Let's see if my mic's on. Good evening everyone. I now call this February 23rd study session meeting of the Prior Lake Savage Area Schools Board of Education to order. Please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance as you're able. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to theublic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Uh our first um item up is purpose and agenda. Dr. Thomas, >> thank you. Chair Bolan, >> public for public forum. Sorry. >> Oh, yeah. Public forum first. Sorry, my bad. I'm gonna read a little um public forum first thing up on on the agenda. This time is set aside to receive citizen input. Citizen input is important to our governance role. We thank you for your engagement with the board and ask that speakers respect the threeminut time limit and that you please speak in the manner you prefer being spoken to. Thank you. Our um our speaker today is Michelle Lindell. Lindell. >> Hello. Good. My name is Michelle Lindell and I am here to speak to you on behalf of my daughter Claire. Claire is in the life skills program at Jeffers Pond and is in a wheelchair. She is non-verbal and she requires a nurse to attend school with her. We have been blessed with being a part of the JP community for the past three years when the life skills program grew and she needed to move from Redtale to Jeff Pond. The between the staff, the students, the administration and the unified program, we have been very grateful for our experience for our daughter. We do want um I do want to touch about an inequitable and an accessibility issue that we have seen at Jeffers Pond and that is in regards to Claire and other students with mobility issues not having the ability to move um via sidewalk to the field where gym is held and other outside educational experiences happen. Um, for the past three years, she has had to um do her FIED class on the blacktop and not be able to participate with her mobile peers. Um, I know that this has been a trying time for our um district in terms of finances, but I feel that this is something that is inequitable and an accessibility issue. And I asked the um board to really look into this issue and make sure that all kids have access to all areas of the school, including the Jeffers Plond um field for um all students to be able to have physical education and outdoor learning experiences equitably. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Next up is the purpose and agenda. Dr. Thomas. Thank you, Chair Bullan, board of directors. Um this evening for our study session, um we have a variety of topics that we'll cover this evening. um to dive a little bit deeper into some of the uh conversation topics listed. First, we'll do a proclamation and then in terms of our oversight of operations, we'll give a review of the RFPs that came in for our loading dock uh RFP that we shared about two weeks ago. Um give you an update on the goals and strategies for the ANI plan. uh looking at um conversations around our program staffing additions and reductions discussions that are beginning in in the district and then an evaluation statement from the last close session for uh my midyear formative uh with the board and then we have a couple of policies uh 100 policies for the uh board and then closing to an adjourned for a close session for negotiations. >> Very good. Uh tonight's proclamation is National School Social Worker Week. Um I will read that proclamation. Uh Prior Lake Savage Area Schools recognizes March 2nd through 6th, 2026 as social school social workers appreciation week, celebrating our deep gratitude for these essential staff. Whereas school social work programs are vital components of education as recognized in federal law. Whereas school social workers provide critical support to students facing barriers such as disability, poverty, trauma, mental illness, homelessness, and family stress. Whereas their expertise in school culture and climate and in building partnerships between home, school, and community is essential to student success. Therefore, the Prior Lake Savage Area School Board of Education proclaims the week of March 2nd through 6th, 20126 as school social workers week, honoring their extraordinary service and impact on students lives. Director Chuka, hi, thank you so much for your appreciation for school social workers. I wanted to come up and also express my appreciation. They play a really important role in supporting our students and families and connecting um schools, families, staff to resources um in our community. Their work really strengthens not just individual students but school climate as well. Making sure that students have what they need and families have what they need, removing barriers to learning and ensuring that every student feels safe and successful at school. So, thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Next up on the agenda is oversight of operations uh the construction services loading dock RFP. Uh Director Powers. >> Good evening everyone. >> Good evening. >> So we did get uh some interesting numbers that came in from this RFP. Um, one of them shocked me by being higher than even I estimated and the other one came in substantially less than what I estimated. Um, I'm confident in both companies as they put in their bids. Um, we've worked with what both of them before um, in this district. So, it's like I said that I'm confident with both of them. the ones that came in um most favorable. Um in all honesty, like I I mentioned, I'm surprised all three bids for both Fivehawks, Glendale, and Hidden Oaks came in at $20,000 more than I had budgeted for the entire project at Hidden Oaks. So, all three projects came in at 441,71 by one of our vendors compared to the original budget of 866,000. So, I'm very happy with that. Um, that's where I'm going to recommend that we go forward with and I'm going to make sure that you have that material so that all of you can look at those. Um, and then when the questions come up, please definitely reach out. Um the other bid um I mentioned was substantially more. They were over $1 million. So that's a big difference. Um cost savings and I we were even considering not doing a couple of those loading docks to hold off. Um but at that price um I really would like to proceed. So we'll uh we'll present I'll present those numbers to all of you. Um and then we can talk about it a lot more coming forward. Are there any questions at the moment? where members, >> director France, >> um just to confirm, um the have you been able to question any of the um vendors for the bid to determine any nuances in the differences in price? >> That's a good question. Um, so the biggest difference honestly is one of them is a a company that it's just a couple of people working out of their truck versus a a company that has overhead that they need to worry about for a lot of things. Um, like I mentioned, the company that is the lowest, we have had them for several projects here in the district. They rebuilt the uh trash enclosure at Westwood. They have worked on the trash enclosure at Jeffers Pond. They've worked on a lot of other of our masonry projects, including um rebuilding all of the uh entryway areas for five hawks that we had to redo for the fire marshall correction. So, they've been responsible for all of those. One of the things that came up um that was not included in their estimate was um the railings. um they honestly don't deal with uh metal working and I'm more than happy that they don't do that because then we can make sure and get somebody in there that really um does well with that. I'd rather someone admit to me ahead of time that that's not their forte. >> Okay. And the and all the prices you received were not to exceed with the same um insurance requirements, guarantees of work, etc. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Anyone else? >> Um just curious. I know we typically try to have like three bids for RFPs. Would you ever open the RFP or extend the period, so we try to get a third bid? >> I did extend this one by a couple of extra days through the weekend and I still did not get any interest. I was reaching out to other contractors. >> Um none of them got back to me. So, I was a little bit surprised on that. Yeah, >> I I honestly thought we'd have at least four or five different companies coming out. Um but these were the two. And I'm happy that they these two did because they are definitely our more reliable partners um in a lot of different things. >> Uh good evening. Um so the um the you've worked with both of these comp did you say you've worked with both companies on several projects? Yes. >> Great. And the the one that doesn't do the railings like you said is that the one that came in substantially lower? So, if we need to add on to that, >> I'll need to add on a few things. I I thoroughly expect with um with the difference between all the bids that I'll have some type of a change order. This is pretty typical for construction projects. Yeah, >> but I already know I'm going to have to add in for the railings and any of the other metal work. So, the the other type of metal work would be where the um where we have the bumpers attached onto the loading duck, we attach those with metal railings. So, it's like an L-shaped bracket that sits right there in front that the the bumper is attached to. So those types of things and the railings themselves I'll contract with a separate company um and I'll make sure that we come it's um round numbers it should be between 30 and $50,000 for those two. So if um if we're looking at total overall costs we're still going to be less than $500,000 for everything. >> So with the difference there so if that's 500 say versus the one that came in about a million. So that's a a $500,000 difference. Is there any concern on your part about quality or any I mean that's a huge gap. >> It's a huge difference. And like I mentioned, one of the things that was a deciding factor for me was actually the work they have done in the district before. I if you if you any of you get a chance, if you go and look at the like the Westwood um garbage enclosure, >> it looks good. I mean, it's not just a case of the the cracking is at a minimum. Um, the walls are straight, they're clean, it's it's a clean work. So, I trust that that and one of the things I I talked with Dr. Thomas about this, too. One of the things that we could do if we decide to say, "Okay, maybe we could do all three of these." I would do one of the projects first and then talk to them about if this project is as good as I expect it to be, then I would really love to re award you these other two projects um later on in the summer. Would that change anything about the cost or anything with terms of that? >> If we talk if we agree about it this ahead of time, it shouldn't um it may add 3%. It shouldn't be a huge amount unless something really weird happens to the cost of concrete which I if it did then we would just say hey let's hold off on those or get an um an updated estimate and then bring that to all of you again. Yeah. Anything any change of that substance I would want to make sure and bring up bring forward. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Anyone else? Moving on. Thank you, Doc. Director Powers. >> I almost called you doctor. I give you an upgrade. Um, next up is the achievement and integration plan. This is report only. Um, and board action will be requested at the March meeting. Superintendent Thomas. Okay, thank you all. Um, so this evening I'm going to walk over uh review uh some of the proposed changes for uh the achievement and integration uh planning uh phase for our next year's uh grant. Um, and you know, I've shared this, you know, ahead of time and, uh, the, you know, all the goals and strategies at the end. I'm not going to obviously read through those. I just wanted to make sure I captured that for the general public so they could take the time to read through that. Um, but I'll go through a couple of these opening slides. You know, our purpose for the uh, ANI funding um, is to promote racial and economic integration, um, increase student achievement, uh, expeding equitable access to educational opportunities, and reducing academic disparities. Now this is taken directly from you know our ANI um uh website here at the state. We have the guiding statutes that governs a lot of our work um here around this uh body of funding. Um a couple of things in terms of eligibility uh you can be a racially isolated district uh which is an enrollment of students from protected classes exceeding adjoining districts by 20% or more. um adjoining with district borders or RAIS schools within a district and you can have a voluntary um process as well. And for us, we have adjoining borders um with Jordan, Shakipi um and based upon enrollment um with regards to their total enrollment of students of color and in our population. And so we've historically had partnerships with among those districts. Uh ANI is funded uh through uh both um state aid as well as 30% into a local levy. We've received just under a million dollars in in state aid and it's uh for for us that aid has continually gone up since uh we've received it um several year uh several years ago. Uh we just received um our estimates for next year. And so that's part of the reason why I'm holding on some of the budget because we weren't too sure where our dollars were going to be coming in. Um but that'll be something that I'll be sharing in terms of a um uh spreadsheet or a template that we did several years ago. We'll be doing the same template um when I bring it back um for you all in March reflecting the new revenue that's coming in. Um, good news is is that the revenue that we are currently receiving uh what's forecasted for next year is about um 10,000 or maybe just a touch over $10,000 more next year in in our ANI eligibility. Um still I think hovering around that $970,000 mark. Um right around that dollar mark. um allowable uses uh for instructional supports and interventions for our kids uh based upon uh disproportionality achievement data. That's where we would identify students who would be eligible for the usage of the resources. We can use it for professional learning for our staff. Um as well as uh family engagement and community partnerships to include um not only our families but also some of the students um that we serve as well. Um that was another part of our inner district um or yeah inner district work with um neighboring um school districts. And then those um and that's the second the last bullet there the integration and access related activities with um our partnering districts which has been something um pretty significant for us here in in the south