Mic skills. I would like to call the order this regular meeting of the Boulder Valley School District Board of Education for Tuesday, 09/23/2025. Board members may attend and participate in board meetings remotely in accordance with BVSD policy, BMEA, and state law. Laura, can you please call the roll? Chavez? Here. Medler? Here. Niznik? Quinlan Ueda? Here. Rajpal? Here. Sergeant? Here. Ungar? Here. Thank you. And I like to encourage everyone to turn their attention to the screen for a land acknowledgment this evening. I'd like to remind everyone that the mission of the Boulder Valley School District is to create challenging, meaningful, engaging learning opportunities so that all children thrive and are prepared
for successful, civically engaged lives. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us here in person and, remotely this evening. We are glad to have you observe and participate in our meetings. At this time, is there a motion to approve tonight's agenda? Moved by Lalena, seconded by Jorge. Laura, can you please call the roll? Chavez? Yes. Medler? Yes. Niznik? Quinlan Ueda? Yes. Rajpal? Yes. Sergeant? Yes. Ungar? Yes. Motion passes. Next, board members, I am excited to hand the meeting over to doctor Anderson who is going to introduce introduce our student moment for this evening.
Thank you, board president Rajpal, board members. Tonight, we're excited to welcome some of our outstanding students from the Apex Construction Trades program. So proud of the work they've been doing at the new building that's right next door to the Ed Center. The net zero modular construction facility built in partnership with the city of Boulder and Flat Iron's Habitat for Humanity has come alive in the last six or so months, providing our students with a great opportunity to learn how to build homes while providing affordable housing in our community. We ask you to take a look at this quick video.
There's something very special about what's happening inside this big new building on campus. So that's the top and bottom floor for a house. We've got kids repairing drywall, fixing walls, building walls from scratch. So the whole stage of production is kind of in motion right now. Through an innovative partnership between the Boulder Valley School District, Flatirons Habitat for Humanity, and the city of Boulder, these students are getting a remarkable opportunity. A chance to try their hand at everything under one roof. Because it's like hands on real life work experience.
They really get to explore all the different areas they might wanna do. It's not just one aspect of construction. We'll have an opportunity to work on everything that's happening in the house. So so far, we've been able to work with electricians and plumbers if we want to. And once it gets to the roofing stage, we'll be able to do the roofing and then, like, the painting and all that stuff. We'll be able to work with everything. With every nail, they're closer to something even more important. I'm just most excited about a family getting a house that they need. Everything these kids are building, literally someone's going to live.
I mean, it's two stories, pretty nice. I would live in one. With that in mind, they're determined to get the job done right. And we have to make sure our work is perfect because it's an actual house. So they're all, like, sliding off. Well, they're still working on reaching perfection. And the way we fix a mistake is we take the cell phone and just draw the scribble through it. Got it. Sofia McBee is the student lead at Boulder Mott today. I was bossing everybody around. Our team likes to take turns putting people in charge to give us the experience. Yep. She is the boss. Gotta follow her directions.
Okay. Now let's try. She's keeping a watchful eye on all the work along with others. There's state inspectors that come by and check everything and make sure everything is up to code. As the homes get closer and closer to rolling off this assembly line. You feel very accomplished. Like you get to see your work actually become The students are also getting closer to being able to use their skills in the real world. Things have come so far. We've all learned so much working here, more than I thought we could learn. Just another day on the job, learning a new career and making a difference in
our community. How amazing is that? As we shared a couple of meetings ago, we had a gathering a few weeks ago to celebrate the completion of the first modular unit, which would be part of a new boot duplex that is expected to be set on its foundation sometime next month. All goes according to plan. Let's hear for this let's hear from the students who've been hard at work making this dream a reality and, excited to hear from our Apex students working here at Boulder mod. Hi. I'm Sophia McPhee. I'm a senior at Centaurus. I'm June Baker. I'm a senior at New Vista. I'm Evan Gronquist.
I'm a senior at Boulder Universal. I'm Sean McCormick, and I'm a senior at Broomfield. So over at Boulder Mod, it's the first modular factory. It's the first modular factory in the country and probably in the whole world that has students actually working in the factory building the houses. When the houses are wheeled out and put on-site, they're 80% complete, and we do almost all the work. And on November 6, Boulder Mod is hosting a, future construction workers, like, job fair type thing for us for us to to go meet with industry partners and look
into getting jobs and internships after we graduate. So, basically, the whole process starts off as, like, first year and you're, you're, like, Sweet. Okay. Basically, we're all second years here. So we kind of started off learning OSHA, and we're fully OSHA certified, which just means we are safely doing all our work, legally doing all our work. And then we all get we get nationally recognized, certificates of, like, what what we're
learning. So as a first year, you'd be basically in the classroom for the first semester, like, learning safety, tools, training, and stuff like that. So you're kinda doing a lot with things like that. And then Okay.
I guess. Okay. So, basically, it's kinda been really helpful. It's been the best way I've learned personally because it's a lot more hands on, things like that. I found it really helpful. It's probably the thing I look forward most to in the day is just going to tech. I can go go from learning in a classroom to learning in a big building, and actually, like, building things. And it's definitely taught me how to be more social and more, like, managerial, I guess, which I think is a really good skill to have learned, especially, like because
I feel like it's gonna help me a lot in my future, because stuff like that. Like, if I if I did wanna go into a managerial role, it would be really helpful in that sense. So I think it's been really, really helpful, like, teaching me things like that. I would say the biggest difference that I've noticed working at Maud compared to just working in the classroom is that we get a lot of chance to problem solve, because everything has to be perfect. And they're not telling us exactly how to do every single thing. They kind of expect us to know stuff.
And so you kind of have to fix your own problems and take accountability when you make a mistake, which is really helpful. Okay. I think that's all we have to say. Thank you so much for sharing your experiences with us and for tolerating the microphone issues. That's doubly brave. Board members, any questions or comments for the these students? Kitty and then Alania. I really like that the teacher lets you all rotate who's in charge and who bosses people around. Just this week, there was a story on the news about a convention of women
I think it was carpenters, members of the carpenters union, but one of and it was a huge organization. And one of the things they said, which I thought was sad in the story, is that a lot of the unions are discontinuing their female affinity groups because I was just so happy to see how many women have gone into the trades. So if either of you decides a career to go into the trades, don't let that stop you. But I'm proud of all of you. That's great work. I was curious how many hours a day you go to Apex versus being in
your at your regular schools? Tell me more. Capstone, tell me more. There's a project where we have to create we have to create a construction based company, and then we get a fake client and a fake bid, and we have to do all of the work for that. And then at the end of the semester, we're gonna be presenting it to some industry partners. Strong, strong work, you guys. Congratulations. I just wanna say, I think you probably make other folks in the construction trade dolls that you get to work in a climate controlled environment while you're building these houses.
Hopefully, we get the experience of putting it together outside and to see what that looks like working in the elements. Thank you so much again for taking the time to share with us tonight and for all of the work that you're doing to help support housing in our community while you're learning. The next item on our agenda this evening is a superintendent's report. Doctor Anderson, good evening. We are gonna take a short break while we figure out the microphone issue in the boardroom this evening. Attendance report. Doctor Anderson, good evening. Thank you, board president Rajpal, board members. Appreciate the public hanging in with us as we work through our technical difficulties. I have a few things to update the board and the public on.
Board members, last Wednesday was constitution day, a day to remember the importance The US constitution has in shaping our democracy and protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms we share. From classroom discussions to creative activities, including a visit from one of the staffers from Congressman Nagoos's office, plus some of our schools also got decked out in the red, white, and blue. It's an opportunity for students to reflect on the importance of the historic moment that this historic document plays in their lives. And if you're wondering why is constitution day on some day in September, it was
because the constitution was signed on 09/17/1787. That is your history fact of the day, board members. Heatherwood elementary school huskies turned teamwork into arts a couple of weeks ago. Students and staff came together to form a giant living image from nature when viewed from above as part of the Art for the Sky program. The event helped to celebrate the school's new environmental STEAM focus board members that you know that, began this fall. So excited for, what seemed like a really cool event for our students over at
Heatherwood Elementary School. Last Monday, BBIC held its first choral festival, where over 600 middle and high school students got to visit Mackey Auditorium on the CU campus for a day of learning and singing together. Our choir teachers had a vision of starting the year with a strong and consistent foundation across all schools. They used their professional learning time at the beginning of the year to design instructional activities and assessments to help students prepare for the songs they sang at the festival. It's a wonderful day, building community, and working with the CU faculty and students. Thank you to CU Boulder and specifically the School of Music for hosting us for
this amazing, what hopes to become an annual event. With the Colorado Rockies finishing up their season, their mascot, Dinger, had time to visit a couple of our schools today. He visited Ryan Elementary and a SUELLA Bilingue pioneer today to teach kids about creating healthy bodies, healthy minds, and healthy relationships. Finally, board members, we are officially one month away from the BVSD is the place to be showcase. Once again, be gathering at the CU Events Center, this time on Wednesday, October 22, from five to 8PM. It's a great opportunity for members of our community to come learn about all of
our schools in one place on one night. I'd encourage anybody who is interested to learn more at www.bvsd.org backslash showcase, including, information about the bus routes that we'll have bringing families to and from the event from Lafayette Lewisville, Broomfield North Boulder, and East Boulder. So we hope to see everyone out, from our community to the BVSC is the place to be showcase on Wednesday, October 22. Board members, that's all I have for my remarks this evening. Thank you, doctor Anderson. Board members, any questions or comments?
