, Lucy Caukins made updates [2:20:31] to her curriculum by adding phonics units. However, the program still leaned heavily on the three queuing and [2:20:36] guessing strategies, not full systematic phonics instruction. Despite the clear research or despite [2:20:43] all this, the research is clear. Guessing is not reading. Children must be explicitly taught to decode words through phonics. Decades of cognitive [2:20:50] science prove it. Yet, millions of children were taught using methods that ignored this research. And that brings us to today. [2:20:57] As the board prepares to vote on implementing a curriculum that relies heavily on systematic phonics instruction to ensure that every child [2:21:02] learns to read. So just to add further context, it certainly is the case that [2:21:07] the In Noah Henipin district never fully removed the use of phonics from literacy, but it is also true that we're [2:21:13] adopting a curriculum that relies heavily on phonics and even just in the pilot program, we've seen great success [2:21:18] in my opinion. So I'd like to thank the district and all the teachers um for recognizing the need for phonics well in [2:21:24] advance of the state requiring it and for doing the hard work necessary to pilot and implement a new reading curriculum. I'd also like to just take a [2:21:31] minute to acknowledge just some of the things that were said earlier. There is one one message that was overwhelming [2:21:36] from all of the community comment, which is trust the teachers. Well, I do trust the teachers. That's why I'm going to be [2:21:42] voting on this curriculum. The the question the real question that wasn't asked is which [2:21:48] teachers should should I trust because the reality is there is not broad consensus on a lot of the things that were discussed. And the reason that I'm [2:21:56] mentioning that now is because it's I guess ironic to me that what [2:22:01] we're doing with the reading curriculum is we're putting direct instruction back into how to teach kids how to read and [2:22:08] then simultaneously removing it from every other um subject. So I do trust [2:22:15] the teachers. There's not broad consensus on this. The question is which one. Um, I certainly hold Director [2:22:20] Hulkman's opinion in high regard and other teachers in the district who have voiced concerns about a lack of direct instruction. So, I'm very happy to see [2:22:26] it returned here and yeah, that concludes my comments. [2:22:32] Uh, Director Adet, thank you. um as as we've been sitting here um a brief [2:22:39] comment came through um when you were explaining some of the curriculum related to hand handwriting and write just writing and I wondered if you could [2:22:45] give us any insight into the material we'll be using and just um what [2:22:51] components of you know writing or handwriting are either in it or not in it because I I do get that question from [2:22:57] time to time and I'm just I'm just curious what what it will include. [2:23:02] I I'm gonna maybe ask a few more clarifying questions because it's there's lots of layers to it. Um so CLA [2:23:11] has that comprehensive piece because it it it has that all the components of our [2:23:17] scars buzz rope and evidence-based practices. Um we've been piloting bridge to read [2:23:22] which is also a highly aligned um curriculum as well but it is not intended to hit all those other [2:23:29] components of um reading instruction. So it is for [2:23:36] decoding words. So phonics and phmic awareness. However, when it comes to [2:23:42] handwriting and handwriting development, um CQLA has those components um in it as [2:23:48] well. That's why it was be we felt it was best based on the feedback from the pilot teachers to have not just CQLA [2:23:56] knowledge and not just bridge to read um by itself, but partnered together that [2:24:03] it made it more comprehensive for our students. Does that kind of want more into the [2:24:10] handwriting? So the foundational components of the um that and then went beyond that third grade we move more [2:24:17] into the composition side of writing and then that's where CKLA is more robust [2:24:22] where bridge trade was never intended to support the composition side of writing. Really good. Okay. Good. Thank you. I [2:24:28] appreciate that. Yep. Okay. Board members, any other comments? [2:24:39] All right. I will uh just say um and echo a thanks as well. Appreciate the [2:24:46] work that you and the team did. I think we can see um and as director Langenfeld [2:24:52] pointed out, I was able to participate in the ELA curriculum committee along with Director Adet. We we both really [2:24:58] appreciated that opportunity and the participation that we were able to have as a part of that movement. Um, and I [2:25:04] think we could see firsthand uh something that uh sort of maybe lends [2:25:10] itself to an answer to the question that you asked about like which teachers to trust. Uh, you know, I think the process [2:25:15] builds the trust, right? It builds consensus. There's a variety of stakeholders, a variety of participants [2:25:21] in that body of work. Um, so it's not just a singular voice, a singular [2:25:26] teacher um, perspective. It's it's consensus building and it's informed by [2:25:32] the many. So, I appreciated that. Thank you, Superintendent McIntyre. I be [2:25:38] remiss if I didn't also just weigh in and say thank you. Uh this has been an 18-month process. So, I just want to say [2:25:45] thank you to Dr. Wolverton. um to Michelle, Candace, and an for guiding us [2:25:51] through some uncertainty through as the state rolls out new expectations, keeping us focused, as the board members [2:25:58] pointed out, on what instructional outcomes we're aiming for. And to the [2:26:03] board members, you have many decisions you make. This maybe is one of the most important ones you make is picking and [2:26:10] selecting and investing. I know we saw lots of big dollar signs. That's an investment. It's an investment in in one [2:26:16] of the most primary things we do as a school district around literacy. So, I just want to say thank you to the board [2:26:21] for supporting the process and really diving in. Many of you were immersed in it and really trying to understand and [2:26:27] learn um the ins and outs of the process and and trying to understand the outcomes of the hard work of our of our [2:26:34] team. team. And then lastly, just to say thanks to the teachers who put hours and months and days into piloting and giving [2:26:40] us that critical feedback and measurement to bring back to you to make a decision. So, um, we're excited. We're [2:26:48] excited to get this in place and and see like director said the results come from that. So, thank you. [2:26:56] Okay, members, any further discussion? All right, hearing none. before us uh is [2:27:02] the elementary ELA initial curriculum adoption and recommendation as presented in appendix N. Is there a motion to [2:27:09] approve the elementary ELA initial curriculum adoption and recommendation as presented? [2:27:15] So moved. Thank you, Director Langenfeld. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Director Simon. Any further [2:27:22] discussion? Would all those in favor say I? I. Any oppose say nay? The motion [2:27:28] passes six uh to zero. Thank you. Thank you. [2:27:38] Okay, board. Our next agenda item is the review and recommendation for approval [2:27:44] tonight. We welcome again Dr. Mary Wolverton, associate superintendent, and Becky Rodier, associate superintendent, [2:27:51] as well as uh Dr. Dr. John Roahert, our research and evaluation team [2:28:00] lead. Thank you for being here. [2:28:06] Welcome. Thank you. Good evening, uh, co-chairs Arco and Deshaine, members of the board, Superintendent McIntyre. [2:28:13] Tonight, we are here to share with you again, um, our update with social emotional learning uh, curriculum [2:28:20] review. So the purpose of our presentation tonight is to provide with [2:28:25] to you a summary of our social emotional learning committee's work and share with [2:28:31] you uh the recommendation from that committee on the K8CL curriculum based [2:28:36] on the community input and committee feedback. [2:28:44] We currently have two different curricula that are being uh implemented in our schools. At the elementary level, [2:28:51] we've been using character strong and leader and me and at middle school, we are using character strong. It should be [2:28:58] noted that research indicates overwhelmingly that there is a positive and significant link between social [2:29:05] emotional learning and academic achievement, which is why we selected these evidence-based curriculum [2:29:14] materials. At board direction this fall, we conducted a review of our social [2:29:20] emotional learning curriculum. We gathered a social emotional learning [2:29:26] curriculum committee that consisted of two representatives from each cluster, [2:29:32] an elementary parent or community member and a middle school parent or community member along with board [2:29:39] members, teachers, principles, and the school board approved members of the [2:29:44] community curriculum advisory committee. That large group gathered in October and [2:29:49] November. We also conducted parent, guardian, and teacher surveys and [2:29:55] brought all of that information forward to the committee for review. Dr. Janna Rammer will go through the parent survey [2:30:03] results along with teacher survey results. Thank you so much. As Becky [2:30:09] said, um we put together reviewed surveys prior to them being distributed [2:30:15] with that full committee to look at the the items that were um going to be asked [2:30:21] and get input on those items before we finalized surveys. And then we [2:30:26] distributed surveys to parents of elementary and middle school um [2:30:31] students. You'll see on the graphic that the parents that rated um importance of [2:30:38] instruction in each of the areas as very important are depicted in blue and um [2:30:43] the percentages of parents that rated these items as important for instruction [2:30:49] are rated in red. Even though the survey was sent to elementary and middle school [2:30:54] parents, they were asked um each level at which they had children and parents [2:31:00] of children across all levels were represented. Nearly 80% of parent [2:31:05] respondents indicated that students receiving age appropriate instruction in the areas of problem solving and social [2:31:11] emotional skills was very important. Planning for the future and professional skills were rated by parents as being [2:31:17] the lowest level of importance. However, there were still 78% of and 80% of [2:31:22] parents respectively who rated these areas as being either important or very important. The importance of receiving [2:31:29] instruction and social emotional um areas overall was similar across levels [2:31:35] in which parent respondents currently have children enrolled. [2:31:41] We also wanted to to um present to you or show you um conversely the percentage [2:31:46] of parents that rated these items as not important to instruct. Um so in [2:31:53] contrast, 5% or less of parent respondents reported that instruction in each of the social emotional areas was [2:31:58] not important with the highest levels reported in planning for the future which was rated at 5%. followed by [2:32:06] teaching professional skills which was rated as 4% of parents saying that what was not important with instruction in [2:32:12] all of the area other areas at 2% or less of parents reporting that the [2:32:18] instruction in these areas is not important. When we looked at the teacher [2:32:23] survey we asked more about the implementation and the use of the materials. [2:32:30] Um the reported values included strongly agree and agree as you're seeing on the [2:32:35] screen. Teachers of students across all elementary and middle school grade levels were represented in the data that [2:32:42] um was submitted. You know the survey was sent to all elementary and middle [2:32:47] school teachers. The majority of teachers indicated that they were able to teach most or all of the intended [2:32:53] lessons at 55% with an additional 43% saying that they were able to teach some [2:32:59] of the lessons. Nearly 90% of teachers reported that the SEAL materials were [2:33:04] easy to use and teachers agree that the materials are age approp appropriate at [2:33:10] 86% overall. Although there was a higher level of agreement at the elementary [2:33:15] level than at the middle level for that item. In addition, student engagement was reported at higher levels um at the [2:33:21] elementary than it was at the middle school as well. And some of the common um themes [2:33:29] and feedback um from the surveys was at the elementary level. Some of the benefits are common theme of teaching [2:33:36] social skills, community building and that the schoolwide monthly themes with [2:33:42] common vocabulary which helps students apply those skills. [2:33:50] Additional feedback that we received from the committee was to factor in some [2:33:55] potential elementary adjustments and considerations, revisit the instructional time [2:34:01] allocated, increase family communication, and determine ways to lessen preparation time. [2:34:11] At the middle level, the feedback from the committee around the benefits included teaching and problem solving [2:34:17] and social skills, community building and making connections. And then [2:34:23] finally, opportunities for discussion leading to skill application after those [2:34:28] skills have been taught. Some adjustments that were recommended from the committee were to increase [2:34:34] family communication regarding the character strong lessons, seek ways to [2:34:39] increase student engagement, and provide additional training to improve the teacher understanding of the curriculum [2:34:46] material tools. At the conclusion of the [2:34:53] committee's work, uh an administrative recommendation was developed. So that is [2:34:59] what you're seeing here as option one is the recommendation from that committee. The recommendation is to continue to [2:35:06] utilize the schoolboard approved materials and implement modifications as noted by Dr. Wolverton and myself um [2:35:14] with the curriculum and delivery model. A note here in option one based [2:35:20] on um some questions and concerns we from the board. We wanted to provide you an additional layer of flexibility [2:35:28] within option one to change instructional time by reducing the [2:35:33] frequency of um lesson delivery from potentially weekly to monthly at the [2:35:39] elementary level. Some of the buildings I believe are doing it more than just weekly but we would be able to revisit [2:35:46] um the time allotted. Is that accurate representation? Yes. [2:35:53] And with that we also had two other options that uh are being brought forward. The second option is to [2:36:00] continue using the current materials with modifications as noted as Becky had [2:36:06] noted and enter into a curriculum materials adoption process during the [2:36:12] 202526 school year for new SEAL curriculum materials to be implemented [2:36:18] in the 2627 school year. And then option three would be to eliminate purchase [2:36:26] curriculum materials for the 2526 school year and have a district team create [2:36:32] lessons based on the Anoka Henipin core values portrait of a graduate to focus [2:36:38] on school ready character [2:36:44] development. And at this time, we are seeking board action on the recommendation for SEAL materials for [2:36:51] the 202526 school year and beyond. [2:36:57] Thank you for the presentation. Board members, any um discussion? Uh Director Simon, uh thank you. Just a quick thanks [2:37:04] for the presentation. Just a quick question first on option one and maybe I'm not remembering it correctly but [2:37:11] when you talk about the reduced time from weekly to potentially monthly was that based on the committee feedback or [2:37:18] based on board concerns that you brought that forward that was not based on the committee's recommendation. Okay. So [2:37:24] that's just an option for the board to consider if um majority of the board has a concern about the timing. Correct. [2:37:30] Okay. Thank you. [2:37:37] Board members, any other discussion? Uh, Director Hulman. Thank you. Um, I was just wondering how many [2:37:44] parents responded to the survey. Do I don't have that number? Um, but I [2:37:51] can get it for you. Okay. At like ballpark at all. Did just [2:37:58] Do you have it, Becky? I don't know if it's on the material. Director Hulman, I was just reading it before this meeting [2:38:03] in the supplemental materials that we had sent to us with all the details and all the written responses and it was about 1,400 parent responders. Thank [2:38:11] you. [2:38:24] Director Adet. Yeah, if I may, I just um wanted to say that I really appreciated the option three uh solution that was [2:38:32] put forward um where we can create our own program that centers on the values [2:38:38] that we have in the portrait of a graduate um which to me has um I guess [2:38:44] an additional benefit of just consistency between our different programs and things. um you know we'll [2:38:51] we'll we'll gain more consistency by building around those values. Um and I [2:38:57] think this option also proposes it to give teachers um in the classroom a lot [2:39:03] you know more flexibility to um flex lessons plans in and out of um you know [2:39:10] when when they feel the class you know that they're in front of it needs it. So, for example, if if you had a class [2:39:16] that just needed more time working on reading, um this option gives great flexibility to do that. Um and you know, [2:39:25] uh PL which I which I think is actually a real benefit of of what we're talking about here is the ability to say, hey, [2:39:32] right now the focus on our room needs to be on math or on reading. um as we put [2:39:38] all this energy and effort into um you know right now into the uh the new reading program, I think it makes sense. [2:39:44] So, uh for myself, I'm personally convinced that that homegrown option is [2:39:50] what's best for our kids. Um which is why I it it has my support. So, thanks [2:39:55] thanks for putting that together. [2:40:01] Uh Director Langenfeld. Thank you. Um I had the opportunity to serve on the [2:40:06] committee um and sat with parents throughout this conversation and I and [2:40:11] um have go deeper into the data and we looked at it all and had those conversations. I think one of the things [2:40:19] that that my question that I would ponder, I did not hear when we looked at [2:40:25] the re results of the parent surveys that there were parents who had concerns [2:40:31] about our existing curriculum. I did hear and see from teachers that I've talked to um they and it came out in the [2:40:39] survey as well that the time commitments and some of those uh opportunities to [2:40:45] address um all that is on their plates and I appreciate your comment um [2:40:51] director in terms of what's on their plates each and every day. Um I would be [2:40:57] certainly very much in support of looking at the time. I also did a lot of [2:41:02] uh research on the particular curriculum that we are using. I think one of the [2:41:07] important things always is to make sure and it came out and actually Zach, you [2:41:13] and I were talking about uh looking into this author and writer and expert in a [2:41:19] lot of things and he's got a he's got a podcast out there that talks about the importance of making sure that you have [2:41:26] empirical evidence when you're having conversations and having kind of [2:41:31] different