metro. Um in terms of uh how this uh work is is aligned uh our new uh comprehensive achievement in civic readiness um CACR which is the updated version of the world's best workforce um that's where this um resources directly align in terms of getting outcomes um as measured by that. That's something that we deliver to the school board um in in November uh each year. Um that's where we also do the update on the goals uh the progress on the goals um each year as well. Uh and here you have uh where our CACR emphasizes and I know we talked a little bit about this this this past fall um but what we see from our last fall data is that obviously early literacy this is something that many districts are um focusing in on uh with regards to the the read act. We know that attendance particularly for some of our student subgroups is an area of focus for us and then the disperate access to rigorous um coursework um and career pathway programming. That's another area that we want to make sure that um aligns with the statute um but also in what we are seeing in terms of our practices. Um when you take a look at our current plan versus our proposed plan, um we're going to build on what we know is um having some impacts for our families um and and for our students. Um so on the left hand column here, you see our current uh uh planning that's occurring in our district. And then on the right hand side here, you'll see um some proposed uh areas of focus on where we will um put our energies in for next year and some of those bold areas just to kind of call out some area uh some really strong focuses. So really looking at our data uh and disagregating that um uh as required by CACR and how we're going to resource supports around what we're seeing in terms of some of the gaps um really emphasizing those measurable academic outcomes and success for kids um that we can see um based upon some of the data as I noted earlier that early focus on literacy. Granted, that's a a a district-wide initiative, probably a statewide initiative. Um, but it is an area for us that we know that we want to make sure that we get um u most of our resources invested in because that's those foundational years for our students to compound their learning, you know, exponentially over the over their um course of their high school career. um access and persistent to completion for some of that um CTE, Minaps, advanced uh learning based upon historical representation uh on data and how kids are doing. Um so we want to make sure we're focusing um some resources there. Um high quality access to uh learning and instruction uh for our staff. Uh intentionally tied engagement and belonging outcomes. Uh a lot of this comes with our committed and caring conversations work that we've done with regards to some of our students across multiple districts. And then we've also hosted uh some uh language specific uh family engagement nights also to ensure that there's uh access and understanding um and overcoming some of the barriers um historically that we may have experienced with some of our families. And then lastly, um tying a lot of what we're doing directly to some of our uh instructional priorities and student results. Again, a lot of this work that we started a couple years ago of aligning um our work uh at the building level with our new strategic plan. This is also something that we are going to be focusing in on with um next year, the next cycle for the three-year cycle of of the ANI plan. um putting resources uh in the areas for the greatest impact. Again, those foundational years of literacy are key for us. We know that reading is the backbone for all other disciplines. And so there will be heavy emphasis there um as a district, but also looking at any of our disperate data uh that comes through our reviews to make sure that we're putting resources into the kids who need it most there. Um and and one of the things that we talked about and this is some of the feedback that we received from the teaching and learning committee too is you know we had several uh goals uh and strategies in our last plan um and we're narrowing it down and and sharpening our focus uh to doing what we knew was working and carrying a lot of that work forward versus just doing more. um ensuring that our students have access to high quality instruction and and opportunities of learning. Really finding out ways that we can really strengthen some of the the uh training of our staff so that they know how to meet some of those unique learning needs of our of our students, aligning more with our CACR, which is new and updated from World's Best Workforce from the last three-year cycle that we have. And then lastly, we did not have our new strategic plan um in that last cycle. And so the new strategic plan um will also be uh uh an area that we want to make sure that we're adhering to. Um we won't be going I won't be reading every single goal. Um the the online um portal for uh ANI funding is kind of a forgive mete. It's kind of a clunky portal. Um and so what I did, I just cut and pasteed directly from um the online portal and put it into a word doc. And so the goal one, the goal type, strategy name and type of strategy are language directly from um the the portal. The narrative around the goal one up top is our narrative and then the narrative description is our narrative. Um but know that the achievement disparity goal for example under goal type there's categories that you have to code um how each goal aligns to the MDE templates and so that's all taken directly from their template. Um so what you have there are goal one and then you'll see strategy 1.1 1.2 etc aligning to goal one all throughout strategy um two or goal two similarly 2.1 2.2 2 2.3 etc. and then all the way through um to um our last goal. Um just to give you a sense of where we're at um in this current year and some of how we would be rolling forward uh with some of our work for next year. Whoops. Oops. Go back here. Sorry, this didn't port over well. Kind of cut off at the bottom. I actually brought a paper copy, too. But um just so you can see how it's currently allocated and we would have a lot of carryover of some similar programming uh with sharper focuses uh with the goals that you saw uh included. Um but our student success our student success coaches or our academic paras are um a new investment this year that we converted um some of the administrative overhead. And so um you just heard a little bit about that a couple of weeks ago. Um it took us a while to get folks hired um into those positions unfortunately. Um but the time that they've been here we are starting to see a really strong reception not only from the students but also from our staff and our families um of those students getting that additional support. Uh we have uh six cultural liaison with our dominant language groups um that will be represented. We have portions of our elementary and secondary deans um that are currently covered. Our deans play a critical role in our um student assistance teams or problem solving teams. They are regularly looking at data and finding ways to bridge some of that support for the academic and behavioral needs of our students so that they can keep them on track. Uh we have uh a category of translation and interpretation that would also carry forward. Uh food resources um for some of our family engagement evenings that we sponsor. uh a tutoring and mentoring uh block for um some of our students. Uh transportation for our student events that we host a couple of times throughout the year. Um a portion of our aid um in partnership with um the statutes that govern um American Indian programming here in the state of Minnesota. Um we have used some of this uh integration aid um to pay for a a portion of some of our Indian education coordinator as well as some of the PD that gets done specifically around our AIEA grant our American Indian education aid grant sorry um we have some prek outreach that we are we piloted this year um really finding ways that we can get families earlier so that we don't have those bar barriers to begin with that we can begin to um find ways to connect and uh with families to get them engaged in in our district. Uh and then we have uh a line for a contracted supports and consultants that would come in to do any type of training or support for our students um guest speakers at some of our student events as well. And then what's not um showing up at the very bottom is um the benefits actually that go along with the the FTE um that's listed above there. So generally speaking um this is what we um had back in uh 23. um we revised some of that um for this current budget year. Um so you can see what that looks like and uh I'll be bringing something similar now that we understand what our dollar thresholds will be and um you know making adjustments as we need to moving forward. So with that um I will stop and chair turn it back to the board. >> Very good. Board board questions board discussion. Director Mason, >> I have a couple things. Um I think one of the requirements is to provide key indicators of of um of progress and assess if the strategies are working. Y >> um and I don't feel like I really got that out of the narrative description. I guess I would like to see something a little bit more concise. >> There will be Yeah, there will be KIPs that will be part of um the the March presentation to you all. Okay. >> Um, we'll be baselining the year of 27, the fall, I'm sorry, the fall of 26 will be our new established three-year baseline, and then we'll have we're working through the metrics rollups right now as to what those would cascade to be over the next three years. But, yep, there there will be KIPs. >> Um, and that's part of that online template. Um, and when I tried cutting and pasting that, you really lose a lot. and versus replicating all of that. Um, we'll just show that page or whatever on MDE's website um for the KIPs. >> Okay. Yeah, I think that would be helpful. And just to even tie back some of these positions, how or that what you listed on the spreadsheet, how they relate to each >> um goal would be helpful or each strategy >> um for me. So, anyone else? Um yeah, thank you. Um, so I have a question. Um, as I'm reading through, MD has a really great um, uh, click to link about frequently asked questions on their website. And I I believe I I discovered this back when, um, back in 2023 when we we were reviewing this plan and developing this plan at the same time. And the one thing that I just read is that um it basically says you can't simply you can't simply add programs, initiatives, or staff positions to your achievement and integration plan if your district is already implementing them. Instead, think about how your plan can expand the scope of your current efforts by increasing their capacity to reduce these disparities and increase um increase um outcomes. Um my concern is that a lot of this is really focused on I felt like it was focused on the read act and things that we're already doing >> and so I guess >> are we able to do that? I mean given the fact that >> yeah so uh um director Atinson the uh points that you were reading from the Q&A really is about the distinction between supplementing versus supplanting. M >> we couldn't take all of READAT and cover it with ANI funding, but we can supplement um what we're doing with REDAT specifically as it pertains to how we're triaging some of the disperate data that we see and finding very different kind of interventions that we would utilize that we may not be able to afford and or have in place um generally speaking across the district. Similarly, um what we've done with some of our uh dean roles, they've had they've expanded their roles with the support of ANI funding and so they we've also increased some of that time so we could supplement that but we didn't supplant it. So that's the distinction um that MDE wants us to be mindful of. >> Okay. And then I think something that I I think I would like us to two things I'd like us to be mindful is of is that you know the plan is not it's not meant to segregate students. And I think we've had a couple incidents over the past three years where that has happened and I know it's been addressed. And um I think the thing that my biggest concern is and when we go back to 2023 I was the only board member that did not support the plan that was presented. And I think we can now look back three years and say was the plan that we presented was it effective? And I went back and I pulled our um you know our achievement our achievement by race by students and in almost every single category we've gone down in proficiency. >> And so I I look at this and it's it's $3 million. So it's a million dollars every year >> that is really supposed to be dialed in and helping our students learn. Mhm. >> When I read this whole thing, I didn't see any big like wow of anything we're doing different. And so I just maybe it needs to be in the kip like you were mentioning um director Mason of like what is the de what are the deans going to be doing differently? If we're going to still fund the deans, what are they doing differently? The culture liaison, if we're still going to fund the culture liaison, which I fully support, what are we doing differently? Um because I just I'm I'm it's really hard to believe that we spent all this money and we we widen the achievement gap. We haven't done we hasn't done what it's supposed to do. >> Yeah. I would say also the you know what we're measuring in terms of the success is the goals that were submitted that we present on each fall and those have been making um adequate progress around the goals that we have been approved by MDE and that were approved by the board. So that's the metric that we use to to measure the overall success of the investments that we're making. Um you know obviously with a million dollars you're not going to sit here and be able to boil the entire o ocean. Um but the targeted areas and the goals that we set that's where we'll be looking at and that's what we report that's what we report on every full. So uh similarly going forward with a new three-year cycle um those k the kip that format that we have currently right now that's still the same format that will carry forward. we K we have KIPs in our current plan so I make clear about that there will be KIPs um dialed in for this new three-year cycle and to your point and perhaps you know the thoughts of others um yeah we want to make sure that what you're seeing here is aligned uh much more tighter to some of our CACR uh work that's new um for us as well as our strat plan generally speaking and then um with the the goals that will be set along those kips That's what we'll be