I just have to say, I think the Rockies mascot was probably thrilled to be amongst people that are performing at their highest and having a very successful season, taking a break from what is a very much losing baseball season. With that, board members, we will turn it we will move on to public participation. The board respects the rights of the public to speak on matters concerning the operation of the schools. The board does not endorse the comments of any speaker or reminds all who those who speak that you're responsible for your own speech. Speakers will each have two minutes to speak.
You will see a yellow card when you have thirty seconds remaining, and an orange card when you have ten seconds remaining. If you run out of time or would like to share additional information, you may always email the board. We do read all of our emails. We have several speakers this evening that are receiving minutes from others. As a reminder, all those who donate minutes need to be present either virtually or in person for that to occur. Our with that, our first speaker this evening is Naomi Antman, who has received two
minutes from Francesca Antman. Hello, and, good evening, everyone. My name is Naomi, and I'm a sixth grader at Peak to Peak Charter School. I've come to this meeting to address an issue I'm currently facing in middle school. I am and always have been in the advanced level English classes, and my needs have almost always been met. However, this year, I discovered that in middle school at Peak to Peak, honors and standard level students have now been combined into the same classes for a lot of courses, including English. My family and I didn't find out about this until the school year actually started,
so it was a complete surprise. After the year had begun, I was told that we would differentiate the work and that the honor student would be assigned harder classwork and homework, but I haven't yet seen or received any such differentiation. I know that it isn't that late in the year yet, but we've been told what we will be doing in class until around November, and it's not clear to me that there actually is any variation in the curriculum. In elementary school, we had distinct groups to serve the need the needs of all levels, but now everybody's participating in more or less the same activities.
Additionally, I want to acknowledge that I don't think that any of the teachers are at fault, and it is my understanding that the change was made to address scheduling conflict. However, though I understand that, there are trade offs in this situation, I'd like to understand what is being prioritized. I want to raise this to the attention of the BVSD Board of Education because I think that not only I, but a lot of other students, honors and standard level alike, are being poorly affected by this system. I think that it is crucial that when families are picking schools, they are aware
that this is a possibility. And before the you school year begins, they should know whether their students will be in combined classes. If not, based solely on their transcript in Infinite Campus, they would never be aware that their student was in a combined honors and standard class. Thank you for your time. Well, this is gonna be fun. Our next speaker this evening is Jackie Vineyard who received two minutes from Kristen Ford. Laura? Who's who's the person? Oh, sorry. You're right. I did. Mystia Zuckerman, who just has two minutes.
I guess, Misty Zacherman is not present. So then we will move on to Jackie Vineyard who has been given two minutes to Kristen Ford. Is Kristen Ford present? I'm present. Thank you. Yes. I said you have two minutes who and I've also been given two minutes from Kristen Ford. Good evening. My name is Jackie Vineyard, and I'm a Boulder native and a parent of three children in the BBSD school district, and I'm a resident of Orchard Creek. You've said this rezoning is about equity, neighborhood cohesion, and aligning with geographic features, but our neighborhood, Orchard Creek, along with Deerfield and The Willows, has been misrepresented.
Let's talk facts, not assumptions. Platt Middle School is 7.5 miles away from our neighborhood. Centennial is 3.5 3.4 miles away. That is more than double the distance. Bear Creek Elementary School, where I went for comparison, is actually closer to Lewisville. It is logistically impossible to work full time, have multiple children, and participate in after school activities under these new boundary suggestions. This change isn't just inconvenient, it is harmful. Superintendent Anderson, I ask you directly, how do you justify assigning our children to a
school that is twice as far as the one we are currently zoned for? These schools were built in the nineteen sixties. Our neighborhood was built in the nineteen nineties, And we were zoned for schools that match our location and our community, and that is still true today. Heatherwood is not our community. There are large farm masses that walk our in between. Our lives are centered around Central Boulder, not the end of Gunbarrel and not East Boulder. This is not a hard choice. It is an equitable choice. This is a neighborhood that BVSD should be working to keep connected, not pushing further
to the margins. We support thoughtful growth and planning, but there's nothing thoughtful about rezoning us 7.5 miles away when we have an option in our neighborhood that is 3.4 miles away. The only option that respects our lived experience and preserves our community is leaving us where we are today. I looked up what your job is, and it's to bridge community and the school. Please listen to this to the people living this experience, not the spreadsheets, not the boundaries drawn in a vacuum. Please help our children thrive by keeping us in our current community.
I'm also going to read what Kristen wrote, what she would like to say today. I understand the driving force behind this population numbers, but when you have a school choice program, the population numbers shouldn't matter as much as the declining enrollment numbers. When we started at Crestview in 2019, there were over 500 students and now almost every grade has dropped from three classes to two. Our librarian is now only half time. How is taking from one declining school to help another struggling school in the process, rezone us to middle school that is further away helpful?
I know you deal with many issues at Boulder Valley School District. We are not one of them. We are happy at our school. Our neighborhood has a high opt in for our current school because it is our neighborhood school. Please don't vote to take that away from us. I will finish what she has to say because I have time. In five years, when you look at this again and enrollment numbers have only gotten worse, are you going to send the kids back to Crestview and Centennial? This is just a band aid over a larger issue that you're ignoring. Please don't vote to take us out of our community. Again, I'll remind you that Platt Middle School is 7.5
miles away between them. Centennial and Crestview have are point eight miles between them. For a car dependent neighborhood with kid with families with multiple kids, this is critical for us. This isn't about a hard change. This is making it logistically impossible for us. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Kristen Sanford. Hi, everyone, and thank you to the board for listening.
There are three things I wanna say. Number one, Gunbarrel already faces attitudes of not being really a part of Boulder sometimes. But guess what? We are Boulder. And by being a part of North Boulder Schools, we are a part of the entire North Boulder community. Our sports teams, our parks, our community nights, our schools. And using the diagonal as a dividing line only makes it worse. This invisible barrier becomes an actual barrier. Don't pull our community apart. Two, for our family and most working families, we 100% rely on the school bus.
There is no other option. And unfortunately, there have been many issues with the buses ever since COVID. The driver shortages, consolidating bus stops, removing stops. If this is an attempt to get rid of more buses, it's pretty convoluted and leaves a wrecked community in its wake. Don't make the kids change schools to accommodate a bus issue. Three. I completely understand that Heatherwood has low enrollment because so does Crestview. Why are we pulling kids from another school that needs them just as much where they're happy? And why not look at kids within Crest within Heatherwood's boundaries who open enroll elsewhere?
I know many of these kids because they're going to Crestview. That's what needs to be addressed. Leave our kids alone. One last point. Please do not try to say this is equitable. We cannot drive our kids to school every morning or send them to private schools. We've given our time, our money, our energy, and our dedication to our community schools over the years. We've been loyal contributing members to to Crestview where everyone belongs. Well, now we're being told, actually, shoes.
Thank you. Our final speaker this evening is Stefan Schreier. Good evening, members of the board. I'm here tonight as a parent deeply concerned about how bullying and cyberbullying are being addressed at our schools, especially at the BBSD. Recently, a student discovered a public social media post filled with harmful, hateful body shaming comments. These were not private jokes. This was a targeted harassment broadcasted for anyone to see. In addition, there was bullying on school grounds.
The harm was real and it was devastating. Showed you their fatness. That freaking ugly pig needs to get a diet. Don't miss that biggie. When this was reported, the response from school leadership was dismissive. Instead of taking swift action to protect the student, the incident was minimized. The student was approached to call to sign a so called coexistence agreement that made it feel as though the victim was equally at fault. This is not an acceptable solution. This is not what BVSD promises in its policies, nor what Colorado law requires.
Instead, the message was given, we found no further evidence and no one would get in trouble. This sends a clear message to the victim that they're not safe at school and that they do not matter. This is bigger than one student. If bullying complaints can be brushed aside, if harmful public comments are tolerated, and if the burden is placed on the victims instead of those causing the harm, then our policies are meaningless. I urge this board to ensure accountabilities, that investigations are thorough and transparent, that consequences
are consistent and serious, and that every student knows they will be protected, not silenced when they speak up. Our children deserve a safe school. Thank you. Thank you. This concludes today's public participation. On behalf of the board, I want to thank everyone who took the time to share their thoughts and experiences with us this evening. We will now move on to board member communication. Board members who would like to begin. Kitty, you had asked to go last, but you might be going for both first and last tonight. Why don't you kick us off? Yes. I asked to go last because I have a lot to say, and I didn't,
you know, want somebody who had a little bit to say to have to wait. And I'm trying to open this document here because I had to write it down. First thing I wanted to say is that on Thursday, Whittier Elementary is having their heritage night. And for those of you who don't know, Whittier Elementary is an IB elementary school, and they have got a fabulous program there. I went to heritage night last year and just loved it. So I would just encourage any board members who can go or anybody who can go, you'll really enjoy it and learn a lot about the school.