perspectives on things in disagreement or or just bringing in the [2:41:36] empirical data. And so I I went and we had received an email of course from [2:41:42] Character Strong folks and um talking about from their founder, I think it was [2:41:47] John John Norland. Does that sound right? Anyway, and he talked about the evidence-based curriculum that they're [2:41:54] using. So then I did a lot a little more deeper dive into what their curriculum [2:42:00] was based on and the research behind it and the evidence as well. [2:42:06] um looking at where where it was and and so it it made sense to me that the [2:42:14] recommendation from the parents and I you know I did my whole doctoral [2:42:19] dissertation on parent involvement and parent voice matters tremendously to me. [2:42:24] Um and I am a parent and a grandparent as well and I got into education because I was a parent and my kids were well [2:42:32] into school when I started teaching. So that parent voice is so vitally important. And so then the question [2:42:39] becomes we didn't offer an option three. I don't know where parents would be at with that. But I did not see um a reason [2:42:47] from them other than a parent who may say they they wish to not have it at all [2:42:53] and we already offered that opt out. And then some parents said they wanted u [2:42:59] more communication home. In fact, some wanted to be able to extend the learning at in the family. Um, so just and I I [2:43:08] believe I was with a middle school parent and in at my table too in our table discussions um a middle school, [2:43:15] high school and an elementary group there to listen to their concerns. And so I I felt that in [2:43:23] the room there was significant support for the current programming pieces. things like they talked about kindness [2:43:30] and and selflessness and forgiveness, some of those important areas as well, [2:43:36] you know. So, so right now I I I'm trying to balance it and the principles [2:43:41] have weighed in. PTO we just heard from and they they named they talked about uh [2:43:47] the reduction in behaviors. One school that weighed in, the principal talked [2:43:52] about the fact that since they've been using Leader and me, their suspensions from 2021 to 2025 dropped 13 down to [2:44:02] two. Their room evacuations dropped significantly from 20 to zero. So you [2:44:08] can see that there is positive impact connected to these in their environment. So, um, as I look at this, there's no, [2:44:16] my concern is capacity right now and there's 1,400 parents that [2:44:23] weighed in and their voices are there. What would it take to do option [2:44:30] three? How would we do it? What would the capacity be? And I'm going to put something out there that we talk a lot [2:44:37] about going rogue with content and worried about and concerned about making [2:44:44] sure that we have more um you know assurance that that we don't [2:44:50] have classroom teachers. Not that classroom teachers would would you know [2:44:55] typically do this but again that has been a a conversation at this table. So [2:45:01] I I just I look at that and say we we know we have an evidence-based curriculum currently in place. We know [2:45:09] that there's research behind it. We know that parents overall just, you know, [2:45:15] most would support it. And I'm looking at do we have the capacity right now to [2:45:22] switch gears completely for the next fall with all the literacy writing [2:45:29] curriculum and all of those things. At this point, I I support the the [2:45:34] recommendation from option one, which was part of the committee and the social emotional committee based on those [2:45:41] reasons. Parent voice matters to me tremendously. And so that would be one [2:45:46] of the priorities when we go out and ask parents what they think. We have to really be mindful and responsive to [2:45:53] their voice in my opinion. So, and look at the evidence and research. [2:46:02] Thank you members. Uh, any other discussion or comments? Uh, Director Simon. Thanks, [2:46:09] Casey. Um, thanks. I'm back again. Sorry. Asked a question before. Now, I'll give comments. Oh, we um, you know, [2:46:16] the board and we all talked about this at the work session, so I know most of the public doesn't get to hear that. So, [2:46:21] at least I'll recap my position and my comments there. Um, so I have in my time [2:46:28] here, um, reviewed every elementary SEAL lesson. Um, and and I think all board [2:46:36] members were given access to that. Um, I didn't see anything controversial in there. So, I was I'm not concerned that [2:46:42] there's something in our current um, curriculum that is controversial. So I [2:46:49] do not have um a concern about elementary um option one continuing [2:46:54] forward um with that. Um now I for secondary um at least middle school [2:47:02] right we do something different in high school but in middle school I will say that the majority of the feedback that I [2:47:08] personally have received is that um that we could and maybe should do [2:47:14] something different in middle schools. So, that's kind of where I still lean. Um, when we talked about it at the board [2:47:20] session though, um, some board members talked about option three as a good [2:47:25] option, and I said, um, that is something that I could support. Um, [2:47:31] because I think it will, if this board can come to an agreement on that, we could still give our at least elementary [2:47:37] schools what they need and what's working for them. um and do it um in a way that does um as member Odette said [2:47:45] does give some flexibility in there also which I think can be important um since that meeting and um we heard a little [2:47:52] bit here tonight but I heard it very directly maybe other board members heard it too is that um is that [2:47:58] for courses that we've adopted late such as the two social studies courses the [2:48:05] psychology course and specifically I'll talk about since those other others aren't on the agenda that we will not [2:48:13] get curriculum writers, teachers volunteering to do curriculum writing for that. So if that's the case, option [2:48:22] three is is not something that will go forward. So um I believe that's the [2:48:29] case. Um I've been told that's the case, so I'm going to believe it. So, I'm not sure even though I could support it if [2:48:36] we have um curriculum writers, I don't think we'll have that. So, I'm not sure that voting on it really makes a [2:48:42] difference at all tonight. Um for me anyway, for me personally. So, I think that then that brings us to, you know, [2:48:50] could option one pass? I I'm hesit um personally with the discussions [2:48:55] we've had at the board. So what do we do for next year to meet state standard then state statutes if we don't right we [2:49:02] have to have something in seal what that something is is up to the district. Um but if option three at least for me is a [2:49:10] it's a no-go because I don't think we'll get curriculum writers. I'm not going to give false hope to um to the public at [2:49:16] this moment. If we can confirm curriculum writers and bring this back in the future um I might reconsider that [2:49:22] but tonight I can't. Um, so then if we can't adopt anything, what happens? Um, [2:49:27] we have a current curriculum in place. Traditionally, that goes forward, but that has about [2:49:34] $67,000 for next year in the budget, right? And I think this board has been pretty clear that if there's something [2:49:41] in the budget that folks don't agree on, the budget's not going to pass. So then the I guess just the logical conclusions [2:49:48] of this discussion could affect other things, too. So, I just wanted to bring that out for the public with new [2:49:54] information since our work session um and kind of how the at least my process [2:49:59] of how I think through things. So, um I could still go with option one. I would really like a review of middle schools [2:50:06] though if if we did that. Um but I won't, you know, I won't be a stopping point to that. Um I would just I'm going [2:50:13] to keep saying it. Um, and then I I won't I will support option three if we [2:50:19] can confirm curriculum writers, but as of tonight, I won't vote for it because I don't believe we will. So, I just need [2:50:25] some assurances that we can actually execute that option before I vote for it. So, that's at least where I'm at. [2:50:36] Any other comments or discussion? Director Hulman. [2:50:44] Thank you. Um perhaps do you have any insights or thoughts of would we be able [2:50:49] to get um people to work on that curriculum writing this summer? [2:50:55] So I can speak um from middle school. I think it's important context for us to remember this is the second year of a [2:51:02] purchased curriculum. Prior to that we did use an noah henipin developed [2:51:08] materials for um in our advisory program and there was a desire to provide [2:51:14] consistency across all six schools ensure that we had evidence-based curriculum that uh created the kind of [2:51:20] fidelity that that we desire in the district with implementation. So, we have had materials in the past that were [2:51:27] written um inhouse and uh again we're in we're [2:51:32] we're here today because we went through the curriculum adoption process that you've heard so much about. We explored [2:51:38] our current materials that an nohenipin had written. We explored leader and me and we explored character strong and [2:51:44] came forward in the spring of 2023 with a recommendation for character strong which this board approved. So long [2:51:51] answer to your short question. Um I think it would be extremely difficult at this point in time. I um can't say that [2:51:59] it would be a no for sure. I I think it would be extremely challenging. The [2:52:04] people who have expertise in writing materials um are far few and far [2:52:11] between. And so I I you know do we have folks that could do it and have done it before? Absolutely. Are they willing to [2:52:18] do it now? Um, I think they have concerns about their own time ability to [2:52:24] do so and what happens to those materials once they're written. And excuse me, I would concur for [2:52:31] elementary with what Becky said that we would um face the same considerations [2:52:37] that we'd have to factor in. Parallel to that, respectfully, it's May and some of [2:52:44] our staff who would potentially be curriculum writers in the summer may already have mapped out their summer. [2:52:49] So, usually when we're engaging staff in the considerations for curriculum [2:52:55] writing and, you know, looking at that time that they would have to set aside, we typically would map that out a little [2:53:02] earlier. Thank you for that. Um yeah, I just [2:53:08] definitely thinking about asking a lot of the teachers and we there's so much especially in the elementary school. [2:53:13] They're going to be working hard on adopting this new reading curriculum and I noticed that one of the comments on [2:53:19] the survey was I am able to finish the lessons in the time and um 51% so that [2:53:27] looking at half they don't have the time right now to devote to that curriculum. [2:53:33] So just thinking about as a big picture, how does this fit in? We want to prioritize reading and ensure that our [2:53:41] kids are moving forward in that. We're going to need to give teachers the time to work on that really important reading [2:53:48] information. And so I'm trying to understand how we can juggle um this [2:53:53] curriculum that has a cost and is um restrictive of teachers time um when [2:54:01] we're trying to get some really good reading things done. So, could could you just wanting to [2:54:07] build off of that, could you remind us of the amount of time that's currently spent in both elementary and middle [2:54:13] school on the character stronger leader in me curriculum? At the elementary level, I I think I'm [2:54:19] going to respond with um two parts to answering that question. One is approximately three times a week in [2:54:27] their morning meeting time. That's when they look at that. Parallel to that, um [2:54:33] I know I have already started working with elementary principles on looking at the instructional schedules because what [2:54:40] um director Hulman just spoke to is also some of the feedback that as you've [2:54:45] noted that we're hearing from teachers, but I've been working with principles. We're looking at our instructional [2:54:51] schedules and our minutes. And I would say it's not unique to when I was an elementary principal or when I was a [2:54:57] middle school principal. we don't have enough minutes in the day for everything that we would like to um be offering our [2:55:03] students. What I am working on with our principles and looking at our instructional schedules is now starting [2:55:10] to also look at in relation to if the board approves the new ELA curriculum. [2:55:17] We're looking at our minutes of instruction in relation to literacy, [2:55:22] math, and then also looking at the morning meeting time, which consistently [2:55:28] every one of our 25 principles said, "Do not touch that." Teachers really need that morning meeting time. But if we're [2:55:35] going to continue with SEAL, how and how would that fit into that time block? And [2:55:41] do we make as noted I think in option one, do we make adjustments in relation to the number of minutes and the lessons [2:55:50] that we can say with confidence we can teach throughout the school year because maybe that needs to be modified. Yeah. [2:55:57] And just to build on that, the the essence of that item was about the length of lessons you compared to the [2:56:03] amount of time that's allocated. Yeah. So the lessons are longer than the [2:56:08] morning meeting time or the Becky will talk about the advisory time that that they allocate. So pairing back those [2:56:15] lessons was really the essence of not being able to teach them in the time allotted. [2:56:22] And for middle school every day at middle school we begin with advisory. Uh that is about a 20 minute block of time [2:56:29] for a smaller group of students to connect with an adult to start their [2:56:34] day. one day per week we do character strong lessons. Those lessons are [2:56:40] intended to be in a longer block of time than 20 minutes. So I don't know the [2:56:45] breakdown of elementary to to middle school in the response to that particular question. But um it would be [2:56:51] you know it is a challenge for them to do the lesson as designed in those 20 minutes. So the options that teachers [2:56:58] have is some of them shorten those lessons, some of them carry it over to the next day and span a lesson over two [2:57:05] days. They have some of that flexibility as director had referenced earlier to [2:57:11] match with what the needs are of their particular classroom. But that connection time in the morning is is [2:57:18] designated for those types of activities within our middle school schedule. Um, but one day per week is the expectation [2:57:26] for a character strong lesson. And as Becky noted with character strong, we [2:57:31] would mirror that same component in relation to maybe taking a lesson and breaking it into two days versus one [2:57:39] and fewer topics. Superintendent fewer topics. Yes. I think Director Hulen Hulman's um asking some good questions. [2:57:46] I think that's the path I would encourage the board to go down. So, um, you got 350 teachers that rated this [2:57:54] at 75% actually a little higher than our reading adoption that you just voted on. You got 1,400 parents that basically put [2:58:01] it at 95% satisfaction. So, you got a core uh support there. I think it's [2:58:06] frequency and duration that you can adjust if you want to. Um, because I can't give you the assurance we will [2:58:13] have the curriculum writers to do it. Uh if we do, it's then the question of what's the timeline and capacity. So [2:58:19] that might have to be a long game versus uh over the sum I mean I don't believe we can do it over this this summer. Over [2:58:26] time we could probably build an implementation plan once we get enough people and that that would just have to be some revised [2:58:33] um planning build building out that process. So what you if you just went [2:58:38] from weekly to monthly for example with the two we have the teacher focus can now be on the literacy adoption. they [2:58:44] already know this stuff. They don't have to spend any more time learning something new. Um, and they can focus on [2:58:50] learning the new things they got to, you know, they're responsible for around literacy. So maybe the compromise is for [2:58:57] the next year do a reduced frequency frequency and duration allow us to focus on the literacy [2:59:03] implementation. Um, collect more data from the teachers from that adjustment. Uh I think you [2:59:11] have greater fidelity if you versus creating our own. I think Dr. Langenfeld [2:59:17] you mentioned that as well. So you can take the workload pieces and minimize those and allow us to focus on that [2:59:22] literacy piece. So maybe that's the common um agreement or the maybe the compromise [2:59:28] you can have here and going from maybe three times a week even if it was monthly needed one lesson once a month. [2:59:33] the eight lessons. All board members can see those eight or nine lessons, get agreement on those from those two that [2:59:39] we already have, and our teachers already know those lessons. They don't have to spend any new time because they're going to be their capacity is [2:59:45] going to be really centered around the the new reading adoption, especially at the elementary level. So, that's [2:59:51] something I'd put on the tables for you to consider. It's a little bit of a twist on option one. Um I I share the [2:59:57] same concerns with option three. I get the idea and uh um but I I think from a [3:00:04] capacity in the system standpoint that's a harder thing to guarantee a solid outcome on at this [3:00:10] point. [3:00:15] Director Adette, I'm rather shocked at how we how we um I don't know, we [3:00:21] somehow seem first of all, we waste so much time on this program. It blows my mind and and just shocked that we would [3:00:30] go from a position of acting like this is so critical, but now we're willing to give it all away. We'll give we'll give [3:00:35] up. We won't do it every day. We'll do it way less. We'll just put it off to the side. We'll give teachers the flexibility to go without it. Pretty [3:00:41] funny to me, actually. Um, I'm sure our survey didn't ask didn't ask parents um [3:00:48] or didn't inform them of some of the criticisms of the program before um before it pointed asked some the [3:00:54] questions about it. And if it had, I'm sure they might find as I have that there are great concerns with the with [3:01:00] the content out there. And I've I've wasted a lot of time. So, I'm not going to waste any time about it tonight other [3:01:05] than to say to parents, if you just Google it, controversy related to social [3:01:11] emotional learning or problems with social emotional learning, you'll you'll find them and they are there. I I [3:01:18] personally consider it uh what's behind these programs to be poison to our kids. I'll never vote for any of these [3:01:25] programs aside from the the one that we create here because we can keep an eye on it. We can we can uh we can match it [3:01:34] to values that you know we have in our portrait that are longstanding here that [3:01:39] uh that just make sense and um give what kids need uh which is you know they they [3:01:45] need they need some and it's it's valuable to give some character education to kids. There never was a [3:01:50] problem with doing it until we went in and we tried to fix it with these programs and we haven't fixed anything. [3:01:57] Um, we could easily go back to where we've been. Um, we have we have programs [3:02:02] already created. Um, they match our portrait of a graduate, I'm sure of it, or they could easily be modified to do [3:02:08] it. So, but but at any rate, if we want to debate it longer, we can debate it [3:02:14] longer. That's fine. Maybe I'll just add, you're right. We've [3:02:21] debate debated it for over a year. So, I think a lot's been said and we just there's just differences of opinion. we just disagree on it. But I would I would [3:02:28] offer to you um if you can't get to option one writing your own and trying to do [3:02:36] that even if it takes longer is still better than nothing. And that's my recommendation to you as superintendent. These are important [3:02:41] skills. Our staff and parents have shared that through the surveys we've used and I know any survey can be [3:02:48] debated. What's the best data we have and it's been our process to collect it. I would still say we would need to come [3:02:54] back to you with a plan to map out option three. It's still better than [3:02:59] doing nothing because I think it's if you want to increase achievement, this is a important piece of the puzzle. But [3:03:05] my primary recommendation as the team and just following the committee's recommendations is the adjustment [3:03:11] offered in option one. [3:03:16] Coach Arco, I do think that they are valuable skills, but I pair that with the fact [3:03:23] that disruptive behaviors have never been worse, it seems. So, regardless of what we think about the skills, it's not [3:03:33] working. It may be worse if we don't, too. These are these are skills that I think are your prevention efforts, [3:03:39] right? The research is clear. This is your prevention versus response efforts. And I've this district's prided [3:03:45] themselves on strong prevention, strong response, and I know we've debated that a lot as well. So I would just advise [3:03:51] against um you know, I still think it's an important component to what our students [3:03:58] need to achieve not just in literacy but math and the other uh academic core areas. [3:04:05] Uh Director Lingfeld, thank you. um a a question as we think about this and and [3:04:12] to your point Director Adet I think that one of the things for writing your own [3:04:18] you can customize and we talked about that capacity is a huge issue right now [3:04:23] we have a curriculum that um is important to our schools they already know what to do so my co and I don't [3:04:29] want to lose sight of the middle school um that engagement is a concern and a question so then my my wonderment [3:04:38] and is what kind of runway or ramp would we need? So if if the process were to [3:04:45] let continue at least at the elementary uh this coming year um what we have [3:04:52] knowing that they already know what this curriculum looks like. it wouldn't require a huge reset and and knowing [3:05:00] that um because they have the literacy already in in need to do the learning as [3:05:06] superintendent said but to to start this conversation around portrait of a [3:05:12] graduate. Some are much more familiar with what portrait of a graduate is. There are people who can do writing. It [3:05:19] depends what their capacity is. Is there opportunity to [3:05:25] to move forward because we are required by state law with what we know and then [3:05:32] at the same and be responsive to our our parents and our community at this time. [3:05:39] But then also take into account that we would, you know, look to to continue [3:05:44] that process to to move and do writing through the school year to be able to [3:05:50] have that in place. I I just think the capacity piece and going out for today, [3:05:56] this is what we know, but I believe that there could be some input certainly um [3:06:03] in middle school and and um move that forward. So, I guess what I'm looking at [3:06:09] is can can we amend an option that would continue uh [3:06:14] elementary um and possibly uh secondary as well for [3:06:21] this moment, but then um engage with an agreement that we would move forward [3:06:26] with this writing during the next school year to be in place for the following school year. I just I just think that [3:06:33] this is an important conversation that and the the writing is going to matter, [3:06:38] but we have to give our team time, our staff time. And right now, we know we [3:06:45] have evidence-based materials. We know we have materials in place that can can [3:06:51] address um with with fidelity and but we're going to need some time if we're [3:06:57] going to go back to um everybody write their own kind of thing. So that's [3:07:04] that's a consideration. I don't know if people could get there. [3:07:10] Another point um to add into the discussion here, we have shared around this table, [3:07:18] just even at tonight's meeting alone, an appreciation for evidence-based decisionmaking, an appreciation for [3:07:24] randomized controlled trials, independent evaluators, and [3:07:30] science focused decision- making. We've received information from both [3:07:36] companies, the Character Strong and the Leader and Me that are used in our schools currently about how their [3:07:42] materials were developed. With that in mind, what I just said, trials, [3:07:48] evidence-based, using expert information about what students need. In addition to [3:07:54] to your point, director Audet being supportive of the portrait of a graduate framework, character strong aligns their [3:08:01] skills in their curriculum to the portrait of a graduate framework's college and career readiness and [3:08:06] employer desired competencies. They include leadership, empathy, adaptability, being a learner, [3:08:12] a collaborator, a problem solver, a critical thinker, being curious and innovative. all of the things that have [3:08:18] kind of come up in different discussions around this board table um tonight alone [3:08:23] as I think about the timing that we're at the the stated interests and [3:08:30] appreciation for those focused areas and the way of developing curriculum that [3:08:35] we've talked about tonight. It seems like this idea of developing our own [3:08:41] option while might be nice to have is a solution kind of in search of a problem. [3:08:46] The the curriculum that we have meets all of those needs already. And to the points shared by uh director Langenfeld, [3:08:54] Simon and our superintendent as well as the team in front of us today about capacity, we we as a board are putting a [3:09:01] lot of stress in our system. lot of decisions are being made and changed and delayed that are now backing [3:09:09] us up into this capacity concern. It seems um it seems unnecessary to to ask [3:09:16] for one more thing when we have all of the access to all of the materials. Um I [3:09:22] know I've also looked at all of the materials and have no concerns. Our our families and and community members can [3:09:28] Google anything they want and find out. There are national stories. There could [3:09:34] be um districts in different places that they could find information on and be concerned about based on those stories. [3:09:40] I am certain that that exists out there. But that is not true and that is not happening in Anoka Henipin and we need [3:09:46] to acknowledge that. Um these programs [3:09:51] are serving students well. We've asked for parent feedback, teacher feedback. We should trust our process. And for [3:09:58] those reasons, um, I support staying with what we are currently doing. I'd be open to a discussion about timing, [3:10:05] but you know, wasting so much time in this when it's three times a week at elementary at morning meetings, which [3:10:11] are like 15 20 minutes long um, and once a a week in middle school for 20 [3:10:18] minutes. When we know that evidence shows students having strong social emotional skills that we just read [3:10:25] about, right? problem solver, critical thinker, sets them up for academic success and creates the opportunity for [3:10:31] more learning. Um, I think I think we need to stick with with what we've [3:10:36] already put so much time and energy into coach [3:10:45] Jericho. Um, sorry, I totally lost my train of thought. I Well, give me a second. [3:10:54] Um so I had the opportunity to um attend [3:11:00] the social emotional learning uh committee that was discussing this. The [3:11:06] reality of the situation is that I I was more well I think director Langenfeld and I were more observers than anything [3:11:12] which is great. got to see a lot, but most of the the parents and the adults that showed up to participate didn't [3:11:19] have a real familiarity with SEAL and which is fine. Everybody, they know what [3:11:25] they know. If you don't know what it is, that's totally fine. So, part of the committee was to tell them essentially what it is, introduce it to them. And I [3:11:32] think director alluded to this, but I certainly witnessed it. It's just the reality of how it played out is if you put a group of adults in a room that [3:11:39] don't know anything and then tell them how to think about something and then ask for their opinion, there's really only one opinion they can offer and [3:11:44] that's the opinion we got. Second thing, just to respond to something else you said, you had mentioned that the [3:11:50] companies had given us feedback on their curriculum. Well, sure they did, but if [3:11:55] you ask any company that sells any product if we should buy their product, you're only ever going to get one answer. And then the third inconsistency [3:12:01] that isn't adding up to me is at the last work session we had discussed you know the the idea of purchasing several [3:12:08] other textbooks and writing curriculum for a lot of other classes presumably if we were going to do that all the [3:12:14] resources would be there to write the curriculum. I find it impossible to believe that if we have the resources [3:12:20] for that now had we just voted on it that they're not there to write. While it might be true that maybe the there's [3:12:26] certain teachers or staff who have a specialty inCA, I'm certain that our [3:12:32] curriculum writers are talented enough to write a homegrown program, even if that's not necessarily their specialty. [3:12:39] So, we certainly do have the staff. We have the resources. And yeah, I I don't see any reason why we're not doing [3:12:44] option three. Director Lingfeld, I um will completely [3:12:53] disagree that the parents in the room had no idea what SEAL was. I I was in [3:12:58] the same room with you and the discussion was around they were identifying the skill sets that their [3:13:04] children were learning in in the classes. So um the people that were sitting at my table were very engaged [3:13:12] and could participate fully. Um so I my [3:13:17] takeaway was extremely different and experience in that room that night those two meetings. So I just want to I just [3:13:25] if parents are listening for those who had attended u please know that um I [3:13:31] felt you had a a a significant understanding of what your children are [3:13:36] learning and understood the curriculum. In fact, um you know, again, families [3:13:42] had asked specifically if they could even have it sent to their homes because they felt it would be so important to um [3:13:50] and shared um anecdotal stories about their children coming home and talking [3:13:56] about different core values that they had learned and talked about. and um they wanted to at home continue and [3:14:03] ensure that the language and the you know the same terminology was used and and definition. So that was my [3:14:11] experience in the same room. So I'll just leave it at that. I just think if parents hear that I I I want to [3:14:18] acknowledge that the people that I heard knew what social emotional learning was. [3:14:24] Just to reiterate, the survey itself went out to all elementary and middle school parents, not just the people in [3:14:30] the room as well. Thank you, Director Simon. Thanks, Casey. Um, [3:14:38] so again, just speaking for myself here, but um I don't and I'm going to I'm going to [3:14:45] I guess call out or maybe agree with one board member here, but I I don't think that what member Odette said is um [3:14:53] unreasonable. I think it's a reasonable position. He's You've been completely clear on this. You're absolutely right. [3:14:59] Um, and I think that the discussion prior, at least what I heard, I'm not putting words in your mouth, but what I [3:15:05] heard was, um, the curriculum we have is tied to, um, a national company that [3:15:13] gives agreement or standards or what have you for this, whether they asked for it or not, um, they were linked to [3:15:20] it. And I think that if the public um, Googles that, they'll probably find exactly what member Odette said. So, I [3:15:26] don't think that's unreasonable. As a matter of fact, maybe I don't find it unreasonable because I've been in the [3:15:32] same position in years past when things have been brought forward that have been tied to national groups, if you will, [3:15:38] and I voted against them. So, I I don't think that's unreasonable. What I did in this, and Mary, you'll remember on [3:15:45] curriculum instruction assessment committee when this was first brought forward, um um I think I was maybe the [3:15:51] only one at the time, but I was like, we need to see I need to see all the lessons. And you gave access to it, [3:15:56] right? not just for me but everyone on that curriculum and instruction assessment committee because I wanted to [3:16:02] at least for my own personal um my own knowledge understand that what [3:16:09] we were bringing forward was not that I don't think anyone in the public would consider controversial. So so [3:16:15] specifically what we're doing in an noaipin I reviewed that and I did not feel that way. Um and then I just want [3:16:22] to clarify. So a lot was talked about capacity and I agree with all of it, right? I think capacity is an issue. [3:16:29] What I was referring to on the feed specific feedback I received since our [3:16:35] work session was what we heard tonight from the teachers that came that um that [3:16:40] they have gone through you know our robust curriculum adoption process have [3:16:45] brought forward recommendations not just onCL but on social studies and all these others and that um our board as a group [3:16:54] does not agree to that and and give them direction of okay now write an option [3:16:59] for this case seal or go back and meet the past standards with the new book. [3:17:05] What I have heard specifically is that we will not get cooperation because of that. So, so at [3:17:13] least for me at this moment, I mean I would propose. I'm not going to because I don't think it would go forward. But [3:17:19] um I would be okay with option three if we said we amend it and say if we don't [3:17:25] get curriculum writer teachers, we'll continue doing what we do. I don't think that will pass. So I'm not going to [3:17:31] suggest it. But um but so I I think that voting for [3:17:36] something that I do not believe has any realistic possibility of going forward just doesn't make sense. So in the in [3:17:43] the future if um if we find from our leaders that hey [3:17:49] we have some great experts who are willing to write curriculum I'm fine bringing it back but tonight I don't [3:17:54] believe that's the case. Uh coach Arco. [3:18:00] All right fine. How about we do an amended version of option three [3:18:05] and if no one can be found then we will do I believe it's option two which is [3:18:11] minimizing the amount of time because one of the biggest complaints brought forward by teachers is they don't have the time that was like number one thing [3:18:17] I heard from teachers at the at the committee. So how about that something like that I would propose not [3:18:24] necessarily make a motion at this time but I'd just offer that [3:18:41] board members. Any further discussion on these ideas? [3:18:47] Director Simon. So, I'll answer Zach directly. No one's jumping in. Um, I am [3:18:52] fine with if we amended option three if you're in for this. I think this is what [3:18:58] I heard, but this is what I'd be before. Um, amend option three that if we do not [3:19:04] um if we cannot execute the curriculum writing that we will continue um option [3:19:11] one with the review of timing. I think that's what you said. So, I'm for that. I would vote for that. Can I uh I would [3:19:19] add to that just to be a little more specific. If um curriculum writers aren't found, then we would do what Cory [3:19:26] had proposed and switch it from I think I heard like three times a week to once a month or sorry three times a month to [3:19:31] once a month or do the less but still continue with what we have just do it less assuming curriculum [3:19:39] writers can't be found. Um the the only thing I'd like to do is [3:19:47] um say yes, we can I I would I would agree with um looking at less time. Um [3:19:54] but leaving the flexibility up to the teacher. We talked about flexibility. If their specific classroom needs more of [3:20:01] it in their expert opinion, um I want to make sure I give that flexibility to them. So not sure if that works for you, [3:20:07] but that's what I'd be okay with. So, I just have a question for the whole [3:20:13] board. What exactly happens if no options pass? Um, it's my understanding that if we do [3:20:21] not vote to rescend a previous board decision or vote to adopt a new decision [3:20:28] that would replace the existing, then the existing umCCL decision would stand [3:20:33] like what we're currently doing would remain. So normally I would agree. I guess the [3:20:40] reason I asked the question is because I thought the reason we're in this position is because we did formally agree to go down a new path that [3:20:47] involved this investig investigative process. So it seems like because we [3:20:53] agreed to that which had the assumption that there would be an outcome. I don't this is why I'm asking [3:20:59] I don't think it would apply in this situation. I don't think we would default to what's currently being done. [3:21:05] Does anybody else have any thoughts on that? [3:21:11] Were you raising your hand? I'm sorry. I couldn't tell Director Aette. I gave the thumbs up. I was strongly agreeing with [3:21:17] Mr. Aro about that. Okay. [3:21:23] Director Simon, I think that was the general discussion about entering into this process that this board would find [3:21:30] a way forward, right? So, I think that was the general discussion. I think that um and I mentioned this early on um so [3:21:38] if we don't right I mean if we don't figure out what to do and we don't do anything then I guess we invite the [3:21:46] state in to look that we're not meeting state statute right I don't know what that means right they don't come in but [3:21:51] this is a public meeting so I guess I just said it so the state would know we're not meeting state statute um and [3:21:58] if we did continue forward um like you had suggested did um because that was [3:22:04] the previous decision. Then I think this board, like I said, and I did the [3:22:10] research, just under 67,000 will be spent on what we did last [3:22:15] year for next year, and that would be in the budget. So then in June, I'm I'm not [3:22:20] making a prediction, but it would be logical to think we might not pass a budget. So I think it's a predicament. I [3:22:26] don't I don't know where to go from there. uh coach Jericho. So I'm going to make a [3:22:33] statement and if