reporting back to the board each year or each fall. >> So, I went back and I looked at the the November CACER report and it said that we had a goal of MCU reading assessment that would increase from 65% in 2024 to 67 in 2025%. And it says goal not met. 55% of our students met exceeded an MCA. >> Yeah, there were there were some that were not um hitting where we wanted to be hitting. Yep. As we reported to you last fall. >> So, that's where I'm challenged to understand the money. And I would say the same challenge, Director Atinson, is is across the board for our whole district and many other districts. We set goals around multiple areas that we want to accomplish. And there are going to be some areas that we are coming up short, some areas that we may be exceeding. And so where we're coming up short, we want to understand, okay, what happened? So if that was our goal last year and we have a similar obviously, you know, uh increasing student academic performance is going to be a carry-rough goal. We want to know what exactly happened with that particular group of students that we were serving in that narrow band supported through ANI funding that we might need to transform or uh transition to a different focus for this upcoming three-year cycle. Um because maybe that strategy that we had wasn't getting the outcome that we wanted to get. So what's our different strategy to meeting those goals for our kids in in the new cycle? >> Yeah. And I guess I I for me that's not coming through in this presentation. So, I think I I just need a little bit more content to what that is. What are we doing differently so that we can support all students um um because there's a lot of flexibility in this plan as far as meeting the needs of all students from a racially and socioeconomic standpoint. Um so, I think when all students um >> achieve at their highest level and they're getting the resources they need, it's going to bring everybody up. And so, that's the part that I think is missing um is that I'm not reading within the plan. So, I look forward to um learning more about what you bring forward in March. >> Okay. >> Anyone else? >> Chair Boy, I have a question. >> Uh Dr. Thomas, can you go back one slide, please, if you don't mind? Uh yeah, right there. >> Uh the student success coaches, those are new, correct? >> Uh yes, those are new this year. >> And those are meant to help with academic >> Yes. >> success and rigor and all of that. Three positions. those those three individuals um work very closely with Dr. Zunbush and um uh Miss Maloney to identify students in one of three of our schools that um we targeted. This is what we shared um a couple weeks ago and within that bandwidth of students that they're supporting, putting together individual learning plans for those kids to help accelerate those gaps that they might be experiencing. Um, so yes, that's that's what those individuals are are designed to do. >> And the deans, >> uh, both elementary and secondary, those deans, um, part of their of their roles will be dedicated to what's in this plan and the goals in the plan. >> Yes. Yeah. and and specifically, you know, uh one of the things I will admit, uh Director Axton brought this point up around um uh uh the the ReadAct and focusing on K3. There is going to be a heavy emphasis on some of those younger years and then really looking at some targeted support at the high school or secondary level with some of our Minap, CTE, etc. Um but yes, we want to make sure that if we can identify the the the support gaps early enough with our students, albeit academic or some of the behavioral connection points uh to, you know, student engagement points um at a younger level, the more successful those kids will um be as they go longer, you know, into their into their career. So yes, um talking about um the deans at both elementary and secondary, uh like I said, they are part of our student assistance teams or um um I mean it's called various things. Each each school has a different group, but they sit with a lot of the related services staff. So some teachers, counselors, social workers, deans, and they're triaging, you know, the the outcomes of kids. Um and so they will kind of do stop late protocols. For example, here's a group of red kids, yellow kids, green kids, etc. We're going to focus in on these, you know, group of yellow students. We're going to do this intervention and maybe some of our more, you know, significantly disconnected or disengaged students in that red zone. Maybe we're looking at a very different, you know, modality of how we're going to engage them. But our deans play an instrumental role in both the academic and behavioral engagement of our of our students. That is something that we um you know and definitely could have some of our principles speak to that you know come come March. Um but I did meet with our principles earlier this fall just to get a better understanding as we were looking at a new three-year cycle. And my um push into our um leadership team has been how are we really driving home, you know, the results for our kids um both engagement as well as academics um um for our students. And so that was part of the feedback that I received namely from our elementary principles in terms of how some of that changed because that was the one area that we supplemented more um because they've not historically had deans at every building. And I would also say and I don't want to put words in um all of our principal's mouths that might be here but in conversations with a couple of them um and I'll just and I won't name the individual but we have a very veteran principal um who shared with me when we um provided some additional support to expand um a dean at every one of our elementary campuses is that now I feel like I can be more of an instructional leader versus managing um the building. and and that's a pretty profound statement from someone who's been around the block many a time and getting great outcomes and you all have seen this principal present a few times here. Um some remarkable work that her that the principal and their staff are doing. Um we want to see more of that and and we we also know that we have some areas that we can continue to you know uh make investments for improvement uh based upon our learning. So hope that gives more context to your question. >> It does. Thank you. and the so with the new coaches who uh the new coaches and you know a little bit more of a focus you know from the dean perspective or or time I should say and then like the the tutoring and mentoring which I think is new >> and we've we've had that >> so some of that has been through the summer support um for students that get some identification y and so that's where we can do some partnering with our own staff also through community ed staff as well as some third-party um partnerships as well um that can provide that academic support, some of that bridging work. Um we are going to try um a little bit different of a model this summer um and and looking at ways that we can leverage some of those uh third-party uh partnerships where we can um access perhaps a a block of tutoring services so that based upon referrals we can work with families to help arrange kind of custom schedules that fit for the family's needs. um that may you know be at school site, could be at a church, could be at a library. So we're or maybe at their dinner table. So we're going to explore a little bit more autonomy with how we can customize that. Um because one of the things that we have found is that when we have offered uh extended learning opportunities um for our families and for our students um and dare I say some of our staff, we just don't get a lot of takers. Um and you know unfortunately when we had a more robust kind of summer bridge uh ac academic program um we were able to utilize some of our esser monies which uh provided transportation without transportation there is just no participation and last year was our first kind of hybrid approach to try to doing something and there's very little I think we had like 40 students so the response without transportation is significant and and so we thought well let's try you know a little bit more of a customizable approach that might be a little bit more family friendly um this summer. Um because we know that at best we might get a a small, you know, swath of students who have the ability to come to some of our campuses over the summer. Um largely in partnership with community ed with feebas and then obviously um through uh uh el uh financial eligibility status, we can um supplement those resources and those fees for those families. Um but that plus some other opportunities I think you know we're going to see if that is the right mix and I think that's what it go that's what it goes down to. Um there is no magic wand to say this is the thing that's going to work um for every student. So, we do have to, you know, we're dealing with um young people and families whose needs eb and flow and the dynamics of of families and students can change, you know, from, you know, one month to the next. And so, we want to try to meet them where they're at and find different solutions. Um, if the models that we've had, which tend to fall more traditionally, um, aren't meeting the needs or aren't providing the access, then we have to look a little differently at this and how we would approach it, you know, going forward. And that's part of what we're trying to do, you know, with the new three-year cycle as well is that carry forward what we know has been, you know, powerful for our students and our families, but then also find opportunities for us to be able to expand some of those um um innovative ways to uh connect with our kids and our and our families. >> Thank you very much. Look forward to March. >> I think um just listening to to your last um statements, Dr. Thomas, I think to um however the teachers um and staff can continue to encourage the partnership with with families. Um you know, the going back to student success, you know, the straight line is the straightest line is between the student and the teacher and that that includes the the parents, the the families. And so, however, uh we can um continue to encourage and foster those relationships between the classroom and and home as much as possible to offer the supports that maybe financially we aren't in a position to be able to offer all the supports that we'd like to. Um so, continuing to encourage that that partnership and that relationship. >> Um Director Bowling, I have just one thing to add. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'll make a brief. Um Dr. Thomas, I was reading another district's plan and one of the examples they gave and I don't know, do we do Bistown here in our district? >> Yeah, we do have Bistown. >> Oh, okay. I wasn't sure if we did or not, but that's one of the things that they have on their um achievement integration plan is to have the students attend Bistown and so that all students can gain leadership abilities. And so those are the kind of things where to me I feel like >> those are things that are different and innovative where it's helping kids build their leadership skills and >> absolutely >> as we're continuing to be challenged with resources whether it's those type of field trips and experiences that um it's just like I said doing things differently that we can see and say you know see see the results and also know that this money is being put to work in the right way. One of the things that we're looking at, so outside of the elementary version of the Bistown model, um, is partnering with one of our local nonprofits, um, to enhance, um, our high school model. Um, that would be the equivalent. And that's something that our kids um and other of you who have gone out to the high school particularly our MENCAPS um if I'm not in MENCAPS can we create some other overall access point for kids to understand um just entrepreneurialship and they and so they have a commenor program so that is one area that we'll be focusing on um with some of our um new three-year cycle resources outside of the elementary biz model. >> Yes. Thank you. So I think providing more examples like that would be helpful for us to understand for me personally to understand the plan. So thank you. >> Mhm. >> Anyone else? >> Thank you Dr. Thomas. >> Uh next up on the agenda is the 2026 and 27 program and staffing additions and reductions discussion. This is discussion topic only and executive director of administr administrative surface services coern executive director of business services Ryder. Thank you for presenting tonight. >> Good evening Chair Bullan, Superintendent Thomas and other directors. Um we are going to be going over some uh budget and staffing uh alignment updates for you this evening. uh I am up here but uh all my other two colleagues are going to step in if if need be as well to answer any questions at the end of the uh presentation here. So tonight we want to go over about some process and alignment. Um and just need to be clear that uh none of none of these are finalized staffing decisions. Uh what has occurred to date is an internal modeling and early engagement around budget parameters. Uh just so everybody's aware, there was an effort on my part to engage early so that we could preserve as much programming and stability as possible. But if my communication sequence created confusion, uh I can definitely improve that. But the intent was to start engaging conversations, not to preempt the board. Um so tonight we're going to talk about uh our alignment process and ensuring we are working within the guardrails that you have established. So, we're going to do some budget adjustment overviews, um some of the guiding priorities that drive the decisions, and then the next steps to get us to the uh final board action. So, we'll start with the uh board approved budget priorities. We understand that these aren't a um verbatim to the board approved priorities, but the purpose of the slide was to capture the essence of the priorities. Uh under the academic excellence to maintain class size targets to support personalized learning as well as to maintain and enhance different differentiation and enrichment programming. Uh under the resource optimization, we wanted to streamline the transportation operations, evaluate our partnerships to maximize cost savings and maintain a structurally balanced budget and strive to maintain the minimum 8% unsi unassigned general fund balance. And every modeling conversations with building leaders has began with these priorities in mind. So, as far as the historical budget adjustments, one thing that kind of jumped out to me when I was going through this, um, was