I wanna wish to any of our Jewish and people who I'm sorry, and other people who recognize and celebrate Rosh Hashanah. And to oh, I'm not gonna apologize because I'm not in charge of it, but to say I regret that we have to have a that we're having a meeting on a Jewish holiday. So next thing, I want to speak again to the Broomfield voter who gave me a book last last time. I was gonna say last week. It was two weeks ago. Gave me a book called Think no, It's Time to Think. And what it documents is the gender identity development service in Great Britain that was
under the NHS, and that was closed, I think, two years ago. So this book just talks about how that gender affirming care worked or didn't work. And I've not finished it, so I don't have the whole thing, have the whole story. However, I did want to address something that the voter said. And I don't know who this person is, and if you would contact me, I would love to talk to you more. But this voter indicated that they'd done a lot of research on gender affirming care and on what they call the damages, both physical and psychological of it, and stated
that this person would not vote for anybody who supported. And the word this person used was transgenderism, which is considered pejorative among the community. But I need folks to know that school boards and school district don't have anything to do with whether or not a child is transgender or whether or not the child receives any kind of gender affirming care. I know it has been stated by our president that kids go to school and
they come back a different gender. And I don't know if this voter actually believes that or not. But I do wanna make it clear that as a school district, we support all of our students in who they are and we do our very best to educate them in the most appropriate way. We do not take a stance on whether or not a child is transgender, has gender affirming care or not, or any other physical aspect and whether they get care
or not. That's not what the school district does. So last night, I was at a panel that looked at the history of adopting the, nondiscrimination policy AC, which we are updating tonight, told the story of how it was first adopted and the huge controversy surrounding keeping LGBTQ students in that students and staff. And addressed also the Safe Schools Coalition, how it came to be, talked about PFLAG,
parents and friends of lesbians and gays. Gene Hodges, who was the, at one point, the national chairman of PFLAG, was the one who started the Boulder chapter, talked about the Safe Schools oh, I said that, didn't I? And Jean Hodges was also instrumental in that. Other members there were Susie Pringle who had been, the substance abuse prevention project coordinator in BVSD. That does doesn't exist anymore and she's retired. Candy Hyatt, who is part of that, was also there.
Diane Bucher, who is a retired teacher from Monarch and also a candidate for school board. And Ginny tell me her last name again. I can never remember it with Queer Endeavor. Anyway, from CU was there talking about the history of this. And it was an interesting talk. And afterwards, they asked me to talk about what's going on now because this presentation ended, you know, from the in the year 2010. So it was a wonderful opportunity to really hear the sort of the see the
progression of how we moved to where we are now in terms of nondiscrimination. The thing I noticed on AC is the only thing that is not considered a protective class, I think, is being left handed. Everything else that you could possibly be discriminated against is in our policy. So, anyway, that was that. And then I have one more thing and I wrote this, piece, and I do wanna read it because it it gets emotional, for me.
And it's about two weeks ago, the school shooting that happened in Evergreen High School. And I fear as a society, we are not doing enough to protect our children. On the same day as that shooting, there was a lockdown at Fairview in Southern Hills due to a report of a person with a gun nearby. As we know, that was a false alarm, but false alarms can be as traumatic to students as the real shooting. As anyone who read the article in the camera about it, no one of the
girls who talked to the reporters talked about cowering in the bathroom. So that was a huge trauma for her. Colorado has has strengthened our gun safety laws, but there's more that we can do. Currently, gun owners are required to report a lost or stolen firearm within five days of noticing the loss and are charged a $25 fine for a first offense. Subsequent offenses result in a misdemeanor charge and a $500 fine. Everytown for gun safety rates Colorado number 10 in gun safety laws, up from number
12 last year. And I commend our lawmakers for improving our gun safety laws, but we can do better. I'm calling on our lawmakers to improve our gun safety laws in three ways. One, significantly raise the fines for failure to report missing missing or stolen guns. With five days is too long. If a teacher can make a report of suspected child abuse immediately, then a gun owner can report a missing or stolen gun. Strengthen gun storage laws to require guns to be securely stored any time it is
not in their immediate control. Currently, the standard is when a child may or is likely to access it. And then make gun owners liable for any crime committed using their gun if they fail to report it missing or if it is obtained out of secure storage by a child or anyone else. We need to do more to protect our children. They do not deserve the trauma of school shootings and the fear that that, instills
in them. You can tell the part I wrote and the part I ad libbed. Thank you, Kitty. And thank you for bringing up this situation that unfolded a couple weeks ago now. Trauma is definitely really very real in all these situations, whether there is an active threat or an assumed active threat. I know several of us have students at those schools. We know the teachers at those schools and, heartlets hearts go out to all of those folks. I forgot. I I should mention board members. I was able to represent BVSD last week at the women who light the community award ceremony with the Chamber of Commerce giving an award to Suzanne Hoover who has
been a generous philanthropic donor and a a service oriented leader in our community for a long time. And so I had the honor to present an award to her alongside of Allison Billings. It was a wonderful evening, and I just cannot thank the work that both Suzanne has done and that the impact on education foundation continues to do for our students in our in the school district. So I just wanted to share that. Alex? Yeah. First off, I wanna thank Kitty for all her words on the shooting and on the history in Colorado. As usual, I really appreciate it.
Also wanna give thanks to our students, for speaking today, and to all the speakers who've come to us with their concerns for the district. It's, really appreciated that people come forward and and take the time to talk with us about what they care about, and we hear that. I wanted to, just update people on, couple things. Last night, I was able actually to fill in for Kitty who was at the other event at the LRAC meeting for our long range advisory committee. And I just wanna say, it's it's gratifying to see the depth of the people digging into the work there.
I think it's the this the long and long range is real. And so we need to figure out, I mean, how to support people having these discussions and figure out how to have a a sustainable discussion that moves forward. Substantively, the biggest issue, they were talking about last night are metrics for middle schools, and whether there should be such things and and what they might be in order to involve, that. I will say, not speaking for the LRAC, one of the things I was struck by is, and looking at what's going on in Heatherwood now, is that because we
have a long range process doesn't mean schools shouldn't do whatever they want now to engage their communities more and that we have multiple school improvement strategies underway in the district, whether it's through our strategic plan, our UIP process, the cohorts of support we give. And, if the long range process is designed to lead to, like, how people figure out how to improve and engage the community, I support anybody in any community who's trying to do that and all the schools trying to improve connecting to it. So at some level, I, I hope that we can talk about the how the
long range process also, integrates with the other things we're doing to improve schools and engage communities. I also had an opportunity to stock briefly with governor Polis, this last weekend. I would just pass on, he was reassuring, this group about the work from the special session to protect k 12 from the budget cuts, but also expressing, just letting people know about the future of budget challenges in the state. And I think we need to stay vigilant in our protection of k 12 funding in the state.
And then finally, at that conference, there was a lot of discussion of AI use in education. And, in talking to some national experts who are working with lots of districts, I sort of came away with, a couple of takeaways. And one is to think about, actual use versus sort of like district designed use. And so there's, things that the districts will support and that they're putting in place, and then there's things a teacher does to get through their day. And those aren't always the same. And so when we think about our AI policy, we need to figure out
What the actual use is and what the actual use cases are that teachers are finding useful or not. And then also that to the extent, that there was support for improving teacher practice, all the experts were really enforcing how important it was for, human to human interaction about input you got from the computer rather than computer to human, feedback on process. So just things to consider as we, I'm sure we'll move forward in our discussions of AI and, lessons we can learn from other places that might be a little
further ahead. But thank you. Jason? Yeah. I I guess I don't wanna be the last word on this, but I really wanted to echo the thanks to you, Kitty, for bringing up that issue. This is our first regular meeting since the lockdown, and I, I thought I wanted to say something about it, but I wasn't sure what to say because this issue feels so hopeless. I appreciate you kind of providing some recommendations on what we can do, and just thank you for bringing this up. We will now move on to action items consent grouping. 6.1, personnel items. 6.2, approval of minutes, 09/09/2025.
6.3, approval of minutes 09/16/2025. 6.4, approval of 24 dash 26, district accountability committee membership. 6.5, resolution 25 dash 29, unhealthy meals for all ballot measures. Are there any items board members like to pull from consent grouping? Hearing none, we need a motion to approve the items. Moved by Kitty, seconded by Lalania. Board members, any discussion on the items within consent grouping? Alex. I just wanted to give my, kudos and shout out to the DAC leadership, for working so much on the membership committee. I realized that's a lot to do early in the year, and it was gratifying
to see, so many of the schools represented. And I just wanna reiterate the district support for making sure that every one of our schools has an effective SAC, that's, helping the parents interact with their school and learn about it and give us information. And the the DAC is, working hard to make that real. Jason? Just wanted to comment on the healthy meals resolution and thank Kathleen and others for for putting that together. And, I'm hoping we can, share that widely, however possible legal.