anyone disagrees I would like to understand why that is. The statement is I am 100% certain that [3:22:39] if we found an independent contractor in the occurrence that no one in the district wanted to write the curriculum, [3:22:44] we paid the independent contractor and gave them a portrait of a graduate that they could write the curriculum to that [3:22:50] and they would have no opinion one way or the other about what's happened previously in the [3:22:55] district with curriculum adoption. So, is anything I just said false there, [3:23:02] Superintendent McIntyre? Probably very true and probably very expensive as we're staring down many millions of [3:23:09] cuts. So, it's not a path I'd encourage the board to go down because I think um it's much more cost-effective and get [3:23:16] more buyin for our own staff to write it. So, I'd rather figure out a longer term plan to do it internally. I just [3:23:21] think you're asking for a very I don't know. We haven't done that. Um, that's just my fear is it could be [3:23:28] cost prohibitive, but we'd have to figure that out. I I would rather see we [3:23:33] the bottom line is board, we need a decision because we don't know what we're doing next year and it's we got a [3:23:40] month of school left. So, at some point, I'm encouraging you to pick one [3:23:47] of the options so we at least know we what we have to do like starting tomorrow as far as organizing and planning. And you heard teachers say [3:23:53] earlier, they're planning their summers if they haven't already. Um, so I' I'd rather not push the [3:24:01] decision down the line. We've pushed it for a year already. [3:24:08] Coach Era, I would like a quote on what that would cost from a contractor who'd [3:24:13] be willing to do it if we can't find anyone in the district before I'd be willing to vote on anything other than option three. [3:24:20] Well, our quoting process, I don't know if Michelle's in the room, that's typically if we're following protocol or [3:24:26] policy, that's an RFP process, which can take days or weeks. That doesn't help us in the short [3:24:32] term. That like I think we got to do that in a in a certain way. I mean, I [3:24:41] Yeah, Director Simon, go ahead. I I I don't mean to I'm not jumping on [3:24:47] what you said. I'm just going to add to it. I think that you don't have to do a formal quote. You can get you can figure [3:24:54] out is this possible and about how much it would have cost instead of like I think I think that would be I think that [3:25:01] would be reasonable for a a board member asking for that. I think you could get without a formal quote you could [3:25:07] probably get something and then um Corey your your comment about vote on [3:25:13] something. I I just I don't know. I I don't feel good about voting for an [3:25:20] option that I think we cannot execute. I I that doesn't make sense to me. So, I agree with you. I would love to vote on [3:25:26] something, but I don't want to vote on something with a hope and a prayer. I want to vote on something I know we can execute. And tonight, I don't think we [3:25:33] can. So, I'm I'm just not going to vote on that tonight. I I in the future, if [3:25:38] you can guarantee me or we can find that we're going to do it, um we can I can reconsider. [3:25:44] I just offer the board, mayor, you can correct me if I'm wrong. Our contracts are expiring if they haven't already. I [3:25:50] think pushing our board meeting back a week put I mean not that they can't be renegotiated but they it's different at [3:25:55] the two levels. At the elementary level for character strong we're locked in until August for the three schools that [3:26:02] are leader in me their contracts are up in May. [3:26:09] Um Director Langenfeld. Um, as I as I look at option two, continue the current [3:26:17] materials with modifications as noted and that would be the timing piece. [3:26:22] Correct? And then enter into curriculum material adoption process. Um, that [3:26:28] could be not an adoption process. It could be the writing. It could be the new cell curriculum in 2627. [3:26:37] the the the concern I go back to is I want to be sure that what we're bringing [3:26:42] forward to our students reflects exactly what number three is intended um that [3:26:48] the team gets the local flavor to and and I would be concerned quite frankly [3:26:54] about an outside person who has no no attachment to this district. One of the benefits of our own curriculum writers [3:27:01] is because they know this district and it's a unique district and and so that [3:27:08] would be the wonderment if if people could get behind that with that recognition. I just truly believe that [3:27:15] there is going to be time needed if we are going to develop our own curriculum [3:27:20] materials at this late date based on what two things new [3:27:26] learning and the writing pieces. Those two pieces alone are going to give us a [3:27:31] long on-ramp that are I we won't be ready by fall. I mean, I'm I'm I'm [3:27:37] looking at it from my own experiences um as a as a person who has been in [3:27:43] education and was there for 30 years. So, I know this takes time if done well [3:27:48] and right. And I don't think anybody here wants it not done well and right. [3:27:53] I'll just stop at that. But top two would be an option if you would look to, [3:27:59] you know, combine three with it and it give us that space. [3:28:05] Coach Jericho. So, as I'm thinking this through, I think there are two fail safes in place. The first one, it sounds like we've done [3:28:11] this in the past. So, the district has written curriculum. I would be stunned if that curriculum was thrown in the [3:28:18] garbage, so to speak, and we don't have it anymore. So, I'm sure it still exists. Um, so there's a chance we don't [3:28:23] have to have any curriculum written at all. We could just look at what exists, modify it as we see fit. And then the [3:28:29] second thing, just to frame this properly, there is a 100% chance, not a [3:28:36] 99%, a 100% chance that a curriculum writer external to the district would [3:28:42] write curriculum. Just depends on the cost. Now, you might not like the cost. You might not agree to the cost, but I'm [3:28:47] certain there are contractors, there are businesses, whoever that would do something like this. It's just a matter [3:28:53] of are we willing to pay for it. Right now, I heard the number thrown out. were paying $67,000 a year for the current [3:28:58] programs. So I would say at an absolute minimum if they were willing to do it for $67,000 or less, it's a wash. It's [3:29:07] act it would in a sense be no cost or the same cost. So fail safe number one, [3:29:13] we've got curriculum already we can use. Let's look at that. Fail safe number two, at a minimum, let's get an actual [3:29:19] price before we just dismiss the fact that we could do that. And then of course perhaps the most important piece [3:29:25] of all we don't actually know for certain. No one's willing to write it. We just have a hunch that that might be the case. And if it is that's too bad I [3:29:32] guess but that's what the other two options are for. Uh, Becky Rodier, to your point, uh, [3:29:40] co-chair, middle school does have materials that we used previously. Um, [3:29:46] that the lift for middle school to, I think, did you say dust those off at [3:29:51] whatever phrase you used? Um, would would likely be less than what it would be at elementary. Um, and so, you know, [3:29:59] that might be something for you to consider. Not that it's my place here to give you another option, but I don't [3:30:05] think that's possible at elementary. Elementary is uh when you noted um the curriculum [3:30:11] that's been written, that was only at the at the middle school level, not at the elementary level. [3:30:18] So, if you wanted to separate your action, middle school and elementary, I think maybe you were referring to that [3:30:24] to director Simon potentially. and that that wasn't part of the recommendation, [3:30:30] but if that was something that you would agree to to move us forward, might be something worth discussing. [3:30:38] Uh, coach, so I I do certainly want to meet the state requirements for this. Also, [3:30:44] keeping in mind that they don't specify what specifically or how much of it you have to use. That's an important piece. [3:30:50] Um, it's good to hear that there might be an option for the elementary one. Again, we can standardize it for all the [3:30:56] elementary schools. And if it sounds like we're to do it like once a month or whatever the recommendation was, it's only a total of eight lessons. I just I [3:31:03] can't foresee how writing eight lessons. Maybe I'm just unbelievably [3:31:09] naive here. I don't see how that would cost more than $67,000. Maybe it does. Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I I don't foresee that being [3:31:15] terribly expensive. It's eight lessons. Uh Director Simon 67. I mean, I think [3:31:24] elementary we're locked in at Zack asked for a quote. I think we should I think No, we are I I support following up on [3:31:30] that. I think my concern was mentioned not necessarily about um about the cost. [3:31:36] I bet you could get it done for that. I I don't know, but I mean it's logical. Um my concern is the buyin from the [3:31:43] staff, right? like you have your experts in your district writing um getting [3:31:49] feedback from their colleagues and um many hands and um we can certainly do [3:31:56] something from a top down and push it down but then what kind of buyin are you going to get? What type of results are [3:32:02] you going to get? And I know that before we had um a set curriculum in middle [3:32:09] school, even before it was written by the the the staff that did, middle [3:32:16] schools did different things. And I think that you have the opportunity. I know you have the opportunity to get [3:32:22] much more of what you don't want. So, um yeah, that's all I got. [3:32:30] Uh just a a quick question. Um I know where director Audet stands on this but [3:32:35] just curious uh director arco if your main concern is related to castle um on [3:32:43] character strong and leader in me and the fact that castle said that the curriculums were uh [3:32:49] evidence-based and research driven. Is that is that why you'd like [3:32:55] to find a consultant? Um, so we've had a lot of discussion about [3:33:01] this. Maybe there's a lot I could say, but maybe I'll say this is when you have, as director has pointed out, when [3:33:06] you have curriculum that is per, and I think director Simon has said this as well, is perceived to be controversial, [3:33:13] whether it is or it is not. We can debate that back and forth endlessly. Um, it's good just for the integrity of [3:33:20] the school to have something that there is no controversy over, even if the controversy isn't warranted. If we have [3:33:25] an option that there's no controversy surrounding it, which is like a homegrown option, that's just a win [3:33:31] across the board in my opinion. We're still meeting state requirements, I we're still doing like I [3:33:36] I don't see the downside to it other than the the possible cost, but even that I don't foresee as terribly high. [3:33:44] Okay. So, we've learned through all of the times we've been talking about this that Castle can come in to anybody's [3:33:51] curriculum. They look at it without an invitation and they can decide if it's meeting evidence-based standards or not. [3:33:58] How would we prevent any consultant that we would maybe find from being castle [3:34:04] aligned? How would we prevent Castle from coming in and looking at a homegrown self-written curriculum and [3:34:11] saying, "Yeah, that's evidence-based and research driven." Because, you know, the folks that we would have to write that [3:34:17] operate that way. that's like the natural way to operate when you're writing a curriculum or developing something is to use evidence-based [3:34:24] research focused um practices. So, I just I you know, again, I feel like [3:34:30] we're finding a solution uh for a problem that doesn't exist. Like there's not a problem that we need to solve [3:34:37] aside from perception and we have the facts and the evidence to correct that [3:34:42] perception, that misperception. [3:34:50] Coach Arco. So again, just going back to how any kind of business works there. [3:34:55] Anyone who we're paying to do a job is going to do the job according to the criteria we specified to them. So I'm [3:35:00] not really concerned about that. We don't want castle standards. Just say, "Hey, here are the standards we do want. Don't use these over here." I don't even [3:35:06] think you need to say that second part. Just say only do these standards and that's what they'll produce. [3:35:14] And there's an interesting conundrum though, like the idea of because it's a fair concern. The idea of getting more [3:35:20] of what you don't want. There's an implication buried in there that what's happening in the [3:35:26] classroom is not what we think it is. And maybe that's true, maybe that's not, [3:35:33] but that's a troubling implication, I guess. So, I I would rather just do what [3:35:39] all of the people commenting here have said and trust the teachers and know that if we give them a curriculum to use [3:35:44] that they're going to faithfully execute it. [3:35:56] Uh, Director Simon. Oh, wow. My mic's still on. Um, so I think I mean we're going around [3:36:04] and around and around. I think people are where they are and I don't think it's I think we've always been where we [3:36:09] are, right? So, I don't think it's going to change. So, um not to uh I I wonder just how we move forward, right? [3:36:17] Is it possible to table the I know superintendent does not love that but is [3:36:22] it possible to table this until we have a not a not a official quote but at [3:36:29] least an idea on is there an outside person about how much might that cost. [3:36:34] um if we can get feedback on can will we have um folks who are qualified our our [3:36:44] teachers and our staff who are qualified and can write this if they're willing to write it. I think if we get those two [3:36:51] answers um it may help direct us. So I'm just going to suggest that and then a [3:36:57] few options were sent out. I guess I'll just speak for myself. Um, I'm okay with [3:37:02] Michelle's option of I I might be misquing you, but option two, which is [3:37:08] continue what we do for one year and then look at it potentially writing or an adoption, right? So, I'm fine with [3:37:15] that. Um, I'm also fine with a revised option three of um if we can find [3:37:21] writers, great. If not, we'll continue doing what we did um this year. So, at [3:37:27] least that's where I'm at right now. I'm fine with either of those or tableabling to get more information. Thanks. [3:37:37] Um, does anyone else have a perspective they would like to share to close us out to decide if we're going to make a [3:37:43] motion or if we're going to table? Director. Make a motion to [3:37:49] table. I make a motion. I move to table. Second. Okay. We have a motion to table [3:37:55] from director Audet and a second from director Simon. Is there any discussion? Uh, Coacher Argo. Yeah. And [3:38:03] at the risk of sounding ignorant and naive, I really don't think I'm just [3:38:08] putting this out there. I really don't think asking contractor or group to write [3:38:14] eight lessons should cost $100,000. Could be way off base there, but seems like it shouldn't have cost that much. [3:38:19] So, I'm looking forward to seeing the quote. Um, I just sense it will be reasonable compared to what we're [3:38:25] currently paying. Just want to throw that out there. Director Lingenfeld, [3:38:32] point of just a point of clarification. Um to table it would mean [3:38:38] that more information would be found that could change some minds. [3:38:47] That's what it sounds like. That's what it sounds like. And then there's a belief that there would be four votes. Is that [3:38:54] Well, maybe I mean it's I Yeah. I mean, [3:39:00] uh, Superintendent McIntyre. Well, maybe let's set a target then. Try to bring you back something for the May 19th [3:39:06] board meeting. I'll see what we can find for information between two weeks from now on [3:39:14] what getting you all to agree on the contractor might be tricky as well, but we'll see who's out there and we'll also [3:39:20] be able to poll our staff to see can we do it internally. Like we should be able to get a sense for that and bring it [3:39:25] back to you on the 19th and more information. Right. And and with that information, um if I could I'm sorry. [3:39:34] Um, I would really like to know how much learning then would be required for our teachers and their capacity to take on [3:39:42] new learning at at the same time, especially at elementary. I have grave [3:39:48] concerns. That is a huge concern right now for me is to take on a new [3:39:53] curriculum at this time. And that's why option two seemed to see be a reasonable situation right now to give that on-ramp [3:40:01] of people to be able to do the writing. I I really am concerned about that and [3:40:07] again we have the support right now to move with the current curriculum for [3:40:14] another year. I feel we have it and can if if this is the route that people wish [3:40:20] to go, we really really need to be mindful of the teachers time. I I I just [3:40:27] I look at that and so I would not be in favor of tableabling it right now. [3:40:34] Uh coach, yes. Okay. Any further discussion on the [3:40:40] motion to table? All right. Uh, I'll second if Oh, [3:40:46] director Simon already seconded. So, thank you. Um, okay. Would all those in [3:40:52] favor of tableabling say I? I. I. Those opposed say no. No. With four in favor [3:40:59] of tableabling and two opposed. Um, this is tabled till May [3:41:07] 19th. Okay. [3:41:13] Thank you. [3:41:20] All right, our next agenda item is labor relations and benefits with item 10A, [3:41:26] the 202627 calendar committee proposal. We welcome Dr. Jennifer [3:41:32] Cherry, executive director of human resources and Todd Menink, director of labor relations and benefits and uh Val [3:41:39] Holtus, the president of the Inoca Henipin Education Minnesota. [3:41:45] Oh, she is going to come up. Welcome. [3:41:50] Thank you, co-chair uh Deshaine, members of the board, Superintendent McIntyre. [3:41:56] Uh we were here in April at the work session to um present a first read of uh [3:42:02] the calendar uh for the 20 um 26 2027 [3:42:09] school year. This um calendar that we're going to be presenting this evening is [3:42:16] uh comes at the recommendation of our calendar advisory committee. The committee is made up of uh 30 members uh [3:42:25] that represent teachers, pareducators, principles and various district [3:42:31] administrators. uh the committee works under a set of parameters in establishing a proposed [3:42:38] calendar each school year. Some of the particular items are [3:42:44] um related to state statute for the number of uh hours of instruction that [3:42:50] are required each school year. the length of the school year, the time of the school that the school year can [3:42:56] start, our state holidays when school cannot be held, as well as um state [3:43:02] holidays um where our district must be closed. Uh we also are um uh considerate [3:43:10] of our employment contracts uh specifically our teachers work 187 days [3:43:16] each school year. This includes 4 days for conferences with families. Our para [3:43:22] educators work all student contact days and then in addition to that they also have a day of orientation before the [3:43:30] first day of school according to state statute