this isn't a new conversation for you guys, unfortunately, as well as for the the district administrators that have been here. So, uh, one of the things I wanted to try to do when you look at 2425, 25, 26, and then 26, 27 was to try to, since I'm new, I wanted to try to get an understanding of kind of where we're at and where we were. Um so I wanted to try to find some contextual similarities uh to where we are now and what some previous years have looked like. So started um looking back went as far back as 2016 and 17 which next year will make it a decade. Um and right now I saw that in 2017 18 we had an enrollment of 8,66 students with a staff count of 1,134. And currently right now we have an enrollment of 8,568. So 38 less students and a staff count of 1,131. So three less staff. So fairly comparable to where we were in 2017 2018. And then I looked even a year before that in 26 2017 we had an enrollment of 8,386 and a staff count of 1,98. And based on what we're kind of seeing for next year with enrollment and staff count, I'm guessing that we're going to be right around those same numbers we were in 2016 2017. So 10 years later, you know, pretty much um going to match where we were and like I said in 2017 2018 um pretty much where we were at, you know, right now. So as you can tell that we've made some structural adjustments are are under the are underway that we've had some conversations. Um but the reality is that we're going to do some additional alignment um is required and o overall from what I can tell the district has had some similar numbers to those of 8 to 10 years ago in both enrollment and staff count. We're still refining some of these scenarios and we'll bring those forward in March to ensure explicit alignment before any decisions uh final decisions are made. Next, we have our buckets of where we're looking at trying to make those uh alignments and adjustments. Uh the elementary site cons consolidation of the 1.69 million. The majority of this comes from the repurposing of the Westwood and the staffing realignments that will come with that. uh at the middle school the 595,000 and the high school at 765,000. Uh from the conversations we've had with building leaders, they were given these dollar targets. Uh these weren't uh directives to reduce FTE. These were just targets that were established to kind of start u the brainstorming process at the DSC here at the district services center. $800,000. These are due to department departmental reductions and efficiencies when within each department that we're asked to take a look at how they can be more efficient within their own departments. Um athletics and activities at 100,000 we asked them to try to start looking and find areas where they could be more efficient in both athletics and activities as well as some other areas under review currently such as uh the revenue and compensatory adjustments totaling uh the 4.15. Once again, these are targets for alignment. These are not finalized position reductions. Uh they are part of our scenario modeling and we are still having ongoing conversations that you're going to see here on the next slide. In our early discussions were meant for modeling and brainstorming, not necessarily decision making. So, our timeline and decision points. We're here today at the study session to go over this. Um some key staffing uh meetings we're going to be having over the next few months. We'll have a a secondary staffing, our second one with our uh middle school and high school group on the 26th. Um March 3rd, 10, and 17th, we meet with the elementary group on a weekly basis to have meetings with them. Um March 12th, we will have another secondary staffing meeting to finalize uh some of the decisions at that point in time. March 20th um is when uh staff are going to be notified of any tenative ulas or non-renewals. And then the two board meetings for the month of March on the 9th the transportation RFP and then another budget update as well as then on the 23rd that's when you will have the study session and another staffing and and budget update. Then you move into April you'll have to then take action um on the April 13th board meeting for the non-renewals and ulas. U and then on the 24th that's when we would give our tenative staff assignments for the 26 27 uh staff assignments. And then at April 27th, it's another board study session. May moves into more of a bud budget updates. And then on the May 18th, that's where then you would uh review the preliminary and final budget and final actions on our ULAS. And then June 8th is the action on the final budget. And so just kind of going off of that timeline, in my experience, our internal modeling um has preceded u final board action. Uh what may feel different this year is the earlier engagement of the building leaders uh in brainstorming some of these cost containment strategies. Part of that simply is because of the undertaking of repurposing a school along with needing to make uh a third straight year of significant reductions. From what I could tell in prior years, it appeared to me that some internal modeling discussions happened earlier. But I think probably what feels different is the timing of that communication this year. And I once again I understand the concern around that communication cadence. Uh once again, it was not my intent to circumvent board discussion. Um the information shared with building leaders was part of an internal programmatic and budget modeling uh not necessarily approved staffing reductions. And that distinction may not have been as clear externally as it could have been. And in hindsight, I do see and understand a more explicit preview uh to the board around programmatic shifts and upcoming conversations with site leaders around budgetary brainstorming. And I'm sure that would have been helpful and that is something I can improve moving forward. But as you can see by the timeline that all staff notifications are tentative until the board takes action um on those in May and then finally in June. Just want to put a plug in for our town hall meeting coming up this Wednesday from 6:00 to 7:30 here at the district service center and we welcome all people to come and uh join us for those where we will be having um more in-depth conversations and getting some feedback from the community. With that, what questions can the three of us answer for you? Thank you, directors. Any questions? I have a list. Anyone else? Um, I think, uh, you know, first of all, appreciate the comments. I think we've probably all of us as board members have heard a lot of noise from the community and parents um and students >> um around some of the eliminations and I think specifically probably mostly the elementary so around like fifth grade ski field trips and reduction in PE time and reduction in media specialists and shift to east and then I think also the reduction in track and field day I've heard. So maybe some of these are rumors. I'm not sure. But I'm just curious how does how do those I think I'm trying to understand are those part of um budget cuts or are they just shifts and strategies and um you know trying to understand sort of the cost savings in some of those and do they fall into that elementary bucket I guess. >> Sure. Um thank you Director Mason. the uh couple of I'm going to kind of split up the questions that you had um to um park the specialist model and I'll let um Dr. Anderson um speak to that a little bit. But with regards to some of the field trip experiences um that you mentioned there, um it was very clear by the board this year that uh you wanted us to find ways that we could ensure that we would um manage our expenditures. I've heard it repeatedly um and and part of our efforts to doing that, and we shared this at one of our board meetings, is that we've got staff under contract. We're not eliminating positions this current school year so that we didn't have to go into fund balance, etc. when we're doing the mid-year budget adjustments. Um, but we had to look at other ways that we could mitigate our expenditures. And so that's part of what um, uh, we shared with all of our learning leaders is to assess the programmatic, uh, needs of your department andor your schools and find ways that you can contain costs. um for sure for this year to slow our spending down. Um Director Mason, I think you even asked one one of our uh early fall meetings about the Delta and the change that we saw in some of our expenditures. Well, part of that is is containing our costs and outside of staff which make up 80%, everything else is ancillary. So, this is where we have the autonomy to make decisions that can actually impact this current um budget. Um it was also very clear u by the board that you want us to contain transportation costs. We know that those have really been accelerating. And so, for example, um the field day uh that we've hosted at the high school, which I want to say great opportunity, uh there there's nothing wrong with those opportunities, but that was a $9,000 transportation bill. And uh many of our elementary schools obviously uh they do a a type of field day activity at the end of every school year. And so this year, um, we are, uh, containing those $9,000 of expenses with transportation and fifth grade will participate in a field day experience, um, that will be at their local elementary school. Um, with regards to general field trips, yes, this is another area that our principles can actually contain costs. Um, field trips are not required. um they are uh great opportunities for for students uh and great support for support from our families that might volunteer or chaper own. So, we really appreciate that. And um it is something at the local building level um that buildings determine whether or not they're going to take various trips throughout the school year every single year. That's that's something that they do annually and not every school does the same trips. And so again, I think there's abilities to contain some of the costs there that, you know, we will entrust our building leaders to make some determinations as to, you know, what they feel is a value to their local community to move forward or where there's some areas that they can contain. And then I'll just close with this restating the fact that when we're cutting $4 million from our budget um and planning for uh $4 million for I'm sorry for next year's budget and containing costs this year and we talked about that we're at a point in our uh daily lived experience in this district where we're going to feel that. Um and I had mentioned that if everybody's favorite thing is the thing that you can't cut then nothing is ever going to get cut. So we are going to experience some pain points. I fully acknowledge that. I foreshadowed that many months ago during multiple conversations, you know, here as well as out in our community. Um that this is our reality and certainly um I can appreciate um the feedback that some of our families and our staff are having around some of those experiential opportunities. There's uh some value add. I I I don't uh discount that. And um when we have to make some tough financial decisions, where are we able to control some of those costs? And and unfortunately, those are some of the areas that we have some uh latitude of doing. And so this is not to say that we don't want to continue adding those experiences for our kids. We will certainly find ways to make sure that we can take learning outside of the classroom. Um but we also have to be mindful that even within our own strategic plan and I want to just be very clear about this too. Um these decisions aren't that we devalue any priority of our strategic plan but I also want us to be uh mindful that in the situation that we're in, we are finding ourselves with competing priorities or what I've often stated, we're choosing between what's good and what's good for students and staff. Um and and and that's a that's a tough place to be. So if we want to emphasize optimizing uh resources which comes with managing our expenditures that are within our current control outside of employee contracts, these are some of the decisions that we make. And then we're going to hear critique that well you're taking away academic excellence. And if we say okay we're going to wait academic excellence and then we're going to come back to the board to say we don't know if we can make that 8% fund balance. Right? So it's that we've got this real fine balancing act that we are finding ourselves in and I think our team is working tirelessly trying to ensure that we are maintaining you know credible learning experiences both in and outside of the classroom um and being mindful that when we make reductions you know either containing for this year or future uh reductions you know in upcoming years that we are at a point where we're going to be impacting the very thing that might be drawing somebody to our district, whatever that one thing might be. And and so I just offer that for some additional context to the board and to our community um of where we're at and and and definitely can understand and appreciate the delicate, you know, conversations that many of our uh department and building leaders are having. And Dr. Anderson, I'll turn it to you to talk a little bit about some of the um you know, kind of that competing priorities of standards coming in and how we bring balance to a conversation that we started in 23. >> Thank you, Dr. Thomas, board members. Um good evening. Um appreciate the question. Um I've received some of those same um questions and wonderments, so appreciate uh being aware of those. uh to echo Dr. Thomas's points around we're choosing between good and good, that is definitely the case. Um uh in the case of uh this question around um uh 4-day specialist schedule model change. Um uh that's a model that uh moves from a 5-day model to a 4-day rotation. um specialists on the rotation are physical education, art, music and science and uh particularly the emphasis is on ET STEM. That model uh exists alongside of and in tandem with how we in a in a environment where we're cutting uh or reducing 4 million for the third uh straight year um uh responding to higher rigor uh requests and requirements from the state and protecting our core academics without cutting deeper into our bandwidth at the classroom model. So or at the classroom level. So, the strategic plan asks us to think about prioritizing and optimizing resources and doing academic excellence. And this uh program uh shift um uh that partners with and goes along with the the uh financial challenges that we have uh does that. Now, two years ago in January of 2024, um uh principles came to the board and presented um on