It's important that folks know how our, you know, how the district are our views on this, for this upcoming election. Seeing as there is no further discussion, Laura, can you please call the roll? Chavez? Yes. Medler? Yes. Quinlan Ueda? Rajpal? Yes. And board members, if moving forward, I can pass the microphone down as folks wanna speak. Sergeant? Yes. Ungar? Motion passes. Technology. Moving now, moving now to the action items on this evening's agenda. We have one action item on our agenda this evening is school attendance area policy
j c. Do we have a motion? Melania. I move excuse me. Thank you. I move that we move forward with option a. Is there a second? I'll second. Board members, any discussion? Balenia. So first, I wanna say thank you to our community for being out and about, really talking to us about this. We've studied this January, March, May, and September. And I do agree with changing these attendance boundaries.
I believe it's good governance, and I believe that we should have been looking at it much more often than we have looked at it. It's been decades, and our cadence now of every five years, I do think is appropriate. In supporting option a, that gives fourth and seventh graders, the right to finish. That was something I was looking for as we studied this, having some runway. I have some hesitation on option b. I do look forward to what my colleagues have to say about it.
The runway on that is quite long and would just be finishing up at the time when the Board of Education will be taking up this policy again in five years. And I always like to think ahead about what type of precedent we're setting and if this would be a precedent that we could offer a large group of students if that were to happen five years from now. So I care very much about making policies that are sustainable, and a seems more
sustainable to me. The last thing I will say is I'll kinda put my heart on my sleeve like the people who've talked to me about the impacts to their family do. And, I know that we have school choice here, but school choice does not guarantee where your kid is gonna get into school. But what I do know, from my own experience of going to school here and from my kids' experience is there is no school building that your children could go
to of all of our schools and get anything other than a great education with teachers that care for them deeply, staff that cares for them deeply. So while I hear that it is frustrating for families, I do believe this is good governance, and I do believe that your children can be loved whatever school they go to in this district.
Thanks, Melania. Since I know I'm in control of the mic, I guess I'll go next and we can just pass this along smoothly if that's the most effective option. As board members, our job is to make decisions in the betterment of 27,000 students, 4,000 staff members, and 56 schools. Oftentimes, we will have to make very difficult situations for the better betterment of the system and they might be unpopular on the individual levels. And I say this because when we first discussed attendance boundary changes, we were very clear on the rationale behind why we might make some choices and not others with
moving lines. We really did not get a lot of feedback because they were pretty logical decisions. And when the changes come down down to individual schools and individual families, understandably, that's the first time we started to hear feedback. The feedback we get I've heard tonight is mostly we don't want change at all. And over the over the last week, it's if there's a change, we want transportation, which is a non starter. And if there is change, we also want guaranteed admission into middle schools, not just elementary schools once our kids matriculate through. The first time of this, I think the folks as we all know board members,
there are not wait lists at our neighborhood schools. Open enrollment is incredibly easy. So even if we move forward with option a, there is a high likelihood that folks will get their first choice because there's so much capacity across so much of our schools. The next time the board met with the board, whoever that is, is tasked with a similar decision, they will likely not have that same luxury. We've spoken time and time again about how, you know, the board wants bold changes, how our community is recognizing opportunities are decreasing with the number of schools that we have. We might have to make hard choices.
There might not be the option option to open enroll or to have guaranteed admission moving forward where guaranteed admission is really an option today because we have so many lower enrolled schools. And so for setting precedent, I really do believe it does a service to our community to know what to expect, for our future board members to know how to how to navigate through what will be an an even more challenging decision, arguably, if we if we set a precedent that sets us up for success moving forward.
So to me, option a and option b will both allow the folks who wanna stay the ability to stay. The ones that wanna move to the new neighborhood school, the or the ability to move into the new neighborhood school. And for those that really have decided now that there's no transportation, I wanna look around and I wanna go somewhere entirely new, that option opportunity will still exist. And to me, the difference between a and b is really what happens the next time and what expectation are we setting when we may not be allowed we may not have the ability to allow kids to matriculate through the entire k eight experience
the way we do today. And I think that's that's something that I take incredibly seriously in my role, as a board member. Thank you for the proposal. Right? And, thinking through the logic of this, I think, you're right. It is a difficult decision because it does impact families, and we've heard a lot of feedback about the individual impact. And we have to make a decision for the larger school district. Right? And these changes do make sense in terms of the larger plan. I I've been vacillating between option a and action and option b, thinking about how
we work this on the ground. And the reality is that when students make a change, regardless, then they're in that school for the duration, and to the degree that we can facilitate, maintain stability for our students when possible, that makes sense to me. And that's why I've been leaning towards option b as a part of this. I recognize the in the potential for precedent. At the same time, we have to be able to be responsive to different facts on the ground, and situations do change. And I think, we'll continue to have harder conversations. In in my mind, to a degree when we have hard conversations that can make
it easier for families to the degree that we can, recognizing it's not always possible, then it's worth the effort. But I understand the other perspective as well. Thank you. I really appreciate the motion, for millennia, and I think it is highly constructive for us to have an opportunity to discuss the different options. And I respect, any votes that might be different from mine. I'm, likely I support option b, and let me say a few reasons for this. Number one, I think it's good to think back to the reasons why we're making
these changes. And we're trying to figure out how to do instructional support and other services, that are in the best interest of the kids. And balancing the enrollment and balancing that forward in the long term is not something we do so it's easier to administer lines. It's something that so we can provide more services for more kids in schools that meet their needs. And, today, that's hard to do, but these are definitely changes that are designed for the long term. And if we're also doing what's best for kids, I think the research is pretty
clear that unnecessary transfers from one school to another are not helpful to kids' outcomes. They're not helpful to kids not just academically, but socially, emotionally. Now people make plenty of choices and they're that's on average. So there's lots of I support all the families making those choices. I think your points about, if they need to go somewhere else, if they want to stay and they're exercising open enrollment, I think that is a very strong part of the Boulder Valley system. Not a complication. That's a that's a a good thing, not a glitch. And that the parents should make those choices, but we shouldn't be making policy that
leads to transitions during the grade spans of a school. And so that's why I support b primarily because it is best for students' outcomes. And, either way, we're talking about long term changes, so it's not like it, would make a huge difference on the big numbers for the district, and it would be in the best interests of those kids that want to stay. I will also say that I don't think this is precedent setting. And that I believe in in five years or eight years or four years, whatever it is, the people that are sitting up here will be making equally hard decisions
and that they will be making them in the best interest of the kids that are in their district now and planning for moving forward. And if, the fact that we have grandfathered this in now, is pretty straightforward because those schools are there and they will provide those services and people could choose. A board five years from now could be making very different decisions. And I don't think, today's, grandfathering is a commitment that we anybody else in these seats in the future would have to do grandfathering on the same way. So I think this would help kids to go with option b while making the
changes and that I I I don't think there's a a precedent that's obligatory of what we're doing here. And I will add, I really appreciate, the staff and leadership at, the district reaching out and trying to make contact with all the affected families, since last spring. And, while the public testimony this evening and, the majority of the emails I've gotten in the last few weeks have been opposed to the changes, there's quite a bit of positive feedback that we got from members of the community as well, including in the last few weeks. So, if you think that a 100% of the families are saying, no.
Don't do this. That's not that's not what I've heard. But I respect the people who, are affected by this and each one of their individual decisions and how they feel about it. And that's why I want to support them and still achieve our long term goals while also protecting our long term discretion to take actions that might be necessary. But I would like to keep us focused on, a kid facing student experience, kid outcome focus as we think about all these potential changes in the long term. But I'll be voting against option a and for option b.
So I echo what my colleagues have said about the wisdom of changing boundaries and the rationale behind it and that it is good governance and also recognize, as I did last time, that this is difficult for families. Any kind of change always is. I too will be supporting option b because I think that gives the families a little bit more agency. And for folks who choose to stay in the school they're in now, they don't have to go to the trouble of open enrolling.