and staff development days uh [3:43:35] during the school year. One for secondary pareducators and two days for [3:43:40] our elementary pareducators. Uh we also are cognizant of multiple employee groups who have uh [3:43:49] other um uh contract dates um such as multiple employee groups have two days [3:43:56] off during spring break for uh designated holidays. Uh we also in [3:44:01] consideration of developing our school calendar look at the instructional days and um ensure that they are spread [3:44:09] equitably across the three trimesters. Uh we strive to avoid two day school [3:44:16] weeks or um days where um uh we have uh we avoid all uh weeks where there is [3:44:22] only one day of school. Um during even numbered school years um we do pay [3:44:29] attention to election day as our school sites are utilized as polling places [3:44:35] um and are considerate of building security considerations. And so with that, I'm going to ask Heather to um [3:44:44] just display the calendar for us. It's in your packet board um for your review. [3:44:50] Um when we're looking at the 2627 school year, she doesn't know. [3:44:56] Oh, okay. Um uh board, it is in your packet. Uh when we were looking at the [3:45:03] 2627 school year, one of the major considerations is uh Labor Day. We [3:45:08] always start the day after Labor Day and um in September 7th of 2026. It's the [3:45:16] latest possible date that can ever occur in a calendar. So this year we're starting this is the year we would start [3:45:22] school very late in the year. Um the other um adjustment to the calendar that [3:45:30] the committee considered this year was the timing of those fall conferences uh [3:45:36] at the elementary level. uh shifting that a little bit later into October. And so we do have a a conference day [3:45:44] where there is no school for elementary students. There are school for secondary students on October [3:45:50] 26th. Um moving into the timing of spring break and the t I'm sorry, the [3:45:56] timing of winter break and the timing of spring break are generally the next two big [3:46:01] considerations. Um for us because the uh school year is starting so late into [3:46:08] September, our trimester ends on December 3rd. That's after Thanksgiving [3:46:14] uh during this calendar year, which pushes the whole calendar just a little bit later into the year. Uh during [3:46:21] winter break, uh it begins on December 24th, which is a holiday, and goes [3:46:27] through January 1st. So that means that winter break would start on a Thursday [3:46:32] in December and uh school would resume on January 4th of which is a Monday of [3:46:38] this year. Uh there are holidays for um uh in [3:46:46] January for Martin Luther King Day uh and in February for President's holiday. [3:46:53] Uh, another consideration which was a a large consideration for us this year was [3:46:59] uh the um the timing of the end of the second trimester and a date that uh we were [3:47:08] cognizant there were uh very large concerns about attendance uh for a group [3:47:14] of our students um uh recognizing the Eid holiday. And so March 10th is listed [3:47:22] as a non-school day. That would be a professional development day for teachers. Um and uh that would leave us [3:47:30] a day uh in the middle of the week with the trimester ending on March [3:47:37] 12th. Spring break would occur at the end of March, similar to what is um on [3:47:44] the schedule for the 2526 school year. So it would occur the last week of March [3:47:50] into the first week of April. Uh and um [3:47:55] and then this results in the last day of the school year on June 10th. Um and um [3:48:05] the rest of the the uh teachers with their last workday on June 11th, the [3:48:10] Friday of that week. Uh so again, the calendar that is being proposed is in [3:48:16] your packet. It has been um presented to the board previously at a work session. [3:48:22] Uh we um have uh made multiple considerations for again balancing the [3:48:28] number of school days throughout the trimesters. And um this evening we're [3:48:34] open to any questions you might have. But before I do that, I'm just going to look at my tablemates here and see there [3:48:40] were some of additional items that I missed or that you wanted to make sure were covered. [3:48:46] I think you covered it. Okay. Thank you for that presentation. Board members, any questions or [3:48:52] discussion about this calendar committee proposal? [3:48:58] Okay. Uh, Director Simon, no questions. Just a thank you. This is um it's work [3:49:04] that you don't often get thanked for, right? Because everyone or many people will have a concern with it. But um I [3:49:11] think what you brought forward is just very reasonable and logical. So thank you for all the work. [3:49:19] Can I just make a quick comment? Director Simon, thank you for that um comment. That is um a uh something that [3:49:26] we definitely acknowledge within the committee. I think that is mentioned as we consider contemplating moving days [3:49:34] around. Um, this is a hard committee for our staff to be on because they know [3:49:40] that the decisions that are made here will be criticized. Um, there is never [3:49:46] going to be 100% agreement about any of these these choices. So, thank you for [3:49:51] the acknowledgement. Thank you. Uh, members, any other [3:49:57] questions or discussion? All right. Right. If not, before us is the 2026 27 calendar [3:50:03] committee proposal as presented in appendix Q. Is there a motion to approve the calendar proposal as presented? [3:50:11] So moved. Thank you, Director Langenfeld. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, co-chair Arco. Any further [3:50:17] discussion? Hearing none, would all those in favor say I? I. I. Any oppose say nay. With six in favor and zero [3:50:24] opposed, this passes. Thank you. Thank you, board. All right, board. Our next [3:50:30] uh discussion is the 202526 health insurance rates first read. Um we [3:50:37] welcome uh Dr. Jennifer Cherry and Todd Mensing to stay with us and bring up the rest of the team. [3:50:48] Welcome. Okay. Thank you again, co-chair Duchaine, members of the board, [3:50:53] Superintendent McIntyre. Uh this evening Todd and I are here along with our [3:50:58] consultant from AON. This is Josh Johnson. He's the senior vice president of health solutions. Um throughout the [3:51:04] presentation tonight, we're going to be very focused on um trying to create some [3:51:11] uh awareness about our self-insured district um uh plans for health and [3:51:18] dental. And we also are going to share information around the health of our [3:51:24] health plan um as we are charged with setting the premiums um that continue to [3:51:31] fund the plan that's offered by the district. Uh so with that I am going to [3:51:37] hand it over to Todd and he'll um uh set this up for us. All right. Great. Uh so [3:51:44] as a self-insured employer uh we set our own insurance uh uh we uh we pay our own [3:51:52] insurance claims and then we have to set rates to ensure we have uh we our our [3:51:57] premiums are high enough uh to cover the claims and other expenses that are involved in administering our plan. If [3:52:04] we were to just purchase insurance as other employers do, we would be given a rate by the insurer. because we're [3:52:10] self-funded, it's the job of the board um to approve the rate based on those [3:52:15] considerations every year. Um so uh we established the premiums again to cover claims and medical expenses. Uh we have [3:52:22] our consultants from AON. Josh is representing AON today. Um providing analysis to establish a rate [3:52:29] recommendation for the board. Um, and in that analysis, they look at claims projections, administrative fees, [3:52:37] stop-loss insurance, which is uh insurance that we hold in the background [3:52:42] that covers anyone who has claims over $500,000 in a year. Um, so last year we [3:52:48] had 11 individuals who had more than $500,000 worth of claims, which is why [3:52:53] you're going to see large increases this year. One of the major reasons. Um and so we do have additional insurance to [3:53:01] cover that cost and and that we do have to um pay for. We also have aggregate stop-loss which covers if all of our [3:53:08] claims exceed 125% of what's expected. Uh although we we've never been in a [3:53:13] situation where we've actually had to use the aggregate insurance, but we have it just in case. Um so and then any [3:53:22] other discounts or other costs associated with the administering of the plan are included [3:53:27] there. Um so with that we're going to start with dental rates uh because [3:53:33] they're they're quite a bit similar similar and we'll move to Josh as he goes through the uh actuarial [3:53:39] information about um and that the underwriting information. Okay. Thanks. Uh what you see here is a [3:53:48] underwriting projection for dental claims um projecting historical claims from the most recent 24 months. So you [3:53:54] have two 12-month periods trended forward at the the prevailing market rate in dental health insurancees is 4%. [3:54:02] So you take these two we take these two historical periods trend them forward to the projection period that would start in September. Um and then come up with a [3:54:10] weighted average essentially these two experience periods. The result of that is $9345 per employee per month. And then [3:54:18] the Delta Dentl's admin fee is $4.85. So based on this projection, the [3:54:25] total required cost is $98.30, which is about 15.6% increase [3:54:32] over the current budget rate. So that's the rate you see on the top right in the current plan year total premium rate of [3:54:37] 85 um which has been for the last several year years set somewhat below the [3:54:44] projected cost because of reserves that Todd is going to talk a little bit more about. Um the bottom right of the of the [3:54:52] slide there illustrates that without any increase for the coming plan year, we're estimating that um about $800,000 of [3:55:00] that reserve would need to be used um without an [3:55:07] increase. All right. So, um, uh, again, due to our high fund balance, especially [3:55:13] after COVID, um, during COVID, our our fund balance went from a little over a [3:55:18] million to a little over 2 million, and we really only need a fund balance of about 900,000 about two months of [3:55:25] claims. So, we've been we haven't changed the rate in several years and we've been gradually um spending down [3:55:32] that that fund balance and it's projected to be back um uh at about 1 [3:55:38] and a.5 million is where I I'm expecting it to be at the end of the year. Um so [3:55:44] again they remain higher than uh uh the the reserves remain higher than the suggested target level but they are [3:55:51] projected to fall below that target level in 2026 if we don't have an increase. Uh so we're project we're [3:55:57] suggesting a $5 increase this year and there will likely be another increase next year. Um, but rather than put it [3:56:05] all in one year, since we do have more fund balance to to spend down, we're we're suggesting increasing that premium [3:56:12] from $85 to $90. Uh, just so you know, with most of our groups, the district contribution is [3:56:18] $80. Uh, so, you know, depending on the rates that are negotiated, if if they [3:56:25] negotiate no increase, the employees would take on that extra $5. Otherwise, [3:56:30] they could negotiate an increase in their contributions and maybe see no increase. [3:56:40] All right, with that, we'll move into health insurance. Just a sorry, any questions on dental before we move to [3:56:46] health insurance just so we could keep them together. Okay, go ahead. One thing I'll also note, Josh could confirm, [3:56:53] dental is not as volatile as health insurance. there's a there's a cap on the amount of insurance you can have in [3:56:59] a given year. So, it doesn't need to maintain as big a reserve as health um [3:57:05] because it just doesn't fluctuate as [3:57:11] much. All right, so moving on to health insurance. And actually, I have the first slide here. Uh so this first slide [3:57:18] just shows our current uh health insurance plans just to remind you because I know you haven't dealt with [3:57:23] this since last year at this time but we do have a co-pay plan which is kind of our old plan design. We you know if you [3:57:32] go back 15 years all of our plans had no deductible co-ayments between $2500 and [3:57:38] $100. They were probably 20 to 100 back then. Um and just a wide open network [3:57:44] where you can pretty much go to any doctor. Uh that's a really expensive plan design and we do maintain that and [3:57:50] you can see we have about 700 721 single and 222 family on it. Most of our [3:57:57] employees have moved to a deductible plan. Uh and so we have three options um [3:58:02] using the same 8020 deductible design and it really depends on the network. So [3:58:08] choice is a broad open access network that allows people to go wherever they they want. Um but then we also have [3:58:16] narrower networks that are more affordable um that are and so uh [3:58:22] Medicica is able to negotiate better discounts uh and they're able to coordinate care better to keep prices [3:58:29] down. So so those electantage plus because you're choosing a narrow network [3:58:34] are able to provide you with a a lower premium. um your and uh but but all [3:58:40] three of those plans have a basic uh plan design that has a $1,500 deductible [3:58:45] for single and a 3,000 deductible for family. And then there's a 20% co [3:58:51] insurance that kicks in um after you've hit that deductible until the out-of- pocket maximums, which aren't shown on [3:58:58] here, but they're $3,000 and $6,000. Um 3,000 single and 6,000 [3:59:04] family. Uh there's also an out-of- pocket maximum on the co-pay, but no one [3:59:09] ever hits it, so it's it's not too important to talk about. [3:59:20] Todd leaves it to me to read the to tear the band-aid off here. So, the projected increase for 25 to 26 is 22%. So, and [3:59:28] that also, we'll talk about this more, but that includes um somewhat of a load to get the reserve level back to where [3:59:34] it needs to be or start moving in that direction. So, 22% total increase, which equates to about $295 per employee per [3:59:41] month or 15.3 million annually. Um the underlying market trend [3:59:47] assumptions that are baked into those projections are 8% medical, 13% pharmacy, which is a weighted average of [3:59:54] 9.3%. So essentially what you have is, and we'll look at this more in the next [3:59:59] slide, but very high drug trends due to specialty medications and GLP1s that I'm [4:00:05] sure everyone's heard about. Um, and then some just very poor experience that we'll look at in the next slide in the [4:00:11] second half like immediately after rates were set for this current plan year. So [4:00:17] larger like higher market trends on top of already over budget in the current year is leading to this required large [4:00:23] increase. Casey, Director Simon. Thanks. Thanks, Casey. I [4:00:29] don't know if we could just jump in, but it might be easier just to jump in. So, to clarify because we did re receive [4:00:35] some emails from employees. Um, so that 22% is kind of looking at the overall [4:00:41] plan, that's what we need to be able to have enough money to play pay claims, right, in general. But an [4:00:48] individual's experience is going to be different, right? So like an individual on a certain plan is not going to [4:00:55] necessarily be a 22% increase in what they're paying it. In some cases it's up to like 50% or I don't know the exact [4:01:03] numbers but it's much higher than 22. That is correct. Right. I want to make sure that the folks listening to us [4:01:09] don't think my insurance is only going up what my experience will be is 22%. [4:01:14] Yeah that's correct and we cover that. We'll cover that in later slides, but the the reality is that the district [4:01:21] covers the majority of the insurance right now. And for some plans with single for one of the plans, we [4:01:27] currently cover 100% of it. Um so ultimately the employee is going to [4:01:34] since the district contribution is not currently budgeted to go up as much as [4:01:40] you know the premiums but expected to go up, the employee share is going to go up by more than that. [4:01:46] And I know you'll get into all of that in detail. I just want to make sure on this specific slide, if folks who are on [4:01:52] the healthcare plans look at your individual experience, the your individual increase [4:01:59] will not necessarily be 22%. It could be higher than that. That's correct. Thank [4:02:06] Director Langenfeld. I I'm looking at uh the key observations drug trends and I'm [4:02:13] hoping I'm asking this question accurately looking at the formulary. I I'm not sure I understand what where [4:02:20] we're at in terms of specialty medications and what the district does in that space. So I probably need [4:02:27] something side to tell me what how we're why where we're performing and how that [4:02:33] works in Oka Hannipan. I haven't had that conversation here. So, [4:02:39] just wondering about about the last time we looked at that and what kind of results. [4:02:48] Are you asking about like the prescription options? I the prescription options and how broad and Okay. Yeah. [4:02:55] And if the district has had a hand in like deciding what's in or out of the list. Right. Exactly. And looking at the [4:03:01] GLP. Yeah. You know, that kind of thing. I know. I know it shows up later, but I just I just wondered about uh the [4:03:08] specialty medications. I mean, I know that some of them are extremely expensive and and I'm not suggesting we [4:03:14] should change it. I'm just wondering when it was looked at last and and if there's any relief there as well or [4:03:23] consideration, you'll probably get to this in a minute, [4:03:28] but some of these are negotiated things. So, okay. I So, that's helpful, right? Well, it is helpful because it wasn't in [4:03:35] my previous world. Yeah, we didn't negotiate this. So, this particular item number one here in the key observations, [4:03:42] um I hear a real mixed bag amongst districts who agree to cover it or agree to not cover it. Sure, that makes sense. [4:03:49] I that's very helpful. Thank you for get to that. But yeah, that's an important [4:03:55] note that it's a negotiated item to a point that by [4:04:01] statute uh we can't reduce the aggregate value of benefits [4:04:08] um without negotiations. It's a it's well and yeah I understand what you're saying now. I appreciate the [4:04:14] clarification. Having come from a state where we didn't negotiate them, it makes sense. Just saying. [4:04:24] Please carry on. Thank you. I think we can go to the next slide. [4:04:30] So, as I mentioned on the previous slide, um what we're illustrating here is this is so this is per employee per [4:04:35] month claims levels uh by month for the last several years. So really what you [4:04:42] look at the the red arrows is what we're highlighting in this this past year about this time setting rates for this [4:04:49] current plan year. um we were at that red arrow February 2024 [4:04:55] um the in UHC year two so that red arrow um and then you see what happened to the [4:05:01] clamps after that month right so that's really what we're dealing with here is [4:05:06] that it it just really ramped up right after kind of the period where you we're using the most current available claims [4:05:13] at the time and then claims just really ramped up and didn't really level off until January February this year um So [4:05:20] about a 20% trend over that period. So