specialists program review update. And my understanding that was from January 2024. Uh two key priorities um that were surfaced in that presentation were uh maximizing tier one instruction and core academics and providing a more connected experience for staff and kids. And um one of the uh key elements of that is providing consistent adults at each building throughout a student's elementary experience, decreasing and eliminating travel, and again keeping academic excellence in the core at the forefront. So um it's all three things. It's responding to intensity and rigor in science that's asked of us and we're not happy with and satisfied with our results. It's protecting those core academics so that they're not further put under duress. Um and it's meeting that $4 million reduction without without impeding our ability to do the first two strategic priorities of the strategic plan. Um, yeah, I mean I appreciate all the context. Thank you. That's helpful. Um, I guess, you know, when I look at, you know, we're always making trade-offs, right? And it's, you know, do we give our students additional movement and PE time or, you know, more ETM afternoons or things like that. But I think when I look back to last year's process with the budget, we were presented on going like with spreadsheets of um cuts down to $9,000 right from like December 2024 on and I guess we haven't seen any of that as a board yet. So just trying to understand like if we cut this field trip it cost 9,000 you know where you know those trade-offs right and I think we as a board haven't had the opportunity to weigh in on those trade-offs. So I think it's helpful to understand that and if that's if the process is going to be different this year um and we're getting these things after um that's fine. I think just trying to understand also then where does that fit into each bucket? So like the elementary site consolidation is 1.69 million. Um you know I don't see other elementary cuts listed here. So you know what's that total of these things? So we can and maybe that will come out later in budget sheets, but that's where I was my mind was going and the process looks different this year. Um I don't know if you want to comment on that, but >> um um sure. Sorry, I I didn't know if you were going to continue. I I would just say the the one change um when some of you uh reached out in inquiring about uh process is uh historically we've done a little bit more of an iterative u update with the board of kind of where we're where we're going and um there was uh direct whatever we call it we kind of directional thumbs of acknowledgement right and there was much feed feedback from the board that um that thumbs process was not something that the board was going to continue um and that um it felt like voting and that you don't vote on until come June for the final budget. And so these are just kind of checkpoints for awareness of the things that administration was going through within the purview of administration to look at programmatic um decisions um to meet the goal that the board is saying we need to cut x amount of million dollars a year. And so when we moved to having established board budget priorities, um I walked away from that conversation in December uh with uh the board chair at the time stating that um you know if there are going to be board budget priorities A and B and administration is bringing cuts C, D, and E to be mindful that they need to do what they need to do as long as it's within those priorities And you know, we could maybe look at six on one and half a dozen on on the other in terms of the competing priorities piece because to make reductions that impact the things that people love around the uh academic experience, one could argue, well, you're cutting academic excellence, but we could also argue, well, we're optimizing resources or vice versa. So, you know, I'm I'm mindful of that. But the reason why it looks a little different is because with those priorities that were established um and uh uh we've been making decisions all within those priorities, you know, at that administrative level. So that's the approach that we took because we weren't doing the thumbs process any longer. Um and then ultimately, you know, the board will vote on the total budget to reflect the 4.1 reduction come June. um and everything leading up to that. I do know that our team will be bringing um some itemized uh uh conversations to the board once we work through some of that with um our building and department leads as well. And that's part of what uh Director Corn uh referred to a couple slides ago on that timeline. I think tomorrow we're having our second staffing meeting. So, we're work we're working through and so, for example, just to give you just a really quick peak under the hood of those conversations. You know, there will be things that um uh a building or a department is looking to make some reductions in. And as we reflected on some of those reduction um think alouds I I'll say with with some of our building leaders um one of the things that we had to do is pause on a certain thing because I pulled out the board budget pri priorities and I said you know what I think this gets really close to kind of violating this particular priority. I I don't think that's going to be something that we're going to be able to support. You know so that's that's off that's off limits. um you got to work cuts around that thing because that thing you know advanced placement or advanced uh course work etc that's that's a non-negotiable so we can't we can't look in that space irrespective of registrations etc. So those are some of the things that we're having in terms conversations that we're having with our staff and equally some of our our building department or our uh district department leads as well. So, some of those itemized components will still be coming to the board um um with some upcoming checkpoints. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> And just for a little bit of clarity, too, I my understanding and director writer, correct me if I'm wrong, like some of the stuff like the field trips and the the ski and the track and field day. I those were done for this year to get us to the 8% for 2526. And so they would not be reflected in that elementary bucket because that's a 2627 bucket. So the big like I said the biggest portion of that bucket is the repurposing of Westwood and what's going to come with the appropriate um staffing reductions or you know other types of reductions from the repurposing of that building. So I think I'm accurate in saying that but I just so the field trips and that kind of stuff would not be reflective in that bucket. >> Um I have a question about the field trips. Um, so it's a hot button thing because it's important to our community. And you guys, when you talk about pain points, I'll be honest with you, the thing I hear the most is you're trying to make this punitive. The levy didn't pass. You're going to do things that hurt. And I guess my question about >> I think that's ascribing motive and that's not fair. >> But it is what I hear, Director Olstead. So I >> I think that's ascribing motive on staff and that's not fair. >> Well, I have to share. I'm elected to share what our community shares >> and I'm also elected to share and that's not punitive. >> Why can't you just let her finish? >> Thank you, Director Johnson. Okay. >> Good. >> So, for the field trips, my question is one of our strategic um one of our priorities is community partnerships. And so I guess my question is is like the thing that has been asked of me the most is um when these major changes are that are made that are important to our community, why aren't we going to the parents and saying will you pay an extra $5 per kid so that we can fund the buses. Um I mean I think any parent who especially the ski field trip that one and it it is not for because they just had their field trip if my the ski field trip is my understanding. >> They just finished it. >> Yeah, they just finished it. So, this is for next year. We're hearing about the ski field trip, right? >> Um, >> so if we want to talk specifically about the ski field trip, that goes against our strategic plan. It goes against our bud board budget priorities because it says allocate more resources directly to the classroom instruction and student learning. >> And as I've talked to teachers in our district, >> there are kids in our district who will never set their set their feet in skis ever. Parents don't ski. they don't have the resources. We are giving our students an opportunity outside the classroom to do something that's a lifelong skill and those are memorable experiences. They learn multiple things that they can never learn in the classroom. So I step back and I say why are we taking away things from students where they learn whether it's things in the classroom or lifelong skills. So that goes against our bud board budget priorities. So, I appreciate you saying you've taken things off the table, but I'm very challenged by that >> because then we continue to hear rumblings and rumors that we're cutting staff. We've been asked to cut $900,000 worth of staff at the high school >> when that's the exact opposite of what our board budget priorities are. And I'm sorry if I'm being candid, but it's really frustrating when this stuff information comes to us. I'm looking at an email I sent on February 6th asking a multitude of questions about these um specialist model changes and I never got a response. So if you like I could sit here for the next 45 minutes and ask my questions. Um but I just don't I'm really frustrated with this whole process because um I don't feel it's been very transparent to our board or to our community. And I think if there was better communication around the stem um the specialist model changes I think a lot of it would make sense. But I think it's that lack of communication and hearing these things, rumblings and rumors through the telephone change. Is that why there's so much frustration? And so I think we just I personally would like to see a pause on all of this and us get a better understanding of like what is being communicated in our buildings. Director Atinson, if I if I may, um >> I I I hear what you just said and it's, you know, the concerns are understandable when as board members when we hear from community members, you know, asking why is this happening? Why is that happening? We're we're in a you a unique position as board members, as school board members, living in our communities, um having community members reach to us. Um people uh my kids are now graduated, so I have a little bit less of in class or you know in the school maybe connection. So, I I really feel for um those of you with with students in the schools, you hear more your peers are are talking about all these different things. And I just want to my the thing that I want to just add and then we can allow um uh the district team to um respond in in in however they'd like. But we are not in the pro programmatic. We don't we don't we don't as board members we don't handle those operational decisions or the programmatic decisions. We tell them they have to cut this amount. And so yes, we have we have established board goals and I I understand you're shaking your head, but it's not we are not in those day-to-day decisions. Um, Director Bullan, respectfully, I'd agree with you, but they're not following our Bard budget goals, our priorities. So I would disagree with that. That's where that's where I'm very challenged is that it doesn't follow the priorities. It also doesn't follow our strategic plan. So, are you in those meetings? >> I was hoping that we were going to come here tonight and hear how these proposed changes very specifically by not by building but in general, how do these how do these changes align with our strategic plan? Respectfully, I will say one more thing, Director Atinson. Um, every >> thing that the district operates off on, how the district operates is based on board decisions of past. The way the the superintendent and his team is operating the district is based on board decision. I I don't see that. I mean, I' I've said over and over again that the board, we report to our community. These are our community schools. These are community decisions. We represent our community. >> Absolutely, we do. >> We are the what and the why of what happens in our district. Admin is the how of executing. >> Absolutely. >> So, help me understand how changing field strips, field trips is the what and the why. Um, director Atinson, we have four million of cuts over four million three years in a row. >> I understand, but I'm not cutting since 2020. So, >> you're not seeing the cuts. >> Is that a serious statement? >> Um, I'm not seeing the priorities and what our community would like to see regarding cuts. >> If I may, >> priorities. I actually agree with the principle that the board sets the direction and the administration executes. >> It means the board should be equally cautious and I think it is incredibly reckless to tell the board or to tell the district that they are being irresponsible or that this is punitive. That is an incredibly reckless statement and I think that you should retract that and apologize. But what concerns me is the suggestion that we can identify broad staffing restrictions without reductions without fully understanding what the operational impact of those reductions are going to be. I don't know that. You don't know that. You know who does know that? The district. So when we give them those budget priorities and we tell them these are the parameters, I trust that they are working within those parameters. I think respectfully I I don't know that when we set budget priorities my understanding was not that we wouldn't have insight like we did last year on like the cuts that we went through and you know yes no however that went and and again there are trade-offs right this this process is fun for nobody um but I think it's >> it looks different than it did last year and it was not my understanding that that process would be different so that's where it took me a little bit off guard >> if I Um the goal was to reduce by uh 4.15 million. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Uh is what you're proposing right now. Does that meet that $4.15 million target? >> The the large buckets does. Yeah. >> Okay. >> It meets the 4.1. >> Okay. Good to know. Thank you. >> Um if I may. >> Yeah. Director France. >> Um so the obviously none of these administrators were here. um a year, two years ago. And um one of the things that is definitely different between this year and last year is that last year we had gone out for a referendum and there was a lot of detailed planning going into that referendum. And there was also a detailed um um in you know information come very early on to say listen if this referendum doesn't pass all these things we're going to have to be cut. And so the plan that was actually introduced in January 2025 was and also the decisions in December 2024 um were actually to give the uh administration at that time the uh ability to start that planning since in January uh registration was opening and so certain decisions need to be made by the board and they were made in the December board meeting prior to that. But I think the referendum had a huge impact and the and its lack of passing on the expedited uh process of what was going to have to be cut because there were going to have to be some immediate cuts and we were trying desperately to communicate that to the community. Unfortunately, there was a tremendous amount of miss and disinformation also um for whatever reason. Um and therefore the the cuts were expedited. Therefore, the process was different. Um, typically in every year that I've been here, and you obviously don't have that opportunity to go back, that the discussions started exactly the way they are right now, where the board agreed to the the aggregate of the budget cut and then um sent the direction to the administration and to the staff uh through the superintendent to determine how those cuts were going to occur. And that obviously does come with many iterative discussions with the individual buildings with staff departments etc to make sure that um they understand the pros and cons of each ones of those budget reductions. So as the legacy member here I I don't see a difference this year compared to other years. Uh but last year was a unique year because of that referendum. Um, so maybe that helps because I know some things are being brought up about consistency and none of you are here. >> Yeah, I mean I think somebody referenced that these these conversations aren't easy. Um, nobody enjoys them. I think one of the things from I I looked at the presentation from last year that was given on this day last year. Um I think some of the stuff that was in that presentation like for example uh one of the things I believe was brought that there was um an allow you know an allowment to increase um the minimum class size for electives. Right? So they they attached that to an FTE that a certain FT was going to be attached to that. there was an aotment for um increasing the target I believe by maybe two at the elementary level and they attached an FTE to that for us this year those aren't possible because we can't increase the targets um that's been you know a board priority so we had to uh look at it a little bit broader this year than they did last year um and the other big reason is is a lot of the decisions we're making this year are going to directly impact people and those conversations have not been had with those people who are going to be directly impacted. And so, um, it's my preference to have those conversations with the individuals who are going to be impacted prior to them seeing them name on a their name maybe on a consent agenda or something along those lines. So that's where it's probably feels a little bit different this year as I explained is that we are doing things a little bit differently just because some of the broadness that they were able to use last year were not able to use those same we don't have that available in our toolkit to use this year. >> If I may. >> Yeah, please. Um, additionally, I would I would like you to consider the fact that when you have $8.1 million over a two-year period in reductions, um, you're going to find that that list that used to contain a lot of things like, you know, terminate this software or eliminate this line item budget for supplies or whatever the case might be. Those have been done. There's not much left there. we are down to people and you know as um director Catherine mentioned the fact is that that that gives us another pause as to how quickly you can lay that out. Um I'll use my own department for example if I were to have a position on there and list that it's it's just too obvious. So just like mine there are other departments similarly right. So, we need to make sure that we're approaching this and giving the opportunity for staff members to truly understand um if they happen to be uh a position that might show up in more detail format. And so there's always this push and pull when doing reductions to budgets and the timelines, right? And we had this conversation as senior leadership and the fact that you know you can look at the timeline and there's there's nothing different about the timeline but how we approach it and that push and pull and when it is that you actually can list things does shift and this is a this is an example of what what's happening this year. >> Thank you. you if um chair and just to respond to some of the feedback um that perhaps some of you are are hearing. Uh it's unfortunate um that there are members of our community who take the reality of our financial situation as punishment for their democratic right to vote however they decide to vote. Um, I think that same rhetoric was shared during the campaign when we decided to go very openly about if this doesn't pass, these are the types of conversations we're going to have to have. And that was interpreted as gaslighting. And I said from this DAS and I'll say it again that is never going to be something that I as your superintendent or any leadership you know person here that's responsible for a lot of these conversations will ever do. And it's unfortunate that that's how it's perceived or interpreted. But I just want to be very clear again with our community. Um, this $4.1 million reduction has nothing to do with the democratic process of voting for a levy or uh voting for a levy and taking action. Yes or no? It has everything to do with balancing the books. And we've been sharing the the forecasts. I think director Ryder and her team have been working around the clock to be as creative and innovative with the funds um at our disposal as as much as we possibly can. That's legal. Um and uh and this is the result of where we're at. So this 4.1 is coming from a multitude of realities that we're all facing um separate from any other historical actions, you know, within our community. And I'll just again close by saying that um I I hear you community board members. um these types of decisions that we're making, as Director Ryder said, the stuff around the edges, the fluff or whatever you want to call it, the non- studententfacing, the non-staff facing, um those reductions have already been made and we are at a point and I, you know, we're not thrilled about even slowing are pausing field trips. Like I I get it. Those are fun learning opportunities. I don't disagree with how you characterize that, Director Atinson. Um and as the board is directing to cut $4.1 million, the thing that people like, and I can't stress this enough, that might be the thing that they love may get touched. And I'm not suggesting that the ski trips, just using that as an example because I'll hear tomorrow Michael said only ski trips. So that's could be interpreted that way, but it's not. I'm just using that as an example tonight. If our buildings look creative creative creatively with partners in the future um with extra fees passing that on to our families, um that's not off the table. But it was something that we needed to contend with for this fiscal year. That's was almost the only lever within our control to manage current year expenditures outside of locked and sealed contracts. Can't touch those. So moving forward, yes, our building principles fully understand that there may be some trade-offs. There may be some exploration of innovative funding, etc. That's not off the table. Um, but for right now, for this current school year, yes, things have been slowed so that we could balance structurally balance the budget, which was an ask of this board. Um, and we've we've delivered that in and then a little bit and we will strive to do that. And that's what the 4.1 is. That's all part of continuing that for the foreseeable future. >> Anyone else have anything else they want to add? Johnson, >> thank you for your clarification on all this. Uh, I appreciate the buckets question. Uh, I know this might be a question more for you, um, Dr. Thomas, as we move closer. I know you mentioned that we or um Director Cawthorne as well that we will get some itemized items. When should we expect that? >> March 20th. >> As far as in your timeline, March 20th, you said >> March 23rd at that study session on the 23rd. Yeah. >> Okay. And then will we get another list of itemized items further down the line or is that going to be the only time that we receive that? that will be the time that we'll have everything that we have vetted internally that we anticipate that we would be able to do. Okay. Um for the for the upcoming year um because then our natural cadence of that timeline after that study session goes into the first business meeting so that we can meet contractual obligations to bring notice to any kind of sorry any kind of um ulas non-renewals etc that has to be taken uh uh acted upon in April. >> Gotcha. >> Yep. >> Cool. Appreciate it. Thank you. I understand first year so got it. We're working on one example here ourselves. So that's what we were used to and uh so I appreciate everything that you're doing and your the transparency moving forward and we will know what to anticipate. >> Anyone else? >> Sorry, I had one too, but go ahead. >> Oh, I just um I don't like myself when I do what I just did a few minutes ago, so I apologize for interrupting. Um, I don't like it when people do it to me, so I don't like it when I do it to other people. So, I apologize. Um, the I mean, I'm about to go to a a choir concert, and I don't know what that's going to look like next year. Um, this is obviously heartbreaking and hard for all of us um in this district. Um, and um, it is emotional. It is emotional. Um, and um, I just want to make sure that the goalpost doesn't keep moving. That's what I'm afraid of. I don't I mean, we have our board priorities. Um, and I know you said that I think it was you, Dr. Thomas, who said, you know, when or maybe it was you that said when you go into these meetings with the building leadership that the priorities are are are there and you lead with it or what, however you set it. So, I know that everybody's aware um making these decisions. So, I just want to make sure that our goalposts don't keep moving because it that that's even harder and that's confusing um for administration, for the community, for our kids. Um and so that's that's I guess the call for me to keep in mind um for everybody else to keep in mind too. That's what I'm worried about. Um and um yeah. So thank you. >> Um thank you Director Olstead. >> I think um Oh, Director Mason, did you have something else? >> Yeah, just um another question I still had. So um the savings range for the elementary site consolidation, we were quoted when we made that decision was 1.9 to 2.7 million and now we're seeing 1.69 69 million um cost savings. So substantially lower than what we originally thought we were cutting. Um is there any kind of glaring reasons or things that we thought we could cut that maybe didn't pan out or is there any explanation for that that you can provide? Um so that pardon me the amounts that you saw back in um May I believe it was with regard to the closure of Westwood um there were a number of positions listed there that were Westwood positions but not necessarily tied to classroom instructors right um I would say that since then we have parsed out those that are like custodial and that's under the operational and it doesn't belong under the elementary, you know, consolidation piece. Similarly, like food and nutrition, for example, or child nutrition, that is also going to be managed on a district-wide level because um some folks aren't going to necessarily move. Some folks are going to stay put where they are and some are going to need to move, right? And that is something that needs to be decided more um district-wide as to how best to service those. So, I know that that's the case. says, "I took a look at the list and comparing what it was um that was on the list and what is now on the list." It really then comes down to like the specialists were handled as a separate process, right? Taking a look at that as a whole and what is that going to take to make that happen. And additionally then um the other nuance positions if they were special ed related I know that there's um quite a bit of district-wide thought process going into that as well as to where best do we need to either shift these people because we are um you know needing this additional service over here in this area for next year in our planning um and so that those aren't going to be showing up there either. So you're pairing it down to really kind of more like your admin assistance, your principal, your you know the the the the true supplemental um or I should say standard but not necessarily needed if you have one less site, right? Um so I think that's why you're seeing that differences there because I know for example the custodials p parsed out completely >> but those were just lumped into that prior but really they're coming out of separate funds. So >> Exactly. >> Yeah. Because when we looked at it, when director Ryder and I sat down and we went through it numerous times, we understand why they did it that way. It's just when you're repurposing a school, it's easy to take that roster of folks and just say, you know, here's kind of their total expenditure and that's the reduction. But when we really look at it, it's just not going to be folks that are currently at that school that are going to be affected. So, it could happen at different locations, different buildings, different departments. Uh so we just felt it would be more accurate to really look at what's coming from the true repurposing of that school and then shifting some of those other uh repurposings to other department and areas. >> Thank you. Um I have one one more thing to add it. Um as we're sitting here tonight and we're talking about we have a million dollars worth of ANI funding that we can use and we're looking at how do we develop that plan. Perhaps we need to look at that plan a little bit differently. And um if it's $9,000 for a ski trip, that's definitely something you could probably write into that ANI plan if other if other districts are writing in their Biztown field trips into the ANI plan. Um it just it just really hurts my heart when we we