However, as Alex said and you know, who somebody said that getting your first choice is not guaranteed. However, it's highly likely. Given our enrollment, we have not had problems with people getting into their first choice for, open enrollment. And I also agree with Alex on the idea of this being precedent centric. I mean, it could be, but I think if we make a statement now that this is what we're doing now and that future boards may choose to do something
different next time depending on the situation would be enough from this decision we make today, binding future boards. And that's all I have to say about it. I think this might work. Oh, yay. I didn't wanna go last, but here we are. I really appreciate this discussion. This is kinda what I thought being on the school board would be like. We'd be having these back and forth debates a lot, but, I really appreciate, this conversation. I guess, like others, I'm really glad we're moving forward with this issue. If you recall, this was something we first talked about in the spring. And as people mentioned, either twenty or forty years ago was the last time we
did attendance zones. And so, I guess I'm just grateful for the work that the staff have done, the support on this board to move forward with necessary adjustments to boundaries. I think that, it doesn't, as many people said, address our longer term enrollment issues. And I'm glad once we move on this that we can start to really, really do the harder work of dealing with our longer term challenges. I really appreciate Lelanga's and Nicole's arguments, reasons for, I'm always, I I'm a strong
believer in good governance. I really appreciate the points made on on setting precedence, but I also, will be supporting b, I think for the reasons Jorge, Kitty, and Alex noted. I was really at our last meeting when we first talked about this, and parents, you know, understandably concerned about these changes. And there was one argument made about, you know, we just would like to have the same guarantees that students who open enroll and go through that process have. And that for me was pretty compelling that if a student wanted to open enroll into Heatherwood, they're guaranteed a spot there through the rest of the through the rest
of the time there. And I think that's a reasonable thing to ask, for these students at this at this time. And so, in addition to the other, reasons my colleagues have mentioned, but I think, Gladroom moving forward, I think the providing the stability, it is it is a precedent, but as others said, we can we can set new precedents. And, you know, the circumstances may be different in five, ten years. But I'm I'm just overall, I'm just really glad we're moving forward on this. I think it's important that our community understand this is not our solution to long
term challenges with enrollment, that we're motivated and look forward to taking on the harder issues of dealing with these issues as best we can. And this is a first necessary step that needed to be done some time ago, but this is not our answer to, declining enrollment. And I do look forward to that discussion, soon when I I think as soon as October, to start working on that. So So as I said, I'll be supporting option b, but I appreciate all the the various points made tonight. So the motion on the floor is to a vote of yes or no for
option a. Laura, can you please call the roll? Chavez? No. Medler? No. Quinlan Ueda? Yes. Rajpal? Yes. Sergeant? No. Ungar? No. Motion fails. We will now move on to the next item of this evening's agenda, policy action items. Do we have a chance to I would need to adopt option. If it fails, b is automatic? No. If it fails, then there's no action. So you would need to entertain another motion. Another motion. Seeing as we've already discussed this, Laura, can you please call the roll? Chavez? Yes. Medler?
Yes. Quinlanowaita? Yes. Rajpal. It's true, I guess. Yes. Sergeant. Yes. Unger? Yes. Motion passes. Now now we will really move on to policy action items consent grouping. 8.1, board policy a c, a c dash r, and a c dash r two, nondiscrimination. 8.2, board policy, BDFE, board community bond oversight committee. 8.3, board policy, IMDB, flag displays, pledge of allegiance, constitution education. Are there any items board members would like to pull from consent grouping?
Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the items? Moved by Kitty, seconded by Lalania. Board members, any discussion? Kitty and then Alania. Well, I have one thing, and I'm looking in the notes I sent Kathleen because I always have something to say. And this is a question, where is it, about the hairstyles. And it the the word that's used is protective hairstyles, and I'm wondering if that should be protected. And if not, what is a protective hairstyle? You didn't come here too. You're doing such a good job. I can't get in the mix there. The board's making that mic situation work.
So protective is the right term. It's straight from the law, and protective hairstyles references hairstyles that are designed to protect the hair. So locks, braids that are intended to protect the moisture and avoid breakage are actually called protective hairstyles. Thank you. I learned something new today. I bet great. Kitty learned something new today. I have to just take a moment to thank Kathleen and her team for the
hours and hard work put in here on these AC policies. Working alongside our title nine folks, hearing the board feedback and integrating it so seamlessly. In particular, I want to tell you that I'm thankful for the new amnesty provision. We there are so many barriers to reporting when it comes to discrimination or sexual
violence, and amnesty is definitely something that will help provide an people feeling like that avenue is open to them. For anybody in the audience listening, for what amnesty is, that means that if a a student happened to be at a party where there was drinking or something like that, that they aren't going to get in trouble for their own drinking if that's what they were participating in, by coming forward to say that they saw something that
was detrimental to another student. And many times, we hear that, that people don't want to move forward, come forward because they're afraid they're going to be in trouble. So I just these policies have come a really, really long way from, that people feel they're going to be in trouble for coming forward. It it's a really big deal, and it's it matters. This is work that really matters. And I'm not saying there isn't any work that doesn't matter that we're doing. This is just so close to my heart, and I wanna thank you publicly even
though I will always thank you privately too. Okay? Thank you. Yeah. I have a piggyback on on what Lalenia said. I'm glad you brought that up because I thought about that, and I am too also glad that we're having amnesty. What I want to know though is it says, it's not amnesty for everything. And so how does a student know that they're going to be protected if they report something in advance? I mean, how do they know in advance of reporting that they will be protected
if they had, say, been drinking? There may be other situations that the student might feel like they'll be in trouble. And so I'm just curious about that. I think it's our responsibility as we educate our students and our staff about how the policies operate to make sure that we look for that language and we really know what it means and can talk to our students about it. When we look at board policy, the board is declaring through policy your expectations for
how we as staff are going to support and address our students. So we're not saying what would happen in a police investigation or anything else. But what we are saying is this is such an important priority in our community to create learning and working environments that are free of sexual violence or any type of harassment or discrimination. So that if we ask you to come forward or you come forward, that we are sharing with the student, that they are in a safe space to share the
information they have so that we can take action. And the adults working with the student are expected to share that information and knowledge as part of offering that student a supportive and appropriate conversation. Jorge. These are easy to pass. Right? Especially because this is was mandated. We had to do federal law. But, Katie made a comment earlier about, you know, there's so many things that are protected, and it made me think. You know, we don't often stop to think about who's protected and what that means and and why it's important.
And so I'm looking at this list of protected classes and includes race, creed, color, gender, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, transgender status, religion, national origin, immigration and citizen citizenship status, physical characteristics, ancestry, age, pregnancy, marital status, veteran status, disability, family composition, and genetic information of an employee or applicant for employment. And I think it's really important to call that out because it speaks to our
values and how we serve everybody in the school district. And that's our mission and that they should all feel protected and safe in being here. And that that is our role and responsibility. And so I wanna speak to that, and to the work that we're doing and the continued work that the district is do is doing in that direction, that our values haven't changed, then everybody deserves an education and should feel safe in getting that. Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly with you, Jorge. I I also wanna add, and maybe this is more for, the public and the
community that as others have said, like, none of this, changes the deep commitment we have as a district and a community to protecting all our kids and create safe and welcoming environments everywhere, which means responding, to the events of bullying and harassment, discrimination and having the systems in place to deal with them. And I'm also glad to see the changes like on our website that now, make it easier for people to find the reporting. So hats off to the communications team as well. I believe as we board members continue to look at the governance level data, like
we need to make sure our strategic plan metrics about restorative justice and about school climate are really helping and giving us insight to what's going on. And that we can continue to support the leadership and the way they work with the principals, that work with the staff, that work with the kids to always be working on the right thing. Because that's not easy. And people will have real impacts on kids many, many times. Within that structure where we all wanna support and make everybody welcome, things will happen, and we need to figure out how to do it. One other thing I think people in this day and age can mistake an action
to update us to current federal legal interpretation as somehow backing away from anything. And I think that's actually opposite of the truth. It's not that the political changes or anything I agree with or are right. But if we were to act on previous policies that are no longer being supported, then we can have actions and decisions challenged and overturned. And so what we wanna do is create the best environment for the district to have the procedures and practices that are gonna reach a good resolution and a supportable
and sustainable resolution. So getting up to date is a way we continue to protect and manifest our values, not a step back from them in any way. But I do I I care deeply about, every student and every family that's involved in these instances. I mean, you do look through all the protected classes and just about anybody can be in one of them. But even if you're not in any of those protected classes, you're still safe from bullying. You're safe from, inappropriate violence and disciplinary issues. So all our kids are covered by this, and our commitment remains as strong as
ever. And we as a board, I think, have an obligation to continue to track this, because it has huge implications for how we fulfill our vision and our mission. And we certainly, as board members, hear about some of the cases that come through, but there's a lot of cases being dealt with by the schools, that don't come to us where we support people trying to make hard decisions and make things better. But I think we can continue to look at the outcome data and we can continue to look at student well-being and, and support these support improvement as a governing
board. Earlier, I joked that everything but left handedness was in the policy. But just as a note of history, so some folks listening may not know this, but left handedness used to be considered evil. The word sinister in Latin means left, and it used to be that children who were left handed were forced to become right handed. And I actually know someone that that happened to. So folks I mean, I'm old, but folks not much older than I am have
had that happen. So even though I joked about it, it was once upon a time a real thing. And wouldn't it be nice if we get to the point where discrimination against people is one of the things people have to remind other folks of as ancient history? Board members, any further discussion? Seeing as there are none, Laura, can you please call the vote on consent grouping? Oh, did you have one more? Oh, yes. I'm passing it. Sorry. This mic passing. Yes, Jorge. I'll pass you the votes because you're first alphabetically. Chavez?
Yes. Medler? Yes. Quinlan Ueda? Yes. Rajpal? Yes. Sergeant? Yes. Ungar? It worked. Yes. Motion passes. This is great timing for our microphones to work with some consistency board members because we are moving on to policy study items. We have several policies to study this evening. We will begin with grading and homework. And board members, this one looks a little bit different than the rest. There are no red lines. So this first group of policies, the grading and homework, will kind of treat a little bit more like a work session even though we're not taking the time to
rearrange the boardroom, and then we'll go back and study the rest of them like we would at a normal policy study. With that, I will turn it over to Kathleen Sullivan. Oh, I'm gonna pause. I've been called for a comfort break, and then we'll come back and talk about these very exciting policies. Welcome back, everyone. As I mentioned before the brief break, we have several policy items to study this evening starting with grading and homework. Board members, this one's near and dear to my heart. I prioritize this in the 2324 school year.