as I mentioned before, it's because of [4:05:26] this we're running or you're running over budget during the current year and then you have to apply the future trend [4:05:31] into the next uh the next plan year and that's where we're getting to the 20 22% [4:05:38] um projected required increase. Superintendent McIntyre, could you try to clarify? Is this volume of [4:05:45] claims and or I think of volume and I think of just [4:05:50] higher costing claims. It's more severity than volume. Okay. Thank you, [4:05:57] Director Simon. Okay. That's where the large claims and the [4:06:03] specialty medications come in. It's it's higher cost, not necessarily higher units. [4:06:12] Coach Ero. Okay. So, since it's severity of claims, other than just doing statistics [4:06:18] and assuming the trend continues based on those claims, is there reason to think that we'd have a [4:06:24] similar year next year or like again other than statistics, [4:06:30] there's reasons to support that it was an unusually poor year at the end of the last year. um saying that that that's [4:06:38] not going to happen continue at the current levels is really difficult to say especially with the large claims [4:06:45] being a a really large portion or key cost driver for the district. It's it's [4:06:51] unpredictable. The claim levels in the last experience year were higher than what would statistically be predict [4:06:56] predicted. Yeah, we can't guarantee that it's gonna I mean over a long period of time it should revert to the norm for [4:07:02] the mean, but um and then if a quick follow-up question [4:07:07] if that's okay. Um hypothetically if the trends were to go back to what they were the year prior where without the large [4:07:15] increase, what would then need and I know this will be a ballpark at best, but I think I saw the number 22% [4:07:21] increase on there. What would be the increase to cover only that rather than continuing these trends? [4:07:30] I'm not sure I'm following. Yeah, I don't know if this answers your question, but in a normal year right now, we would say that your rates should [4:07:36] need to go up 9.3%. That's the market average. That's the trend we're we're using to p project forward for one year. [4:07:42] So, that's what I would say. What was the 22% then? Is that something different distinct%? [4:07:48] You're currently running well above what the budget rates are now. So you're at 9 10% above budget. We're projecting plus [4:07:56] another 9% for the next year to get to approximately 20%. So So if we [4:08:01] had stayed within budget, nothing unusual happened, we'd only be raising them by say 10%. Correct. Okay, that's [4:08:07] what I was looking for. Thank you, Director Simon. Um Todd and I visited on [4:08:13] this before the presentation and you mentioned it tonight. So I think what you're talking about, I'm going to get a little more specific, is that in a [4:08:20] typical year, we would have three to four individuals with claims over a half [4:08:26] a million, and last year we had 11. So that's where you're talking about the severity with specific folks. And then [4:08:32] we also had multiple people who approached that almost like $3 million [4:08:38] level. So that's what you're talking about with the severity of claims, correct? Those situations. And then in [4:08:45] addition, I know you're going to talk about like the high cost of specific medications and those increasing too. [4:08:50] That's in addition to so that that just might help those details might help the public understand of those of our [4:08:57] specific experience. Thanks. [4:09:02] If you go to the next slide, um I I so we have a the internal service fund is [4:09:09] where we pay all the claims out of. So, um, premiums fund the the the internal [4:09:15] service fund and then we we pay claims out of it. Uh, on this graph, you'll see the blue and red lines there show our [4:09:22] expenses and revenue over time. And so, you can see um they both kind of trend [4:09:28] upwards. Um, and there's years where our revenue exceeds our expenses and vice versa. Uh, but it ran pretty evenly [4:09:37] until this last year. Um and so and and this uh these are numbers based on year [4:09:44] end. Uh so I'm looking at July 1st numbers, fiscal year end. Uh and then in [4:09:50] green you can see our balance uh which uh which uh AON suggests should be [4:09:57] between 24 and 30% of claims. So you can see that that alley where an is [4:10:03] suggesting that our our fund balance should be. So, uh, you can see we were [4:10:08] kind of above that amount. And if you get to 2023, um, you can see we we'd fallen to sort [4:10:14] of the middle of that range. And the rates we set, you know, in at this point in May [4:10:22] of 2024, given the data we had through February, were supposed to keep us in [4:10:28] that middle of that range. But our experience just um you know between this time and the end of the fiscal year [4:10:35] brought us to the bottom of that range. Um and now as we project forward and so [4:10:40] that 2025 number is still projected. It's what we're we think July one's going to look like based on our current [4:10:47] claims experience. We're really falling far too low far far below that that [4:10:54] amount. Um the reality is you need about 10% just to cover claims that are [4:10:59] incurred but not yet paid. Um and we're we're projected to be at about 5%. So we [4:11:06] really need to increase the reserve just to get to the point where you know we can cover all the [4:11:13] claims that we have incurred but we haven't yet paid not even to get to um dealing with the um you know the [4:11:20] variation in in claims in the future. Any questions on [4:11:28] that? The the next slide Josh will cover probably gives a a a better indication for you. I think it [4:11:36] explains it pretty well. Thanks, Todd. Yeah, we typically call this a waterfall slide. I'm not quite sure why exactly [4:11:43] it's called that, but it's it's essentially the main components that go and you build in. It's a visual explanation of that 22% and what goes [4:11:50] into it. So the 8.7% on the left side that's that's based on the trend [4:11:55] assumptions that that I talked about the 9.3% average that equates to 8.7% in in [4:12:01] premium because some of the other costs are fixed don't don't increase. So the [4:12:06] cost next to that stop loss.5% of the a cost component there in [4:12:12] in the total. Um, and then admin fees are are flat. And then there's a there's a there's one negative that's a a [4:12:19] decrease due to credits. Now, those the admin fee and the credits came from the RFP from last year. So, Metica quoted [4:12:25] those favorable terms in order to secure the business. And then the big one there [4:12:30] is the 9.7%. Now, that's based on the essentially overbudget currently. That's the shortfall shortfall in the current [4:12:37] budget rates. And then we're we included 4% [4:12:43] um reserve load. So that's to contribute towards and try to regain um the reserve [4:12:48] that's that's running below target. And that uh rolls all up to the 22% that [4:12:54] we've been discussing and they're the required increase without any so that's status quo without any other plan design [4:13:00] changes or changes to the program. Any [4:13:06] questions? All right. Um, so the next slide's going to [4:13:13] be about cost containment, and I'll have Josh talk about that, but I I what I want to share is we uh we met with our [4:13:20] insurance advisory committee a couple weeks ago. Um, so originally we had planned to meet with them. I think it [4:13:26] was before the April 14th board meeting and then our first reading got delayed [4:13:32] till April 28th. So we gave an uh more time to get more claims in so that they [4:13:37] could have a a more accurate more accurate uh numbers. Um and we consulted [4:13:43] with Medicica and with AON regarding possibilities for plan design changes um [4:13:50] that could bring down uh the rate increases. And so we we did share these [4:13:56] with the committee and we sought u feedback from the committee and we don't really have consensus among our [4:14:02] bargaining groups. Um well well I'll talk about it. Why doesn't Josh just go over them and then we'll talk about kind [4:14:08] of what the committee said. Okay. If you could show the next slide please. [4:14:13] So what we're showing here is a list of uh eight different plan options all all cart if you will. So the the top row [4:14:19] shows the current and we're I should preface we're mainly looking at that that copay plan the really rich plan [4:14:25] with just the co-pays kind of is what it is. It's already high cost. [4:14:30] Um we're looking at this this is the the plans that we can realistically adjust [4:14:35] and get some cost savings potentially. Um the the 8020500 deductible plan. So it shows the [4:14:42] current design at the top and then we're just we modeled various different kind of usual suspects if you will changes. [4:14:49] So the pharmacy co-pays is one thing that we modeled um about a.3% impact. [4:14:55] You kind of see that a lot of these changes really don't have a a really large impact until you get down further [4:15:01] and start making significant changes. So, um, for example, scenario five there, I mean, that's you're going from [4:15:08] the current 1,500 3,000 deductible scenario up to a 2,000 4,000 and then [4:15:13] also increasing the out- of- pocket max. That'll get you a little over 2% reduction in the projected total. Um, [4:15:20] the next one down, co insurance, that's so that's in network co insurance is 20% currently that the member pays. If you [4:15:26] moved that to all the way to 30%, it's only.3% impact. Um, if you kind of the [4:15:32] the scenario seven is is rolling up four different of these major changes would [4:15:38] would be about a 3.1% or 2.2 million impact. And then the last one there is [4:15:44] the weight loss coverage um GLP1 coverage for weight loss which is a [4:15:50] significant cost and would be a significant reduction if you were to stop that coverage. And that estimates [4:15:55] from Medicica directly at 3.6%. 6%. [4:16:01] I don't know if you had something to add, Todd, or No. Well, I guess what we'd add is we did um meet with the [4:16:09] insurance committee and they weren't prepared to necessarily speak for their [4:16:15] their uh bargaining units at that point. Um so we had them go back and get more [4:16:20] input from their members. And then um we put out a survey that that basically asked three questions. one was uh about [4:16:29] how they want the increases to go, whether they're uniform across the board, and we'll talk about that next or [4:16:35] or we're increasing the more expensive plans a little more than the less expensive. And then we asked about the [4:16:40] plan design changes and the GLP1 coverage um change. Uh and there was uh [4:16:47] it it was there there was all of them were mixed. Um the plan design changes [4:16:52] was pretty much overwhelmingly people saying we would rather stick with the same plan design. We don't necessarily [4:16:58] want to pass the costs on to people um you know in the firm form of higher [4:17:04] out-of pocket costs. Uh the GLP1 coverage was more mixed. Um but the [4:17:10] BGLP1 coverage uh we there's a couple concerns we had about it is one is that [4:17:17] with that statutory language about aggregate um value of benefits um in the [4:17:24] past that when that has gone to court it it has been situations where networks [4:17:29] are narrowing and coverages are being reduced I I don't think there's as much [4:17:35] a concern about increasing co- insurance or increasing out of pocket It's as re [4:17:40] as taking a benefit people currently have and and getting rid of it. And so we've we've always provided coverage for [4:17:47] weight loss. Now, it's not for uh people who just want to look better. It's you [4:17:53] have to meet a certain BMI and and for health reasons uh need to lose weight. So, we've always covered that. It's just [4:18:00] in the past the drugs weren't as expensive and weren't as effective. And now we have a really effective drug um [4:18:07] that's expensive. And so more people are using it than have in the past. Um so uh [4:18:14] like I said the committee was mixed and even within bargaining units uh education Minnesota surveyed all of [4:18:20] their people and they said it was kind of a third a third a third with people [4:18:25] who said get rid of the GLP1s, keep the GLP1s and we're not sure what to do. Um [4:18:32] uh so uh you know when we get to our recommendation we we didn't end up recommending uh plan design changes uh [4:18:40] because of that feedback we got from the committee. Um and so I think I've covered the slide [4:18:48] probably. I wasn't looking at it. I was just [4:18:54] talking. Okay. So moving on to our rate recommendation. Uh first uh this slide [4:19:01] shows our current rates um with the current standard district contribution. [4:19:07] So uh uh all of our dis our bargaining groups uh right now have negotiated the [4:19:13] same contribution. We have a few who have a who have fixed flex contributions, but but you know, over [4:19:20] 90% of our employees have an $810 district contribution negotiated and a [4:19:26] 1515 family contribution negotiated uh for this year. And there you can see the [4:19:32] current monthly premiums range from $810 to $1,20 uh for single and from 21105 to [4:19:41] 27.80 80 for family. Uh and there next to it you can see so the employee share [4:19:47] is the difference between those two. So for singles it ranges from $0 to 210 a [4:19:52] month. Um and for families from 5.90 to 1265. [4:19:58] uh the f the next column shows the per check amount employees are playing and [4:20:03] and that's I think the what we uh really like to show the board because I think it gives you the [4:20:09] best idea of how this is impacting people on an every other week basis [4:20:14] during those school year those 20 checks that we take uh contributions out of. Um, so there you can see it's 0 to $126 [4:20:22] coming out of people's checks right now if they're on single and for families it's between [4:20:28] 354 and 756. Uh, and also next to that you can see what percent of insurance is paid by [4:20:36] the district. So, the district's covering 80 to 100% of single insurance depending on the plan people choose and [4:20:43] between 54 and 72% of family insurance depending on the [4:20:48] plan. So, that's to give you a a base of where we're at right [4:20:54] now. Um, okay. Right. We have currently groups that have contracts negotiated [4:21:00] for this year agreed to a 5% increase to health insurance premiums uh to the [4:21:07] health insurance premium contributions by the district. So those groups we're looking at a 850 single 1590 family [4:21:15] contribution and then when two employees are when are that are both insurance eligible are married they get a dual [4:21:22] spouse contribution that's equal to the single and family together. So they're [4:21:28] we're not charging any more than if one of them held family and the other decided to hold single not as part of [4:21:34] the family. It is is sort of the logic behind that. Um we have eight bargaining [4:21:40] groups who are current currently have open contracts. So right now they're at that 8:15 810 and 1515. Um but for [4:21:48] demonstration purposes 5% is what's budgeted. And so if we assume that these [4:21:54] groups settle at that 5% the the upcoming slide show the employee [4:22:00] share with these um contributions. Um, okay. So, these are [4:22:08] the two options we're asking the board to consider. Um, one is in order to get [4:22:13] that 15.3 million, it's a 22% increase on overall premiums. So, if we we [4:22:20] increase the overall premium on all plans by 22%, that would do it. Um we [4:22:26] have a second option which is to increase the premium on the choice plans [4:22:32] the two higher plans by 23% and then the lower plans by 20%. Uh the the reason [4:22:40] behind the second I'll just mention it is when we set our rates um there [4:22:46] there's a decrement that Medicica suggests that we have between plans. So [4:22:51] they say that the elect plan should be about 93 to 94% as expensive as the um [4:22:58] choice plan and the Vantage Plus should be about 91%. And right now they're about 97 and 94%. So we have the ability [4:23:07] to decrease them another 3% and still re remain within that decrement so that we [4:23:13] don't risk having people move to that plan and lose more revenue from [4:23:18] premiums you know than we we save um from savings from them going to a more affordable plan. Um so you know either [4:23:27] of these would be options. Um the the second option the goal would be to [4:23:32] create keep a lower cost plan. um for people they can move on to one of those [4:23:38] lowerc cost plans if they choose. So if you move to the next slide [4:23:43] um this looks again like like the one with the current rates u but what I note [4:23:49] here so this shows those new monthly premiums if you were to increase um the total premiums by 22%. So doing that [4:23:58] that monthly premium goes up to 9.90 to 1245 for single and 2570 to 33.90 for [4:24:05] family. And then we see the district share and the employee share per month. Um so where that employee share [4:24:12] previously um for single was 0 to $210, we'd be looking at 140 to [4:24:20] 395. Um and for family what was 590 to 1265 becomes 980 to [4:24:28] 1,800 and then moving that to per check on this slide you can see the per check amount and then the change in employee [4:24:37] contributions. Um so you can see if you just look at the single um your choice [4:24:43] co-pay uh the the employees were paying $126 now they're paying $237. So, [4:24:50] there's a $111 increase um on that plan. If you go [4:24:56] down to the bottom to Vantage Plus, employees were paying zero and now they're paying [4:25:01] $84. Um so, uh you know, there we've had [4:25:07] comments from employees that say, well, when you're they're concerned that they feel the percentages are misleading. Um, [4:25:15] and we understand that because the percentages for employees are significantly higher. Uh, but if I put [4:25:23] percentages on this, it would really kind of be confusing because the when uh [4:25:29] when your contribution goes from $25 to 87 to $102, that $87 district increase [4:25:37] is going to be several hundred of an increase. But really, the $246 the person on elect family is [4:25:45] seeing, even though that's going to show up as a 40% increase or a 50% increase, [4:25:51] it's going to hit them a lot harder on a bi-weekly basis. Um so because the [4:25:57] employees are all starting at different contribution amounts that that percent increase um on the employee [4:26:05] uh I guess just isn't as valuable a number as the the dollar amount. This is [4:26:10] where you can really see the impact it will have um on employees again given you know current uh budgeted [4:26:19] increases in in district contributions. [4:26:24] Yeah, Director Simon. Thanks, Casey. Um, so I don't know if I [4:26:32] understood understood not giving the percentages. So, as I calculate it and [4:26:37] I'll only use family, right? Because so we talk about a 22% increase. We understand that's on total premium, not [4:26:43] on an individual case. We talked about that. But if I use the I use the monthly [4:26:49] employee share and tell me if this is invalid but looking at current to option [4:26:54] one right just on family it's a 42 to a 66% increase for the employee correct [4:27:03] that's correct right I mean that's no that's correct that's valid right I mean that's so when employees look at that [4:27:08] and they say wow my insurance has gone up 42 to 66% that's true in this option [4:27:14] okay thanks I Yeah. I think what I'd say though is if with if you were looking at [4:27:20] first of all the Vantage plus 8020 that goes from 0 to $72, it's impossible to calculate the [4:27:27] percent increase because they're going from a zero to a dollar amount for single. And if you were to go to elect [4:27:34] 8020, you're going from a $25 um to $102. So that's a 400% [4:27:41] increase. And so that's why I'm saying the the 400% increase on the single for [4:27:51] elect makes it seem like it's worse than the two [4:27:57] 246 increase for families. So okay, so for for single for single Yeah, it it [4:28:04] creates a because you're using different denominators, it it can be a little misleading. Um if we move to option two [4:28:13] uh so this is the second option where we increase the elect advantage plus by a slightly smaller percent um than the uh [4:28:21] the choice plans. Uh and so here you can see this uh creates an increase of 72 to [4:28:27] to $117 for single and $24 to $339 per ch pay paycheck per family um [4:28:36] in employee contributions. Okay. Yes. Quick question. Um, says change per [4:28:41] check, I guess. How often do they get paid? What's the frequency? So, insurance deductions come out of 20 [4:28:46] paychecks. Uh, so we don't take them out over the summer. Um, teachers and paras generally get 21 [4:28:54] to 22 paychecks per year. Um, and so it it comes out of 20 for most people. And [4:29:00] then if someone goes on a leave, we might extend it by a paycheck rather than recalculating. And then we have, [4:29:07] you know, our year round employees do get 26 checks. Uh but because the vast [4:29:13] majority of the employees are school year only, we we still take it out of 20 for all [4:29:26] employees. All right. So moving on. Um [4:29:31] our uh what we are recommend recommending um from district [4:29:36] administration is option two. Um so there you're seeing the uh um the [4:29:42] amounts for option two. Um and if you go to the next slide it gives uh some [4:29:49] justification. Um, so the biggest thing is that increasing the Vantage Plus and Lux plans less than the choice plans [4:29:56] provides a lower priced option while while also bringing our plans closer to their suggested cost decrement. Um, so [4:30:03] we don't want to be in a situation where we're getting huge migration to a plan that's artificially underpriced, but the [4:30:10] plans would still be appropriately priced compared to each other. Um, and then the second thing is that [4:30:17] introducing plan design changes that may result in a reduction in the aggregate value of benefits isn't recommended [4:30:24] without the consensus of all bargaining groups. Um, and we didn't have the consensus of all bargaining groups um at [4:30:30] that table. And and with these increases, we might get that in the future. So, I think we're going to have [4:30:37] ongoing discussions about um possibly making changes to plans in the future [4:30:43] and and and trying to get everyone on the same page. Uh but right now, we just [4:30:49] don't feel confident that uh we have that and and we could avoid a grievance um if we were to make a unilateral [4:30:56] change. Uh co-chair Argo. And so I know this is [4:31:02] a first read, but um when does a decision have to be made by? Like what's the constraint there? So [4:31:09] the the constraint there um May 12th is next Monday. Um and we [4:31:16] need to have our open enrollment materials to print on May 13th [4:31:21] um in order to get them in time for open enrollment to start. We also have an [4:31:26] online enrollment um system um and we have to have all the rates programmed [4:31:32] into that. So they have to be programmed in by the vendor the week of uh May 12th [4:31:39] so that we have a week to test the system before uh going live the week [4:31:44] after um labor after Memorial Day. Uh so [4:31:50] yeah, if we don't have a board decision today, uh we would ask that the board uh [4:31:56] meet again in some fashion and I I believe Superintendent McIntyre has spoken to you about the [4:32:03] possibility. Um yeah, we discussed having a special [4:32:09] session specifically to allow for this first read because of the wet severe weather cancellation of our prior [4:32:15] meeting. um having this public discussion about the rates as a first read and then coming back in a week um [4:32:22] on that Monday to take a vote so that the public has time to continue processing and reacting and providing us [4:32:29] feedback. Yeah. I think one thing that needs to be made very clear is that the decision on [4:32:37] setting rates is really just about ensuring that we get the 15.3 million [4:32:43] more we need in order to keep the funds solvent. Um the the question of what the [4:32:51] district's contributing is a completely different question. So, um, when people [4:32:56] look at the change to my paycheck, um, there could be separate things the [4:33:02] board can do to to remedy that, but ultimately the rates are what they are. [4:33:11] Director Simon, thanks, Casey. Um, so in our discussions and in my research for [4:33:18] this, I just want to give uh I received questions from our staff, so I just want to give this information. Correct me if [4:33:24] I'm wrong. I don't think I am because Todd, I talked to you about it, but um [4:33:29] so a a 22% overall increase like and I'm [4:33:34] not suggesting the district's going to take all that on, but if they did, it's a you had mentioned to me it's about [4:33:40] every 1% is a half a million dollar cost would be a cost to the district. So 22% [4:33:46] is an additional $11 million that the district would to keep things even now. [4:33:53] Um so just to talk about the type of money we're looking at. Um I received a lot of questions about [4:34:01] the public employee insurance program which is the statewide health plan for districts and um what I and so we [4:34:10] receive quotes from them also have in the past and our self-employed has always been a lower cost than the public [4:34:18] employee health program and and people ask me well how can that be because you're in a pool with the entire state [4:34:24] and it should you know your pool shouldn't matter as much but that my understanding is that's been changed [4:34:30] that the employee a public employee health insurance now sets rates for each district right so they would look at our [4:34:37] pool as opposed to everyone in the state and unfortun I mean fortunately or unfortunately our pool right now we [4:34:43] talked about the large um you know the the large dollar amounts that have [4:34:48] increased um with our experience so I just wanted people to know that we do look at that um the rates have been [4:34:56] higher than we have had in other quotes. Um, and you know, maybe I know there's a [4:35:01] push for the state to reconsider how they look at that type of a program from organizations. So maybe that'll be [4:35:08] something in the future. Um, the only other thing I wanted to mention because, [4:35:13] you know, we received a lot of feedback and I already said this about the 22%. [4:35:19] Um, it's it's it can be misleading if you don't understand that, but to get [4:35:24] down to a dollar amount, option two for singles, folks on those plans would see [4:35:30] a using 20 paychecks would see a 1440 to [4:35:35] a 2340 increase in a year. The family would receive a 4,080 to 6780 increase [4:35:43] in the year based on 20 paychecks with those increases. So that's the increase that you will find. Um, see if I missed [4:35:51] anything else. Yeah, I think I think that's all I wanted to uh the questions I got. I just [4:35:59] wanted to make sure that our employees and the public understood those answers to that. Thank you [4:36:07] board members. Any further questions or discussion on this? [4:36:14] Director Aette on the on the GLP1 medication when when [4:36:19] did was that something new that started to I I don't know anything about it. So [4:36:27] yeah, just talk about how that like to me [4:36:32] it the impact of that is so huge. you know it I hate to suggest but it feels [4:36:39] like well I didn't anticipate that right or you know is it do you want to explain [4:36:45] that Sure so GLP ones I mean the the present the ones that we're talking about now the Ozmpic is really the first [4:36:51] one that came out right so and that was to treat it was approved FDA approved to treat diabetes so that's how it kind of [4:36:57] came into the realm and and it worked and people started losing weight so then they formulated different versions so [4:37:04] then you the BGOI and the Mangaro and the Zeppbound different versions that are targeting weight loss, not just [4:37:11] diabetes. Um, and that's that's how it kind of it went from it was only being [4:37:17] approved if you were diagnosed diabetic to then it was approved by the FB FDA. [4:37:23] These same some semlutide to the same drug but different brand names, a little bit of different formulations. Um, got [4:37:30] FDA approval for weight loss. Um, and then all kinds of other things. So that's when it's really started to [4:37:35] explode. So are you do this for other schools or for other companies or what's [4:37:41] the scope of where you where you practice? Uh yes, across the board. I I personally work with St. Paul public [4:37:47] schools too, but then other publicities too. How other organizations have been impacted by it? So the groups that are [4:37:53] in this state um fully insured. So the St. Paul public schools happens to be fully insured. the health plans in the [4:38:00] state are not covering GLP1s for weight loss. The on a fully the insurance companies aren't covering it. [4:38:07] Um nationally depending on the survey you look at AON survey it's it's around 5050 now on companies that are covering [4:38:15] GLP1s for weight loss. Um, and that can vary. Larger the company, the higher that percentage is a little bit, but So, [4:38:22] we're proposing to drop that coverage or we're not we're going to leave that. [4:38:27] We um we did get a consideration for ways to to cut costs, cost [4:38:34] considerations, and that was something that we brought forward as a consideration to the committee. Um, we [4:38:40] did seek input from our employee groups, and that's where we got the really mixed review. Um, in addition to what Josh had [4:38:47] just shared, uh, we also learned that most, um, public employers are covering [4:38:54] GLP1s for weight loss, including PEEP, um, and, uh, including, uh, the majority [4:39:01] of other, uh, school districts. If if we dropped it, um, you know, [4:39:07] hypothetically, if we did it, Wow, I'm picking up. Sorry. Um, just cuz I'm too [4:39:13] far away. must be uh if hypothetically if we dropped it then does that change the the modeling for that the way that [4:39:20] curve would go? I mean can that alone uh I know there's some cost savings but the [4:39:26] project the predicted claims does that bring that back down in line? It brings [4:39:32] it down 3.6%. So you'd still be looking at an 18.5% increase on average. [4:39:39] Yeah, there are more more and more studies emerging now about the longer term potential impacts though and the [4:39:45] potential benefits of of these drugs just the the the benefits of weight loss. It's still kind of new in the game [4:39:51] so we don't know what that longer term be that if you lower weight you have other reduced costs right [4:40:00] okay thank you the other thing I think that I hadn't mentioned is there is a [4:40:05] bill before the legislature to require it um so there would be a concern if we [4:40:12] set rates if we we cut it and then set rates for that savings and ended up with a bill passed [4:40:19] that required us to cover it and then we'd have that cost even though we've set the [4:40:25] rates. Not to anticipate that. I don't I don't know the [4:40:31] likelihood that bill will pass. Director Simon. [4:40:38] So on and Todd, you also mentioned like taking away something you offered could [4:40:44] be it sounds like challengeable in court and you might not be able to do that for this specifically for the GLP ones. Um [4:40:53] can you can you legally say okay here are our plans. They don't [4:40:59] they don't generally include GLP1. Let's just use that as an example. Maybe it maybe some of these other large things [4:41:06] you could do this too like carveouts if you will but if you can do an add-on and you can have GLP ones and it's X amount. [4:41:14] Now I know that doesn't in the insurance game it probably doesn't work because you aggregate it over your whole pool [4:41:20] and if only 10 people want to do it the cost is going to be so high they won't want to do it. I'm just curious if [4:41:25] there's a way, you know, we have we probably have a lot of folks who want need that medication, but we have a lot [4:41:32] of folks who don't. So, is are there can you do that or not? Or does that just [4:41:37] not work? Is it my my limited knowledge in the insurance game might be showing [4:41:42] him? Can you describe again what you mean do how exactly what Okay, let's use [4:41:47] GLP1 as an example. So, we have all of these plans that you're recommending, right? Um, and none of them include GLP [4:41:55] ones. So, whatever the increase would be minus 3.6%. Let's just for argument [4:42:00] sake. But we also have an add-on that employee can say, I want GLP1's covered [4:42:06] and they can take that and there would be a cost to that. You could probably have one plan that [4:42:12] covered it and others that didn't. I don't know exactly in the statute how that works with the aggregate value though whether it has to be the most [4:42:18] prevalent plan or the lowest cost plan but yeah [4:42:24] the easier way to do it is one plan that covers it we could set rates for it and it can be done as far as that statute [4:42:30] around the aggregate value I'm not I'm not positive how that would work but yeah it's just like giving the employees [4:42:38] who who need it and want it the option to get it but not having but again it [4:42:43] goes for the whole pool, right? So, if you only have x amount of people taking that one with GLP1, the rates are probably going to be so high. Yeah. [4:42:49] Okay. Yeah. Average cost is about $1,200 a month for the drugs. So, Wow. Okay. [4:42:55] And it's a maintenance med that you keep taking. Yeah. Forever. Yeah. Thank you. [4:43:02] Okay. Members, any further discussion before we let our guests [4:43:09] go? All right. Uh, thank you for being here so late with us. We really appreciate it. Take care. [4:43:25] All right, board. Our next agenda item is finance item 11A, preliminary FY26 [4:43:34] and FY27 general fund budget. We welcome Michelle Vargas, our chief financial [4:43:39] officer. Good evening, Chair Desaine, Superintendent McIntyre, members of the [4:43:45] board. Um, tonight, what I have for you is an update of a presentation we did back on February 24th, looking at our [4:43:53] projected budget for 26 and 27 for the next bianium. Um, generally we always do [4:43:59] this during a funding year for the legislature. So, we're keeping track of what's going on, what has changed. Um, [4:44:07] and where we're at as we're looking at budget cuts again to kind of highlight [4:44:12] what we predict that target to be based on the two years. Um, from where we're [4:44:18] at, um, just to remind you, our budget timeline for the 25 26 year, uh, we [4:44:24] certified our levy back in December. We the legislative session is supposed to [4:44:31] end on May 19th. It's not looking highly likely that it will, but maybe it will. [4:44:36] Um the forecast has changed slightly. We had a six over $600 million surplus for [4:44:43] the upcoming bianium and um $5.1 billion deficit. It's now a $6 billion deficit [4:44:49] for 2829 since February. Um in January, February, we finalized enrollments. [4:44:55] We've been doing staffing since then and will continue to do staffing. Department [4:45:01] of site budgets have went out. Um we were are doing preliminary review of the [4:45:07] assumptions. I will be back in two weeks with all funds for um for the final 26 [4:45:13] and then um looking for board approval for the 26 budget on June 23rd. [4:45:19] But tonight we're looking at both the 26 and 27 and that is just the bianial [4:45:24] what's going on. There hasn't been a whole lot with the legislature to make changes to this presentation. We'll talk [4:45:31] a little bit about some of the things that are out there but for the most part the biggest change that's happened since [4:45:37] um February was increase of the CPI. The CPI went from uh [4:45:43] 2.33% up to 2.74. that increased it from $169 per pupil to $200 per pupil. So [4:45:52] that was over $1.2 million increase. So when we were looking at 6 million [4:45:57] increase in revenue, we're at 8.9. Um based on our amended fiscal year 25, we [4:46:05] updated our special ed revenue. So that's kind of rolled out. So there's an increase in our special ed revenue also [4:46:11] for fiscal year 26. Then the re previously 5.3 million. We're now up to 6.9 [4:46:17] million. Um the other items on here really haven't changed much other than just how we're accounting for that [4:46:24] English language learner um the the amount of the adjustment each year in [4:46:30] order to get that cross subsidy out there in fiscal year 27. Other than [4:46:35] that, we're assuming still stable. We're holding stable for our investment so [4:46:40] far. Interest rates haven't plummeted at this point, so we're still holding that amount. Um but so those are kind of the [4:46:46] changes that were looked at and assumptions for fiscal year 26 expenditures. Our expenditures um [4:46:53] what's changed since then is you approved a transportation contract. We knew there was a potential for for more [4:46:59] that came out of that. We were in the the 20% range that we were budgeting for. It was closer to a 30% range. So [4:47:07] that is included in this amount. So, where we are looking at a $14.1 million increase in expenditures, we're now up [4:47:14] to 18.6. Um, where we were at a much smaller um we're 7.5 million for [4:47:22] chartered transportation and utilities, we're now at 10.3. [4:47:27] Um, other than that, the other changes that we still have the the budget [4:47:32] reductions on here and then the $5.1 million fund balance transfer from [4:47:37] strategic investments. We're also um making that change in order to preserve [4:47:43] fund balance. That was part of the phase 2 budget cuts. In fiscal year 27, we have a $17 [4:47:50] million. I will say that you're if you're looking at yours, I had to do a change on the expenditures. I didn't [4:47:57] have it adjusted correctly for the $5 million reduction for the strategic investment of four year the fourth year. [4:48:04] So on the it's updated here, but we need to update the slides that are within the [4:48:10] presentation that you're looking at. Revenue is a $17 million increase. Um [4:48:15] that is the the CPI has not changed. We there hasn't been an adjustment on that. Um, so you're looking at the majority of [4:48:22] the 7.2 million is for CPI. Um, the [4:48:27] other this growth factor for special education is 6.2 million. And then the [4:48:33] English language learner, that's when that kicks in. Um, in fiscal year 27, we do have a decrease in that cross [4:48:39] subsidy transfer. That's in the in and the out on both sides of it. Expenditures are an increase of 11.6 [4:48:48] million. um the assumption that we use for both years are 2 and a half on salaries and 5% on um benefits insurance which totals [4:48:57] 16.2 million. We are reducing the strategic investment so