sat and we said as far as our board budget priorities that the goal was to optimize resources while allocating more resources directly to the classroom and student learning. So, when we're taking away opportunities from our students to learn, I guess my challenge is is can we use that million dollars of ANI funding to um fill the gap on some of that funding so that we don't have to take away resources from our students and opportunities away from our students. Um, so I I would say again going back to my comment earlier about six on one, half a dozen on the other in terms of does ski uh qualify as classroom instruction um and student learning. Yes, I think there's some great learning opportunities for kids to build some social skills, friendships, etc. Um, is that classroom instruction? No, that wouldn't be classroom instruction. So again, I'm not trying to mince words, but I just want like I I I just want to be clear. This is the dilemma that we find ourselves in. And these are the real conversations that we're having, Director Atinson, even with our uh department heads and building administrators of how people are interpreting the the priorities. um I mean they're clear but I just want to be mindful that um you know when we look at the priorities classroom instruction um and the learning that comes as a result of that classroom instruction is how I am interpreting that um can we use um other resources I just I won't make it just about ANI funding I will tell you that this is the creativity and the innovation that director Ryder's team is doing uh uh within legal parameters to braid as much different funding together to make the best outcomes given the realities before us. I can assure this board and assure our community that that is what we will continue to that's what we have to do. Um, and so within the parameters of each categorical pot, as you all know, it comes with a lot of state and or federal strings attached to categorical funding and within the boundaries of that those guidelines. And there's ways that we could in this situation supplement a learning experience for students. Those are the things that we're already doing and that we will continue to do. >> Thank you. Director Smith. >> Um, really not trying to extend this conversation any further, but uh, Chair Bullian, I just wanted to say I earlier you said that this is a situation that we have put folks in and I agree with that statement. the board, whether it's whoever is sitting in this in these seats, um the board has been part of these decisions and the district is dealing with the ramifications of those previous decisions. There are no third options. And as we've said repeatedly here tonight, we're we're choosing be between things that are good and good. And um I apologize if if I got a little heated as well, but that for me the stakes are just so high. And I really think that while the board hasn't helped in the past, I don't think we're helping now either. And I say that because it is our job to evaluate and learn about the proposals and the recommendations that the district is bringing to us and asking tough questions and trying to understand the impact. But what I'm seeing and what I'm hearing are creating expectations in our community that might not reflect what is actually achievable or advisable for Dr. Thomas and his team. We need to set realistic expectations and there's going to be this was always going to get worse before it got better. So, I just want to acknowledge the work that the district is doing, but also just again in it's just so a plea of just understand that nobody enjoys this. I don't enjoy again in lengthening this conversation at all, but um but I just I think we need to set some realistic expectations about what is actually possible and um and what we're looking at and what we're dealing with. Well, I appreciate all of the input, the board member input. Honestly, um I think we each ha as elected officials, we each bring our um gifts and talents to the mix and um we get to share our experience, our um you know, our thoughts and especially at a study session, this is exactly what we are to do. We're rolling up our sleeves. We're discussing things and it is it can be emotional. it can be uh I mean given given our current state I you know I agree no one's in in a in a space that we would choose to be in but we are so we you know we're making the best decisions given the um the space that we're in. Um so I I appreciate all the feedback. Um is there any other things to add or questions to ask before we move on? Okay. So, thank you. Thank you all. >> Thank you for your time and I appreciate the feedback. Thank you for all that. All right. Uh so the next item, excuse me, I'm going to take a drink. >> The next item on our agenda is uh the superintendent evaluation summary. Um, on February 9th, the Prior Lake Savage Area School School's board of education and superintendent Dr. Michael Thomas conducted, excuse me, conducted a close session for the purpose of completing the superintendent's mid-year goal review. The review included progress toward the following goals. Academic achievement and consistency was goal one. Strategic financial stewardship was goal two and goal three was political leadership and community engagement. Board feedback was provided and Dr. Thomas was given the opportunity to respond, ask questions, and seek clarification. Additional feedback from the board was also shared with Dr. Thomas during this process. On February 16th, the superintendent and myself met to review the feedback and finalize the midyear evaluation summary. and the summary was reviewed and signed. Uh next up on the agenda is uh board governance. Um and we have three policies that we are reviewing this evening. Uh policy 101, legal status of the school district, policy 101.1, the name of the school district, and policy 104, which is school district mission statement. And so I will turn it over to uh Director Cothorne for any um overview to share before we um tackle these one by one. >> Yes. Thank you. Oops. Thank you. So I want to pull up my document. Give me just one second. Sorry. All right. So, we had our policy committee meeting and we went over uh a few of the policies and we were able to come up with some for a first reading. Um, and of course my computer I pretty much have them memorized so I'll just go off the cuff and tell my computer once to turn on for me. Uh, it was policy 101. Um, and a lot of the policies you're going to see in front of you tonight, they just had either some clerical changes or we uh it was kind of the recommendation of the policy committee. There we go. um that we started to try to align our policies more structurally, kind of looking like MSBA's policies. So that way when the policies are being reviewed by the committee or by the board, they're a little bit easier to read to compare them to MSBA structurally. So um that's where some of the changes that you're going to see in these policies are are coming from. So once again starting with the 101 the legal status of the school district. Um once again we added some language in 2C to match MSBA as well as in 4F and we did add uh some legal references and cross references to match that of MSBA to mirror our policies. Um and then we made some clerical changes to the numbering. So that's what you're seeing in policy 101. >> Uh oh sorry >> do we go all one time or do you go individually? I think if we could if we could pause if there's any board member questions or um discussion on this first policy, we'll talk about it here. No. Okay. Next. Thank you. >> Great. Yeah. 101. It's the name of the school district and uh there was some comments in our policy committee meeting that there was a few that would like to change the name and I'm guessing most people could probably guess what that name would be, but uh we told them that we do not have the jurisdiction to really change the name of the school district. So, uh, here in the, uh, policy 101.1, we deleted an old three, uh, uh, number three there and the title and it's just that match once again the MSB language to just have a general statement of the policy. And then we added a new three for the uniform name to match MSBA. Once again, added the legal references and cross references and made some clerical changes to the numbering. >> Board members, anything? Okay, next. Thank you. >> Awesome. Yes. And then uh the final one is number 104. It's a school district mission statement. Uh so we had to make some adjustments here to actually uh make sure that the correct district mission statement was in there. So we did add that. And then article 4, we just matched that to the MSB language and then added legal references and cross references in there as well too. And we did add a line in there about um the referencing the strategic plan. >> Board members, Director France, you're all excited. um in uh 104 with the district mission statement uh article 4 doesn't make a lot of sense um to me. Um I understand that the MSB's template language, but to start off saying we're going to review the mission every two years, which is an integral part of the vision and overall strategic plan, but then we're going to conduct a comprehensive review every 5 to seven years. Um why the first sentence? It just seems like that was a template language and the we can review the mission every few years but we can't really review it because we can't make any changes to it without looking at the overall uh comprehensive review and plan. So why the first sentence? >> I think I can answer that for you. um being on the policy committee um the the school board has the authority to do that to review the mission and ensure that um that what we're doing aligns to the mission and then um MSBA does say that we are to review the entire strategic plan um every 3 to 5 years. So it's it's just coming out of MSBA's guideline guidance on how school boards um conduct their business. That's where it's coming from. >> No, I get that. And again, MSBA uses template language and then you can make it your own. Um, so some of it doesn't always make sense. Sometimes they include more than one thing, but um, we're always going to be reviewing the mission every single time that we meet to make sure we're in alignment with it. The school board says the mission, the vision, and the plan are all related. Um, and we've had a we've had a statement uh made not necessarily in policy that we're going to try to review it every 5 years. Obviously, I don't mind the change of 5 to seven years because that allows us a little bit more flexibility, particularly if the environment is different or change, but what is the definition of reviewing it if we're not going to change it? Aren't we always going to be doing this every year that we make a um, you know, any of our decisions? we're going to look at this to make sure that our decisions align with the vision, the mission, and the plan. >> Yeah. I mean, I once again, I think that from the structural standpoint, once again, as you can see, it was new. So, at one point in time, this was not in this policy. Um, and and so as we went through and from the committee standpoint, once again, it was just more to mirror um those of MSBA. Now, once again, like you said, we don't have to necessarily, it's guidelines, you know, for us to follow and I don't necessarily have to put it in there. Um, but from this standpoint, I think the committee's uh response was um if this is something that MSBA is putting in theirs, um then what's the uh hurt in having it in our policy? And I, you know, I understand what you're saying as far as we're reviewing it all the time. You know, it's a constant review. So then why why does it necessarily need to be in policy? Um and once again it's it's the first read. I mean if there's something that you know the board would like us to you know look at differently we can definitely do that. But this was the committee's uh recommendation to add that in there. Well, I would suggest that we make a change to say the school board is responsible for continuously um ensuring that their actions correspond or align with the mission and that then the and then the school board will conduct a comprehensive review of the mission including the beliefs and values of the community um every five to seven years which is fine with me. I don't like the language per se uh there but I there's nothing really wrong with it. It's just that the to say that we're going to review it every five to seven years and the con and then the first sentence saying we're going to review it every two years. Technically review it all the time. I mean we're we're not even reviewing it. We're just assuring we align with it. So um language just doesn't make sense to me. >> Sure. No, it makes sense. >> Director France, I would just I would argue differently. The whole point of this policy is about the street the if you read 104 the title is school district mission statement. So this is about the m mission statement. >> But can I get some more input into this from anybody? >> Yeah. Can I finish please? Um director France. Um thank you. So the whole point of this policy is it is about the mission statement and school boards can they have the authority um as board members change to be able to update and change the mission um every two years. Now, and then it then it also adds that your strategic plan um should be looked at every 5 to seven years. So, it's very explicit on this is the policy about the mission and it talks about that when it should be reviewed and then it talks about the strategic plan, the timing of strategic plan. >> So, there's a second sentence doesn't say strategic plan. >> The second sentence again says mission, >> a comprehensive review of the mission. So, maybe that should say a compre well the mission. So maybe that should say a comprehensive review of the strategic plan. >> Um I would I would be okay with that. The the comprehensive review of the strategic plan >> every five to seven years because that's that's reality. I mean that's what we that's what we do. >> I'm asking for everybody's opinion. Um >> and I am as well >> and so thank you and other people. >> Everybody's opinion. >> Thank you. >> If I may, can I ask what's the cadence of of how often these policies are reviewed? the uh 100 series >> every three years. >> Every three years. I mean, so is it a possibility that we would just say because I mean what we're reviewing here is the school district mission statement. Is it possible that that's what we're referring to here? The school board will review the school district's mission statement every 3 years. Um because that's essentially kind of what we're doing here, isn't it? And then the comprehensive