So here we go. Goodness me. Kathleen, take it away. So we are going from some of our policies that incorporate the most laws, both from the federal and state level with our discrimination policy to an area of policy that has the least legal requirements. So as a board president, Rajpal mentioned, these priorities were sorry, I did not do
that on purpose. These policies were prioritized for the by the board as something for review. When we look at these historically, these policies were primarily adopted in around 1980. They've been revised a few times over the years. Most of them not really since 02/2005. Although we did have some updates in 2018 to the policy on the state assessment system. I put an asterisk here because that one, Sesame Street style is a little bit
unlike the others that are there. So I'm putting that marker on it so we can talk about it a little differently. We did look at weighted grades in 2021 as part of cleaning up our references to courses, and then the homework policies that were last touched in 02/2001. When we think about the relevant authority. Oh, this is so interesting. Okay. So there's no federal or state law that obligates the board to have a district
policy on either grading or homework. The asterisk for the state assessment exhibit is because there is a Colorado law that requires the board to have a policy that addresses the assessment system, how families can opt out of some assessments requirements around paper and pencil testing. Those are really incorporated into that exhibit six that I showed on the prior slide. But in terms of grading and homework there's not a federal or state law requirement.
There's not a requirement that you have a policy and there is not language in the negotiated agreements. So So that'll be really different when we talk about calendar in just a moment. So I think that over the years also, the policy, the regulation, and the exhibits that exist in this area have gotten, they've lost their form a little bit. So we talk about a policy is really supposed to establish the philosophy, what the
board is setting as the direction and whatever the particular content area is. Regulations typically then give more detail because they don't require the same level of board review. We can change those more efficiently. And then the exhibit is really just supposed to be either a form or a sample for how we implement those policies. When I arrived, we had some really crazy exhibits in this area that were like checklist of do's and don'ts.
And those have been retired by the board over the years to leave us with that set of policies that are on the first slide. So rather than detail each of the policy and regulation in the form it currently exists, I've summarized what the policy and the regulation do at this point together, just so that we can facilitate the board's discussion. So when we look first at the issue of grading systems and student progress reports, the policy and that regulation do a few things.
The policy itself does establish a requirement that district administration and the professional staff collaborate to develop a grading and reporting system. It expresses the board's belief that the grading system needs to reflect student progress and performance in relation to content standards, benchmarks and essential learning results. The other requirements are it requires teachers to keep accurate records that support the grades
that teachers assign. It establishes grading scales for elementary and secondary. And then in this area we have a regulation that is five pages long that includes a lot of detail and I would say reflects past practice but not necessarily current practice. When we look next then at homework, again, we have a policy and a regulation in this area. And when we look at what they do together, it's a few things.
First of all, it requires each school to develop specific written homework guidelines to encourage consistency across topics and teachers and grades. But then it goes on to establish guidelines for homework. And those guidelines are up here for you, but start in kindergarten with an average of ten to thirty minutes per night and then ranges up to secondary level where at the high school it really recognizes that homework loads when students are selecting classes
are likely to be dependent on the courses that students select. One of the things that I know the board noted, is that the regulation and the policy really reference a resource that was published in 1994. So, it is not the most current research in the area of homework and grading. I think that can be a danger of getting perhaps too specific in a policy or regulation and that language just doesn't survive the test of time.
So we've got some lessons we can learn from the choices that were made previously. I think factors to consider and those that we see in the policy and if you look around at other districts who make an effort to establish a board level policy, grading is looking to align with the standards, aligning with the curriculum that's being taught, is really in best practice, would address motivation and encouragement for kids and when
it would incorporate a variety of assessment types. I think when we look at homework, we know that homework really is intended to reinforce learning, not just busy work should be something important for our students to do. But I think one of the the considerations that we see most in the professional research and is something that Doctor. Anderson and the board has talked about is the workload and the academic stress for our students. Does the homework policy encourage that balance of school personal and family life?
And does it really these policies themselves, do they reflect, the board's intent to establish a district wide policy in these areas? And then if the answer to that is yes, do the policies that we currently have capture those factors that the board believes is important as you take up these policies as part of your priority work? Thank you for that overview, Kathleen. Board members, who would like to begin I actually think for ease, it might be
easier to focus on grading and then move into homework just to keep track of thoughts for everybody. I know there is gonna be some areas in which there is probably overlap, which is why we're looking at them together. But let's start with the grading and assessment policies. And then after we're wrapping up conversation there, shift over to homework. So on grading, can we talk about content standards, benchmarks, and essential learning results of
the curriculum? I understand contact content standards and benchmarks, I guess, once we get to essential learning results of a curriculum. I'm not sure what that means. So some of the vernacular in this twenty year old policy would not necessarily align with the work that we've done over the past seven years. And so as we think about to the extent that that we, shift and adjust or keep grading and homework policies. Right? There's no requirement to keep either of these policies. We could just retire them and that and then grading and homework could be an
agreement between schools, leaders, expectations. But if it were to to remain a policy, we would want to align it with, the information we have in our instructional playbook playbook and our current, adopted curriculum. And so, as as a starting place board members, if, if if the intent is to begin to shape some of these, the grading policy and the homework policy to best align with current practices, right, we could definitely take this and work this through
our feedback loops and groups. Right? We would work with our teachers advisory council, principal advisory council, bring this to DAC, SAC, get input, and we can bring you drafts of both. Tonight's discussion might be helpful for us if you would, want us to move in that direction to what are the things you wanna get feedback on. Like, what are the elements that you really want us to to pressure test amongst those groups to see where folks are, so you can have that information as you consider how tight or how loose to shape some of these policies.
And then we can talk about the policies that you set and then the implementation challenges. You know, you get too tight. It it can get really hard to implement. And I think, you know, the biggest issue now is we have policies, and I don't know. Unless you started teaching here in 2005 or you know, we haven't talked about grading or homework policies much. I'd imagine that most of the folks who have come here from other districts, you know, whatever it is that they were taught when they started teaching is what they use. I'm I'm speculating. I don't know that to be certain. But we if if we can have discussion on what are the things we should
be looking for, then as we start to think about shaping this policy, we can go back. You know, you highlight those elements in revised policies and then get feedback from our our groups to bring back something for you all to react to. I like that plan. Thinking about how to move this forward, a couple things came to mind. So in our what is titled an exhibit but really Policy language because that's where the legal requirements live. So the body of the the the vast majority of the language within our e six and then the some of the language within that grading policy that's titled as
a policy really is all actually included in the CASB example policy. So for ease, I think combining the language that's required into one policy for folks to look at and and the grading policy the grading language in the CASB example board members just says that the board needs to establish the superintendent and professional staff will determine a grading system very, very tiny. And then take the rest of this stuff, which would eventually just be a regulation if the board chooses to move forward with a regulation that has more detail, the weighted grades, the grade regulation, and and kind of get feedback on that those elements
from the community. And when I elevated this these policies, it was because there is a high degree of inconsistency. Folks in secondaries are using the four point grading scale. Our policy says it's only allowed in primary. The grading even the grading standard, so not if teachers are using the a through f scale, they don't all follow the percentages aligned in policy. It creates academic stress for students and parents because they don't you go into a classroom and you don't know what to what it what to expect. When the four point grading scale gets converted into letter grades, different teachers convert them
to different letter grades in different ways with different cut points. So it's just a lot of unknowns whether or not so I think feedback on whether we should be prescriptive or not, how is the grading at different sites similar, how is it aligned or not aligned, what's the benefit of alignment or not, and then how is it how are we communicating to families and to students when they're signing up for classes what the grading scale is? And and should we maybe have have language that includes when, like, timeline for turning
things around? Sometimes it's coming into winter break and students don't have grades back in the grade book. They're wrapping up the first semester and they don't actually have grades in grade books. So the the the stress component is really significant. We do have infinite campus, which kind of forces our our handle a little bit to some degree. So I don't I I tend to not wanna be prescriptive, but I think it's in our best interest to have policies that are actually followed. And so what how could we get to a meaningful place with our policy and a potential regulation?
But for me, breaking those two chunks apart makes it a lot easier. And I'll even say with weighted grades, our regulation on grading talks about weighted grades, then we have a whole second policy and regulation on weighted grades. It's really muddy. And the weighted grade language doesn't really relate to doctor Ederson's point, to our Grad PLUS initiative. It kind of calls out different things that we may or may not have anymore that qualifies for graded weighted grades versus not. So, again, high degree of inconsistency, which creates stress and confusion for our families and, creates more subjectivity than I feel should be within the world of grading in BVSD.
I also wanted to, bring forward infinite campus as something I'd like to see addressed. I think it does cause a large amount of stress for our high school kids in particular. And I would think that given that it is just a software program, we could have some type of guardrails on when grades are posted there. Not just that they're some sometimes they're waiting grades. They get upset about that.
But then sometimes they're looking for that grade, and and it would be nice for them to be able to take a break and no grades are posted on Sunday night or Friday night or whatever. So I would love to see something with Infinite Campus. Yeah. The, oh, shoot. I'm going to take a really big exam and Infinite Campus just pushed forward a grade that I did not very well on an exam, and now I'm having stress on top of walking into a stressful exam with doctor Anderson. As a BVSD parent, I played this game.