that increases overall salaries because that's all [4:49:04] staffing the 5.2 million. Um the other amount is just the larger increase for [4:49:11] 2.4 4 million on services and utilities um just because our um in the second [4:49:18] year of that contract for transportation rather than being a 3% increase is a 5% [4:49:23] increase. So that put that up a little bit higher. Director Simon, so could you go back one [4:49:31] slide, please? So Michelle, um on the assumptions or [4:49:37] the budgeted salary benefit increase, right? So 2.5. So we have at least some folks at [4:49:45] least our teachers and maybe others that are on like a step in lane if you will, right? So there's a there's a built-in [4:49:52] increase from year to year following those steps and lanes potentially unless you're on the top career that could be [4:49:58] stagnant. But so 2.5% increase. I've had some people tell me, well, [4:50:05] so and just using that as an example, we get the step in the lane and you're going to add 2.5% to each step in lane. [4:50:13] And I said, no, that's not true. 2.5 pretty much is just not increasing [4:50:18] anything and letting the steps and lanes happen. Tell me if I'm wrong, or maybe you can explain that better than I can. [4:50:25] For the teachers teachers contract, which is that has steps and lanes, the other contracts generally don't have [4:50:31] that. um their their steps and lanes. Um Todd does that calculation. It's over [4:50:38] 2%. I don't it's not a full two and a half percent. It's over 2%. So to allow for steps and lanes, you're already at [4:50:46] 2%. Gotcha. Okay, then that's what I remembered. So it's just it's just Yeah, [4:50:51] just slightly over 2%. Then if Yeah, if you're to increase across all of the cells, then [4:50:57] that would be another go up from 2%. it'd be above 2.5% for sure. Okay, thank [4:51:03] you. Okay, so then we have the updated 2-year [4:51:11] um looking at it based on these parameters that we're looking at. Um as you can see what we have for our [4:51:18] adjusted deficit for the current year is 66.7 million. That is exactly what we've [4:51:25] been looking at and bringing our fund balance down to 8.3%. Then fiscal year 27. So with all [4:51:33] those changes in the revenue and that what we were at on fis on um February [4:51:38] 24th was a projected deficit of 16 million. We've increased it slightly by [4:51:44] those increases in the transportation and that up to 16 million475. So we had some increases in revenue that offset [4:51:50] that larger increase but it didn't offset all of it. So at this point in time with the assumptions that we're [4:51:56] making with the current CPI, there's still a chance that CPI could be higher for for fiscal year 27. It's projected [4:52:04] at 2.61. It doesn't leave a lot to get to that maximum of three. So there could be some there. What's out there in the [4:52:10] legislature right now? The targets are zero pretty much or $40 million all going to the read Act. [4:52:18] Um both bills that have or haven't been approved. um have about there's some [4:52:25] adding but then there's subtractions in areas that are still looking at a loss of revenue next year of around $600,000. [4:52:33] Superintendent. Yeah, that's what I was going to add. We're we're watching the omnibus bills. The House summary proposal right now is a net loss of [4:52:40] about 560,000. The Senate is similar. It's just shy of [4:52:47] 600,000 net loss. So, and then as of today, right, it's so [4:52:54] nothing's been decided at this point. The the biggest thing is that the [4:53:00] Senate is looking out to balance and and reduce or put a pause on inflation in [4:53:08] fiscal year 208 and 29. So, that's I mean, annually that's a loss of revenue [4:53:15] for us of about $9 million. if it's not, you're always hoping for it and it was written in. Um the house doesn't have [4:53:22] that. There are some and then there's discussions around our compet because we know that the new formula with the [4:53:27] direct certifications and not counting the paper, how that worked out for us um is a loss of $3.8 million. At this point [4:53:34] in time, we have a reserve. We'll be able to fund what we have next year [4:53:40] whether we get that 3.8 million or not because there's a reserve there. Um so we're we're not making any reductions in [4:53:47] that area and waiting for them to make a decision. The Senate was looking at a hold harmless with having um a group [4:53:54] brought together again to look at comped which seems to happen quite a bit like almost every other year there's always [4:54:00] some sort of task force um and the house was um not doing anything but also [4:54:05] looking at a task force for fiscal year 27. So that's kind of what's going on [4:54:10] out there. So, to the best of our knowledge, what we're looking at right now is about a $16.5 million target for [4:54:19] our budget reductions based on contracts being settled within the 2 and 12% and [4:54:25] insurance contribution increases of 5%. Now, all of that can change based on decisions that you make as a board of [4:54:32] which way that you know those go. But based on these assumptions with 2 and a.5% on salaries and 5% on your [4:54:39] insuranceances, we're looking at about a $16.5 million target for reductions in [4:54:45] fiscal year 27. [4:54:50] The next slide are things we just talked about basic formulas 1% additional 1% [4:54:55] which doesn't look like it's going to matter at this point but it's about $3 million every 1% you increase total [4:55:03] salaries is about 4.2 2 million 1% on health benefits. I know we were saying about 550,000. I've rounded up to [4:55:10] 600,000 just even. Um what's included in here? Unfunded mandates. So the the [4:55:16] family the Minnesota paid family leave act that's in here and that's part of [4:55:22] what's causing um the increase in expenditures. It's not funded. Um in order to do that, what's also in there [4:55:28] is the unemployment. So, if there's a change made on the unemployment right now, some of it that [4:55:34] is out there is to finish through summer of 28. We run out of money next summer is [4:55:43] what they're saying that we potentially with different ones. Um, so that's kind of in play, too. The 2.1 million that [4:55:49] we're seeing each year that is unfunded after this summer. So those are the [4:55:56] things that are still out in play, but as of right now, we have it expensed in [4:56:02] our budget to cover it. We did not have revenue for it. So th this is what is [4:56:08] part of our deficit. If something gets better, it reduces our deficit. So we [4:56:13] have we're we're accounting for everything to what could hit us or will [4:56:19] hit us as of right now. Um, this was the governor's the next [4:56:25] slide, please. I had one more, but maybe not. The there [4:56:33] was a we had the governor's when the governor had um what he proposed was [4:56:38] compensatory current loss of 3.8 million, which is what one of them is. Um there was also some reductions um in [4:56:47] areas for transportation and also potentially our comped pilot in fiscal [4:56:53] year 27 which is 4.7 million. So those things we haven't seen in any of the bills as of this point but those were [4:56:59] what the governor was looking at. Um and potentially the loss of QC count that [4:57:05] was a big one $10 million. The again those have not been out there in the [4:57:10] bills. Superintendent McIntyre. Thank you, Chair Deshaine. Um the compad pilot [4:57:15] was was in there and we spent lots of time there's seven districts involved in [4:57:20] that pilot. We're at 85% of it. We we did a very aggressive um set of [4:57:27] communications around that and that seems to have we're not seeing it in there. Doesn't mean it can't find its [4:57:32] way back in there, but that's another nearly$5 million that would only add to that deficit. Um, the other thing I [4:57:40] would just mention too is that the Q the Q comp piece here, that's that's about [4:57:46] $7 million of end of year stipens for for teachers and then another 30% of that's just paying for the staff to run [4:57:52] and do the coaching around the um the the program. There's also been I don't [4:57:59] think it's going to get maybe addressed this session, but the state's going to have to deal with pensions and it's a [4:58:05] real problem in in the next nine years. If nothing happens, the state simply can't afford it. So, they're going to if [4:58:11] you remember the rule of 85, rule 90, those things don't exist. Without it, um [4:58:16] across the state, everyone's going to end at the end of our pay scale costing all districts more more and more and [4:58:23] more. So for us, I think if nothing happens, that's an additional $120 million over nine years that we we don't [4:58:29] have. So I sense urgency around it. We've heard a lot about it at AMSD. I [4:58:35] don't think they're going to do much about it this this year, but it is clearly on the [4:58:41] radar. Um, and it may be a policy. We'll have to see. We'll have to see, but it [4:58:46] it's it's coming and we all need it to be addressed. And at some point, we'll do a work session on that so you can get your arms around it a bit more. So just [4:58:53] have that in the background. Uh that's a statewide issue along with insurance. [4:58:58] Those two things are really big challenges for the state as a whole, not just our own district. Um I have heard [4:59:07] some ideas around um different ways to fund that, but nothing with real traction yet. I don't [4:59:14] know if you want to add anything, Dr. Langenfeld, but no, I I think [4:59:19] that funding overall [4:59:27] just the Q comp for us. That's our number, but there's there's a a fairly good size and I've heard it being [4:59:35] considered to offset something else is really what they're it's [4:59:41] um to offset a place where it would impact all all districts in a positive [4:59:47] way. Not all districts have it. Oh yeah, he would that was the that's I've heard that more than once that they would use [4:59:54] it in a way that all districts would benefit from returning that money for something else. There's a lot of [5:00:00] negotiating left to be done. You are. But if all these things on the list happened, that really moves our target [5:00:06] of 16 almost 17 million even deeper. Yeah. Significantly deeper. Most of the [5:00:12] stuff out there just it it's adding here but taking away here. So, it's not there's not a real net gain, but just [5:00:20] moving it around. Yeah. The only other thing I'll comment on is um there is [5:00:26] some language in a few bills to allow one-time fund transfer. We we have healthy fund balances in our child [5:00:32] nutrition area. Um it's it's not a long-term solution. It can give some [5:00:38] temporary relief somewhere. I don't even know if it'll have enough traction to get passed, but the those fund transfers [5:00:44] are in the conversation. Director Simon. Thanks, Casey. Um, so on [5:00:51] the QC comp discussion, I I think this is my understanding of it, right? So, I know we said all these things would add [5:00:58] to, but we have if if it's 30%, we probably have 30 coaches, let's say [5:01:03] around that range. So really what would happen if we lose that funding the [5:01:08] teachers wouldn't if they meet their Q comp they wouldn't get that extra money right that the state allocates as part [5:01:15] of this and those 30 staff members would I think most or all our teachers. So [5:01:22] they would move they would have rights to move back to a classroom and probably bump well they'd bump someone right [5:01:28] probably a um a a new teacher like that doesn't have tenure yet. So, so it does [5:01:34] add it would add to but there's a there's a logical path of what we have to do to to do that. So, I just wanted [5:01:42] to mention that. And then could you go back two slides real quick? I just have a it might be because it's late. One [5:01:48] more. No, no, no. I'm sorry. That was it. Um, it might just be because it's late, but for fiscal year 27 with the [5:01:55] fund balance being down to 5.2, I think we agreed the board has agreed on the 8.3 whatever that number is because we [5:02:02] kept in some things that were on the table but we I don't think we've ever [5:02:07] has this board agreed that we want to go to down to 5.2 This this shows so no what this shows is you would make that [5:02:14] budget reduction of 16.5 million to maintain the 8.3%. And this board may [5:02:19] say we have to go deeper than that to build back the fund balance which I at least I would in order to okay so yeah I [5:02:26] would say that you're short in the operating deficit of 16.5 million. So that's your minimum target unless to get [5:02:34] back to 8%. what your math mind real quick at if you were to do it all in one [5:02:39] year you would need to do another [5:02:44] another like 10 million 11 million okay thanks I mean it's in order to do this [5:02:50] then you'd be looking at 26 27 million understood it might be a multi-year thing but just to give folks an [5:02:57] understanding to get that fund balance somewhat near 10% which is what this [5:03:02] board hopes for I think Okay, thanks. [5:03:09] Okay, that's all I have for tonight. If there's any other questions, thank you for being here with us so late. [5:03:16] Appreciate the presentation. All right, board members, we are nearing our last board agenda item. Um, but we [5:03:23] do have an executive session after that, so be prepared. Um, board correspondence [5:03:28] and communication. It's our opportunity to share happenings in our community, report on committee assignments or any [5:03:34] other items of interest. Um, I'll go first quickly and then others can share. I wanted to share with everybody that [5:03:40] the district held a community conversations meeting with PTO leaders from around the entire district uh at [5:03:47] the end of April and it was a really positive discussion and the commitment from our parent groups and leaders to [5:03:54] support their school communities and the students in them is astounding. So, it [5:04:00] was a really thoughtful discussion and I think people really appreciated the opportunity to come in, weigh in, talk [5:04:06] about our budget situations, talk about their school um success stories and things they've done to support students. [5:04:14] Um, tons of activities going on in our schools. Um, we've had middle school [5:04:20] plays, Jackson to Dallas Wonderland, a great production. Um, Champlain Park High School's doing Hades Town. There's [5:04:26] another weekend of shows there if anybody wants to go. It was exceptional. The orchestras have done lullaby [5:04:31] concerts. The bands are doing their final performances, choir showcases. There's something to do every single [5:04:37] night of the week if you if you so desire to do that. Um, I just specifically want to call out uh I was [5:04:43] able to visit Dayton Elementary's Adventures Plus program with Representative Danny Nao. Um, and it was [5:04:49] a really good learning opportunity for us. We walked through, talked to the A+ leaders. Um and uh Director Langenfeld [5:04:58] was able to join us and just hear how that program is supporting parents and families in our communities with before [5:05:04] and after school care. Thank you. Anyone else have something to share? Uh [5:05:09] Director Langfeld, I've been um leaning into the the conversations that we continue to have [5:05:16] at the board table and concerns raised. So I actually met um to talk with math [5:05:22] with uh Jessica Tucker in the math talls to talk about with her and a math [5:05:28] specialist. I think it was the person who came before the board to just get a [5:05:33] better understanding of college preparatory math and what was next steps. I also as you talked about um [5:05:40] visited A+ and and um and the we went to the ECF program at Riverview. In [5:05:47] addition to that, uh, co-chair Duchaine and I actually came and observed a social studies class right here at [5:05:53] Samberg. Um, I participated in I actually went over set up a meeting over [5:05:58] at Chapel Park to visit physics class so that I could understand what that looks like and what the concerns might be as [5:06:05] well. And then of course did all the various district um things. um great [5:06:12] opportunity to watch in action the clawbot competition which was uh project [5:06:18] lead the way computer integrated manufacturing uh program that's coming out of sims and [5:06:24] the rapids engineering program where we have students very engaged and I know we just got invited to their [5:06:31] senior capstones and I would I would support them uh if you can attend I [5:06:36] attended a student showcase and reading night at Adams Elementary volunteered a [5:06:41] couple days at Monroe for their MCA testing that's been going on and then um [5:06:47] I attended Hello Dolly over at Rapids uh or yeah Rapids High School which was exceptional as well. [5:06:54] But as I look at this I think one of the biggest um opportunities I've been afforded is I served on the Minnesota as [5:07:02] the Minnesota school board representative for the Minnesota Teacher of the Year panel this year. And when [5:07:09] you sit and listen to the stories of the 12 finalists and knowing they represent [5:07:15] our teachers, it was so inspirational. The person that was [5:07:20] selected 49 years in the classroom and this is a woman who has taken um English [5:07:28] language uh arts to a new level in terms of making it relevant and important for [5:07:35] the students in her classroom. And there are reasons that many of her students [5:07:40] actually have come back and our teachers um because she has inspired them. She's [5:07:46] she's incredible. Um every everyone we had to meet there was a very high level [5:07:52] of energy around the insurance that we recognize the importance of public [5:07:58] education and how how critical of a time it is for public education to ensure [5:08:04] that we serve all. So I I was very inspired. There were times that you [5:08:10] really felt um uh not only inspired but recognize the the level of capacity that [5:08:19] our teachers are engaging in as well. So if you read about Wall-E as she calls [5:08:24] herself, um she's that and much more. Um so very proud of her on our team now. So [5:08:33] anyone else have something they want to share? Uh, Coach Erogo. Uh, just two quick [5:08:40] mentions. I got to go to the POW at Champ Park High School. Thought it was pretty neat. It was pretty cool thing to [5:08:46] witness and lots of vendors to see afterwards. So, it's just good interacting with the community. Um, and then I got the opportunity to see all [5:08:52] the elementary school art displays at Northtown Mall. Well done to all the elementary students. You're a far better [5:08:59] artist than I am. Excellent. All right. Uh the next agenda [5:09:06] item is an executive session. So this session will take place in the Michael Sullivan room and will be closed [5:09:11] pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.03 subdivision 1 to deal with [5:09:16] matters of labor negotiations for all open groups. The closed uh session, yeah, we already said we'll be in the [5:09:22] Michael Sullivan room. Uh I would entertain a motion to move to a closed session for the reasons stated. So [5:09:28] moved. Thank you, Director Simon. Do we have a second? Thank you, Director Arco with um motion [5:09:35] or Adette. Gosh, sorry. Thank you. Uh any discussion? Okay, hearing none. All those in favor [5:09:41] say I. I. Any oppose say nay. With six in favor and zero opposed, we will move [5:09:46] into closed session. Five minute break. [5:09:52] Thank you. Five. over. [Music]