review of the strategic plan, mission, whatever we want to call it there, um, is every 5 to seven years. >> So you're saying in the first sentence, replace two with three. >> I mean, if that's our cadence, it just it seems >> it's the cadence for the policy. >> Sure. But it's >> maybe not necessarily >> statement is the policy that we're discussing. So >> uh, Director France, you had a suggestion for the first sentence. Yes. Um, and I don't know if uh if um we should like all write it down. Director Coor, I don't know if you want to take um Director France offline and and see her suggestion. I think uh with the policy committee um that was the first this last committee meeting was the first run on these policies. Correct. And so it they'll be discussed one more time. Is that correct? That's not the case. No, they go these go to the board to to vote. >> Just the board. Okay. So, um I you offered a suggestion and >> I think that we need to give direction. I I actually like um director Smith's suggestion of three years since that's how when we review this policy, we're updating the mission statement in the policy and then maybe just changing the language of the second uh sentence to say strategic plan instead of mission. That does make sense to me. >> I would support that as well. >> So my question would be if we change that second sentence to say strategic plan, this policy is regarding the mission. So would that be in conflict at all? Do you see? >> No, I mean you're still referencing I mean the mission statement is part of it. >> I'm struggling to see how we're going to separate the mission from the vision statement from the overall strategic plan. I mean you change there there's a there's a relationship there. I think when we updated the strategic plan, clearly we didn't update this particular um policy right until now when it came up. So that's what it's kind of stating. >> No, but the the the policy um is one thing because the policy just states our cadence for review. It doesn't actually state the mission statement. What I'm asking is if we start changing the mission statement in a different cadence than reviewing the overall strategic plan, how do you ensure that everything remains cohesive and makes sense? I mean, normally when you review a mission statement, you also look at the vision and your overall strategy. um you start separating one out and you do run into some level of uh relationship there. I mean, I don't disagree with you. I don't think you would ever change a mission without having this re-review, but it is stated in section three of the district commission that's on here. So, that's why I'm kind of >> and it's board authority. So, I think it's just I honestly agree. I don't think it ever would change, but the whole point of this policy is about the mission statement and the board has the authority to review that. >> Well, we're always reviewing it, right? >> Right. No, it's not saying change it. It says to review. So, I think the language is reflective of the policy of what the intent of the policy is. It doesn't change the school board will change. It just says it that that we'll review it. >> So, >> but we're always reviewing it. We're always looking at this strategic plan that contains the mission and the vision. So why and and we're not changing it. We're just making sure we align with it. >> Well, let's just make sure that's my concern. >> Well, let's make sure that we're um sticking with this policy and this work of um >> so >> I concur with I like Director Smith's >> if we changed it to every three years that at least matches the cadence of our review, our policy review. >> Yes, >> I'm okay with that. and then change >> conscience >> mission to strategic plan. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think that's fine. >> It still doesn't make any sense to me, but I'm it just it's contradictory, but okay. Um I'm good. I don't care. Uh just that that I would just put on record that the first statement then doesn't really make logical sense. >> Are you are you still under review or are you now back? >> No, I'm under review. I'm under review. Everything else on there is fine. It's just um >> So would you are you proposing that the first sentence be stricken in it in its entirety? You had stated that and then you also stated a suggestion for a rewrite. Uh that it was long. I didn't write it down. >> No, the suggestion was that the board is responsible for continually ensuring that we're in line aligned with our mission statement and then the strategic plan. The mission statement as part of the strategic plan is reviewed every three to five every five to seven years as it states. The second sentence is fine. >> Um it just the like I said the if you're going to take this to court you got some contradictions going on and that's why >> I understand the con the seemingly contradictory with the two years and then the five to seven years. I understand what >> No, no, no. The contradiction is is is having the assumption that the board is going to change or could change the mission statement outside of the cadence of the strategic plan. >> Where does that assumption list? Well, if you're if you're if you're reviewing the mission statement every 2 or 3 years and the board can change the mission statement is what was implied >> then uh because it's you know we don't have to go to the community and for the strategic comp plan either we choose to and I and I um and then we're going to review the strategic plan as we agreed with every five years. I mean, we could run into a situation where a board wants to come in and just replace the mission and that could contradict with the overall strategic plan, which is vision, mission, and plan. So, that's why I'm the separating these things out and then making them on two different areas. And then and then the the goal of the school district mission statement really is that we follow it. offer a perspective. Um I I I actually follow the logic in several statements you all are making. Um I think a fundamental hiccup is um using review in perhaps different ways. So as I read re the first review, I think it all of what you all were saying that especially as as new board members come on, center yourself on that mission statement. Review it, understand it, know how things align. Like that's how I interpret review because I mean, think about any other industry or business out there. They're not changing their mission statement every two years. You know, a mission statement should have staying power. um it's your brand, it's your why. And if you're, you know, changing your why every two years. So I don't believe they're expecting I don't believe the >> I wasn't there at this particular policy meeting. I don't think the intent was to review to revise the mission statement every two years. Correct. And to director Smith's point, three years. So that's how I'm that's how I read it. >> The second one, I think we're missing a word. I think we need to be clear that every five to seven years that the board would conduct a comprehensive review um of the mission including the belief values community every 5 to seven years um for a lack of a better term with the possibility to revise like I think you need to you're doing that extensive review like we did my third year here because we were coming to the end of the timeline of our >> you're going to possibly re revise the whole strategic you plan to include the mission statement and above in the general statement of policy it clearly states the school board on behalf of and with extensive participation by the community will develop consensus you know around the nature of the inter of the enterprise >> that's the whole strat plan >> so so I think we're missing a word about we're reviewing to be familiar with the mission in the first sentence and and we're doing a comprehensive review with the possibility of revising whole scale strat plan in the second sentence. >> So somewhere in there I I'm missing maybe a word in that second sentence. >> Well, I like that what you said because that was my confusion too is why are we reviewing it >> and just to review it. I mean we're supposed to be >> living it and making sure we're in alignment with it when we do the review. So there wasn't a definition there and then they added description of we're the board and we can change it. You again you wouldn't want to change the mission statement alone and leave everything else intact. So this needs to be just a little >> whether you use my language or anything any other language. We need to make sure that this can't be dissected in ways that it wasn't intended to be. I believe is if I'm kind of reading into what the MSBA language could have been. Can we go on the second sentence? Comprehensive review or revise? >> Yeah, something along those lines I think just needs to be added in there about you're doing that review >> review >> with the potential to revise >> strategic plan of which the mission is a part of that. >> Yeah. Right. Right. Of the strategic plan. >> That's how I mean that makes sense. Organizationally that's what most organizations do >> or revision of the strategic plan. >> I think of the strategic plan. Just just change the word mission to a strategic plan. >> Yes. Yeah. >> And add in revise. So you make that distinction. I like that. >> But why would we only review that every three years or revision >> or revision of the strategic plan? >> Comprehensive review. Yep. >> And then in leaving including the beliefs and values of the community every five to seven years has to be every five to seven years. >> Ending there. We we already have that up at the top too. So either make it consistent or just leave it to the top statement. I think it needs to be there to be honest with you because it's really it just reiterates the importance of including the community >> and then two to three years for the first sentence. >> Well, can I can I ask a just general statement? Are we really going to review it only two or three years? I mean >> I I I just I'm looking at the common sense of this. I mean don't we we always look at our strategic plan living breathing. We we look at it constantly and you know the first sentence under section four the school board will will review the school district's mission every two with director Smith's um recommendation we could do three to be in line with our review pol you know how we review cycle um especially when members of the board change it's it's talking about as you know and that's every two well and you know if we have a special election it can be different but it's I think it's it's it's that language is just highlighting um policy for for new board members and >> my my guess is as MSBA was looking at this they know the cadence of potential board changes >> um and there will be kind of a predictive almost every two years there will be a member that changes >> so I think there again Not I'm not MSBA. I'm only assuming >> I'm guessing that's how two years came up >> probably because they were thinking about elections >> and and and it's all centered around elections to ensure outside of your daily looking at it here and where or else when you have an election you have an intentionality let's look as a board we have a new member two members whatever let's review it you know so it's it's set in stone outside of the daily cadence I'm guessing that's what that's that's where that timeline comes from. >> I'm I'm pretty sure it does. It just um >> and then tying it back to the board member James. So >> So I'll read this one more time and please correct anything that's wrong. The school board will review the school district's mission every 3 years, especially when members of the board change. The school board will conduct a comprehensive review or revision of the strategic plan, including the beliefs and values of the community every 5 to seven years. >> Um can I offer something on what you just said? Yeah, please. >> Uh, if you're going to say every 3 years, >> Uhhuh. >> I would suggest to say or when members of the board change, not especially. >> I would say or. So, it's three or >> or >> and then um >> I would not remove the mission in the second sentence >> because that's part of the strat plan. So you would say the school board will conduct a comprehensive review of the strategic plan including the mission, vision, core beliefs, you know, whatever whatever the components are of you know what we have priorities. >> Do you want to say review or revise? >> Yes, the review slrevise or whatever >> definitely stays. But I wouldn't omit I think you omitted mission. >> I I think that I did. Well, you could put strategic plan or just make it strategic plan for whatever it is. >> I would say strategic plan. I think that encompasses >> the vision and mission. Yes. >> But I wouldn't say including the beliefs and values because >> take those out. No, you need that. >> I think that I would leave that because I feel like that is part of values of the community. Yes. That's not I don't think that's talking about our >> Gotcha. >> our >> Yep. >> strategic plan. and it is already mentioned in the general statement policy. >> Yeah, makes sense. I I follow your you guys' what you're saying now. >> Okay. If if the if the goal of the MSBA was to make sure that new boards then every two years review it. I mean, just because our policy is renewed every 3 years doesn't mean that we shouldn't have in policy that we review the mission every two years. just review it but not revise it and make the revise only in the second statement. >> That's correct. >> Correct. >> Yther, do you have that? >> Yep. So, I have it to read. It's updated now. The school board re will review the school district's mission every three years or when members of the board change. Second sentence will read, "The school board will conduct a comprehensive review or revision of the strategic plan, including the beliefs and values of the community every five to seven years." >> I think that's perfect. >> Solid. >> Good. >> I think that captures it wonderfully. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anything else on this one? >> All right. Well, that was um all for policies. And now um before we move into close session, uh I need to state for the record that pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.03, this meeting is being closed to discuss negotiation strategy. Do I have a motion and a second to adjourn the study session and transition to a closed meeting? >> So made >> by Director Johnson. Second. Second by director Atinson. Uh all in favor >> I >> uh opposed. Motion carries 6 and I will uh say we'll take a five or 10 minute five minute break uh and we'll resume close session. Thanks everybody.