And, at at one point, we did look into and we can certainly look at the way that those things push out. Now when kids were able to have their phones, right, If if if a teacher updated something on their planning period and a zero came in and the parent saw it and the parent texted the kid, what's where's this grade at? What did you do? Go check it out. I think that that's probably a story that happened around a lot of dinner tables in our school district. District. So so we can certainly look at that as part of an implementation of a
policy around, you know, reducing academic stress or managing academic stress. Now, literally, you know, kids have to be accountable for what they do and not do. I think we all understand that. That's part of of school. How do you do that in a way that's predictable, that's reliable? To Nicole's point, you know, you you grow up with an eight f grade grading scale. You have some teachers because of the either the policy or the the enforcement of the policy that start to grade on curves. They start doing these advanced grading tactics. You have some teachers that, use points and percentages, and their math gets all out
of sorts because you can't really mix the two. So I do think, though I I think that we need to have a deep conversation, especially with our teachers, because I think that they probably there's things that they probably love to see in this as well, to create some some just a a standardization Or or not. Or here's the things that we feel like we need flexibility on. Here's the things that it would be helpful if we all did things the same way. But I do think that it will take some time for us to gather this information. I wanna be shallow on feedback. So I think that this is a good good kickoff for this conversation, but I
would certainly want to, converse with with with our teachers advisory council, get their feedback on how deep do we go, like, how do we deal with this, and just be really thoughtful. Because I do think that, I think we'll all get on the same page if we take enough time to kinda really consider and think through this. One question on that and then Alex. So and I I agree with the time needed, and I think the bulk of the time is gonna be in sort of what would end up in a regulation. I think the other part is clear cut. And so the extent to which we could do the easy stuff and then do
the hardest and take the take the time that's needed with the harder stuff so we still can move forward. And I I do think having some of it cleaned up will help the district accountability committee and the school accountability committees and even, like, the pack, the principals, the teachers. I think having some some of it that's clean and some of it that's and required by law set aside and then everything else, taking that more thoughtful, elongated, longer approach might make it easier. Alex. Does it work? Oh, yay. So I had a couple of thoughts and one question.
On the grading, it had a withdraw pass and a withdraw fail. Are we using that, or is that a relic? And if we are using it, then what's the benefit to anybody to know whether or not I mean, anybody who would read somebody else's grades to know whether or not the student was passing or failing? So that's my first question, and then I have Why don't you ask the second question? Yeah. The the second one's not a question. I agree with Nicole about having things, well, slimmed way down and as you know,
not be as prescriptive not be extremely prescriptive. However, I am interested in in seeing that if a kid goes to Boulder High and gets a b in physics, it means the exact same thing as a kid going to New Vista and getting a B in physics. So that because we're talking about college transcripts now. So I'm I would like to see that the grading is at least is consistent between schools. Or if you move well, back in the days when you actually changed schools when you moved, but if you move from one elementary to another, also it would be
an understanding of what does this grade mean. Does it mean something different at Heatherwood than it does at, Fireside? I don't know because it talked about making decisions like that, excuse me, at the building level. So those were my two big takeaways and concerns. So I would have to check to see if those codes are actually available in IC because it's not really the policy that probably drives what teachers can do. It's what IC can do. Right? So so whether whatever your your, your, you know, whether it's, infinite campus or PowerSchool,
there's settings that allow teachers to set up classes and grades and do certain things. And you'd wanna align that to whatever policy that we get to because then that's really what dictates what can happen. So it could be a relic, and it could be being used. I would I but if it's NIC, there's a possibility of it being used. And then also, you know, we have some schools that are different. Right? I'm thinking about Justice High. I'm thinking about Arapahoe Ridge. I'm thinking about some of our schools that have different rhythms. You have certain courses that credit recovery courses where they're more competency based and kids
can go faster versus time bound courses. I will say, Kitty, that the best way to I don't know that we'd ever get to a place where we're fully standardizing grades between schools. I wish I could tell you that we could do that. I think that the best thing we can do is adopt high quality curriculum and train folks to that, and that's the best way that we can kind of get similar things happening. I think in some of your one off high school courses, elective courses, where there may not be at at each school, Like, advanced placement is a is is a standardized type of a thing, but an honors physics course might be different from one
place to another. So, I do think that we have some things to learn about this. We wanted to bring this topic to the board to get the conversation going. I think that the next, responsible step for us is to is to listen to this conversation, think about what I see does and doesn't do, match that to policy, start talking to our principals and our educators, and and really get to a policy that I think threads the needle in a way that doesn't make things harder, but makes things clearer and more predictable for everybody. I just wanna publicly thank and credit, president Rajapol for bringing this to us.
I think it's a really important issue, and, I think it unpacking it will take a while, and there's a lot there. So I guess as we begin the study of it, I assume this will be a fairly long process. And in classic Boulder process will involve a lot of stakeholder groups giving a lot of input. I do think it's really helpful upfront to actually share first principles not just from the board but from the leadership. So we have an instructional playbook. We've been working really hard on it for a few years. I don't just wanna know what I think.
I really wanna know what you, superintendent Anderson, think about this. And I think, that would inform a lot of the discussion we have with the stakeholder engagement that will follow. That's the first point. Number two, I'm I am in favor of, like, standardization to the extent we can, but I also recognize we have unique schools and unique approaches. And I believe strongly that public choice involves informed choices. So parents shouldn't be surprised by something, although you can lead a horse to water
and they still may be surprised once it actually has a harsh edge to it. And then for me, one a couple of principles I would put out there. We should support schools being, different to the extent that that's your their unique mission and it's clear. But at the same time, I I think the pathway for students to success after they leave BSD following our mission and our vision should be preparing students wherever they go to succeed in their pathway afterwards. And if our grading and credit systems are not contributing to that or some are
doing it better than others, then I wanna learn from the people who are leading to the best outcomes for the people who leave. And that's that's for middle schoolers going to high school as well as high schoolers matriculating to their post school life. So, first principle for me is also we're doing this because it leads to better outcomes for, students, when they go on to the next grade or when they, matriculate and that student outcomes include mental health and well-being and and family and life and
fun and all those things as well as transparent rigor. And then I I would say I do think as we think about those pathways, if we have pathways that help more students succeed after leaving BVSD, then we should be aware of them and figure out how to make them more available and not just be a special thing that happens at Arapahoe Ridge but not just as high, recognizing that the schools are still different. And I, I also the the discussion of existing policies and regulations that is this
dismissive of policies and regulations, makes me sort of question, like, are we creating a pirate's code that is sort of a guideline and not really a policy and not really a regulation? And so what is our intentional authority of either of this? So if we're gonna put in a year, eighteen months of really hard work into this, but no one tends to follow it afterwards, and no one intends to follow-up on its implementation by school leaders or other systems, then why are we doing that? I think that's exactly why we touch it to to bring it up to bring
it up to where we are today. Hard to hard to enforce a policy from 2005 that, that it's outdated. Right? Again, why we're really working very hard as a board to touch all of our policies so they stay relevant, meaningful. You know, for me here is success. Kids know how they're doing. They understand if they do well or not do well on an assignment, how that affects their overall grade. You know, if this would be fascinating to me. How many kids have no idea how what they do connects to the grade they get in their class? And how does that affect their motivation, their attention, their attendance?
Because I probably think that there's there's cases within our our, you know, within our kids and kids who maybe are struggling where, you know, they do they get an a on an assignment, but it's only worth 10 points, and that's only worth 5% of the grade. And the tests are worth 40%, and they're not a great test taker. And they bomb the test, and there's only one test in the semester or the nine weeks, and they can never recover no matter how many a's they get. I mean, how many scenarios are like that? Like, I'm thinking high school specifically.
So can you clean some of that up? Can you can you and and I think a lot of times, you know, these these weights, you know, very arbitrary, very the systems are are sometimes departments get on the same page. Sometimes schools get on the same page. Sometimes people got on the same page fifteen years ago, then it was never updated. So I just think some intentionality is gonna really help us here. And if we dial in on these principles of kids should be able to know and understand how their effort, and their performance relates to what their the grade that
they're earning, Right? That we have to be mindful of academic stress, and we can't have systems that are spamming our kids, stressing them out, like and their parents. You know, how how do we create a better system? And then and and I and I really think that our educators will rally around this idea of let's get on the same page, and let's really do something that's meaningful, thoughtful, and aligns to all the other things that we believe in. And so I'm excited to be tackling this really important work. And, but, Alex, to your point, like, we're gonna do the work so we can
make things better for kids. If I can just follow-up on that one. I I totally, that's what I anticipate and know from how you do everything in supporting it. And I just wanna also say that I I think another audience for this, you know, students first, their families managing this, second. And third is making the educators' lives manageable. I mean, I just think everybody I know who's been a teacher or professor, it's like the IT crowd when they say, have you turned it off and on again? The teachers or professors say, have you read the syllabus? So if we can make it transparent and I really I really do feel strongly
that our students that get behind, get discouraged, need incentives that recovery is gonna work. And it's so easy to have a zero to 100 scale. And once you've lost the first 40 points, there's no reason to try because you'll never pass the class. So those are the sorts of incentives for students' well-being in life that I think we wanna keep front of mind too. My WAG worked two times in a row. Yay. Another thing that came to mind was, where it says talking about the percentage of
grade that's related to achievement of the standards at middle level, it's not less than 70%, and at high school, not less than 75%. So does that mean the 30 or 25% is based on other things like behavior or something? And the reason I asked this is because I oh, good. I was always very good at math, but one quarter in high school, I got a d in math, not because I didn't know the math, but it was because
I talk too much. And I probably Yeah. I think that that's something that we can we can really clarify. You know, there there's these balance between participation and effort versus performance, and then there's also growth. There's things that you can consider, as you as you're developing thoughtful, a syllabus, grading grading scales. And so I don't think that any child should have any student should have their
behavior count towards their academic performance. I think those are different. And, so I think that that's something that we can consider. But most of the time, the the at least at the high school level, it's how much of the grade is based on what you can demonstrate you know and how much of the grade is based on the effort that you've put forth in the course. And I think that there's some kind of ratio and balance that that every teacher has to consider. And then some might even put in something that really has to do more with
executive functioning or organizational skills. Right, Jay? You have a binder and you keep it up, and we check it and make sure that you're stick you're keeping up with your work. And they do that because they know kids what you grade kids do. And in middle school, I know that that's a really, really at least, you know, when I was principal in middle school or when I was teacher of middle school, helping kids build those executive functioning skills in middle school so they can succeed in high school. So, it's probably some some, combination of that. The other part I wanted to mention about assessments. When I was looking at some of the example policies, they talk about district assessments
in addition to state assessments, and I think that is an interesting addition. We have really changed our approach to district assessments. Now we have them. And so commenting on that, and then also I felt like there is an encouragement or requirement to talk about how much time is spent on both state and district assessments and have that calendar available. So things, I think, helpful to include in the big meaty policy part that we are currently lacking. Board members, any other comments on Alex has a comment on grading, then we'll shift
to homework. I really look forward to the future updates on this and some deep dives, and I assume we'll have some really good, work study sessions on it. I guess I would just add two more elements that I'm looking forward to learning about and how the those interact with this. The first is, the progress of Grad Plus and sort of transitions to college credit for concurrent enrollment and other things in addition to AP and IB because those are different systems. And again, we wanna have all the pathways be transparent and supportive. The other thing is we implement, not just our instructional playbook, but our multi tiered
systems of support and support the schools with data driven inquiry. And so, that's not grade based, but there's a lot of the similar data behind it. And as we support teachers and principals in the implementation of that school instructional improvement stuff, then we don't wanna undermine that with some grade part. And then, I I do just wanna support the idea that, we shouldn't have vastly different expectations that aren't sort of based on school mission and philosophical approach, but that
make people feel like we've introduced equity concerns and double standards and all that. And so I do think we wanna keep an equity lens and it's strong in a way that leads to positive outcomes for more and more kids. I think we've provided great direction on those grading and assessment policies. Shifting to homework policies, board members, does anybody want to begin that? Jason, does your mic work, or do you need this one? I think it's working. Kathleen, you mentioned, kind of the latest thinking on homework. What what is the latest thinking on homework? I feel like it's, cons inconsistent across grades in individual schools, inconsistent across schools.
I've heard, you know, within this district of, you know, we're gonna have, like, this we have this is the rationale for homework, and then the upper grades, you know, we don't believe in homework. I don't even know how I feel about this, but I like, you you said I don't know if that's a big question, but I don't know if you have a sense of the latest thinking. Is it that we like, these previous policies, it seems like we don't follow those anymore. That's too much. But do you have kind of an overview of what is the latest thinking about homework? I don't know if this is the latest thinking. But I I don't know that the thinking has changed.
Right? Like, you know, as a teacher, homework is a great place, for kids either to do some front loading for a lesson. Right? I'm gonna read the chapter, then we're gonna learn and discuss it. Or independent practice. Right? I've learned this. Let me practice this on my own. And this it's this gradual release of information that I think is where, you know, the science of teaching and learning really, takes hold, which is a as a teacher. Right? I do something. We do it together, and then you do it. You know, I do, we do, you do, which is a very just basic rhythm
of how teaching works. So, now so so some teachers I think homework gets we get homework wrong when we're asking kids to learn things on their own because we didn't get to it as teachers. And then so then it's a not an I do, we do, you do. It's a you do, you do. Right? I think that that's where kids get stuck, gets frustrated. Or if and as parents, we've all been there. Right? You know, the kid sits down, your kid sits down for homework, and you ask them, well, what did the teacher do? I don't I didn't notice.
I didn't learn it. Or this is new. I they didn't teach this. Now, when my kids said that, I knew that they probably were taught that and, you know, but they didn't get it. So, I I don't know that there's any like, there there may be philosophical differences, like, the but I don't know that there's one necessary train of thought. But we can certainly do a deep dive into kinda some of the review of the literature on what's most recent as part of our review of this policy if the board feels like that might be a helpful place to start as well. Seeing some thumb thumbs up there.
I will say we have a lot of policies that are related that read like philosophies. We have the instructional program policies, IGA IGA dash r, which we're going to be reviewing. We have policy IA, instructional goals, and policy ADA, educational philosophy. Part of me wonders if there's an opportunity to think of, like, distilling several pages of homework policy into a succinct idea and wrapping all of those things around educational philosophy, instructional goals, homework into one, if that makes sense.
And so I just offer that for consideration as you're thinking through. Is it worthy of a stand alone policy, or is it just part of our educational mission and objective in this district? And then you elevate why homework is important. I I as a standalone, it does not make a great deal of sense to me, and we have a whole bunch of policies that we're trying to manage. And I do think it's actually an interesting exercise for our school accountability committees in this idea that, you know, how are how how does homework align horizontally and vertically
within schools, and what do schools and their individual style believe? We have choice schools that some that really value work for the sake of work and some choice schools that really don't value homework at all. And so how does that fit in to the educational mission within our schools and allow some consistency and allow the opportunity for schools to be different? As long as we're being really clear and people know what their what that school is about, but have it when I have heard complaints and when I elevated this,
it's just inconsistencies within a even an entire school. The third grade teacher a, b, and c do things entirely differently, and then maybe there's a lot of homework in second grade and no homework in third and fourth grade and lots of homework in fifth grade and the rhyme there's no rhyme or reason. So I think that is interesting. And then in secondary levels, some content areas just might inherently have more for that idea of practice, but what is the purpose? So I think there's a lot of ways that this could go. I think it's an interesting discussion at school accountability committees because you have principals, teachers, and and parents together to unpack that.
And then I just wonder the value of having it be stand alone or encompassed in sort of these other policies that all speak to kind of the same idea of what it what do we believe should be happening in our classrooms and in our school buildings? Jason. Yeah. I'm supportive of that idea. And and I also, you know, however we whether we have this as a standalone or as part of a larger kind of philosophy, I think as part of that and maybe following up doctor Anderson on your comments, I'd like to, you know, maybe find out what the latest research is, but maybe move away from minutes and and
tracking things by number of minutes, and this grade level should do this many minutes. I feel like that leads towards the kind of busy work aspect of homework. And I you know, we go to the school, we do two hours of homework a night, or we go to the school, we do zero hours zero minutes or hours. And I think maybe talking about the things you talked about at the need for homework, why we do this, and away from any kind of prescriptive it sounds like that's the direction we're headed anyway, but I do I do feel strongly about, like, not including minute thresholds or minute kind of, things for people to follow.
I just don't think that's useful, and I think it does you know, when that's when it when we talk about a certain number of minutes, I think that that does push teachers and others to kind of more busy work and less kind of what the what the original point is. I I agree with that. I I would also add, I think the homework is another issue where one of the questions for us is how much discretion is at each level, And what do we as a governing body, what do we think about that?
And do we care if this is a classroom, department, school, district, feeder pattern approach, or if they are different? And then like what are what agency do we give to principals to communicate and enforce or support anything? And what agency do we give teachers to, you know, make logical important changes for how they teach to what they do to make it all make sense? So I think one of the questions for us to hear back from people about, and we'll get different takes from different stakeholders, I'm sure, is like where does that
discretion and agency lie? And over what and how much of it? And again we're not gonna reflect anything in policy or the regulation perfectly, but I think that'll help us figure out the level of granularity we're gonna we want to have. And, like if if we have these heavily enforced regulations that go all the way down, then we gotta be really articulate about it. But if we're giving philosophical direction and we expect a great deal of discretion, then it's it's a different conversation. Oh, I have a different thought on the minutes. I I was looking at them more as guidelines not to go over, especially elementary
school. Like, don't give kids too much homework, but not as prescriptive that it needs to be this amount or that amount. But I'm not sure that we need to have that written in stone because I imagine most teachers understand the developmental level of their students and get that, first grader is not gonna be able to do two hours of homework at night. Other thoughts on these homework policy, the policy and regulation board members? Seeing as there are none, we will now move on to our second policy study
item this evening, which is board policy ICICA academic calendar. So board members, this is an issue that the board has addressed several times. So I wanted to refresh your memory of your last conversation about this that did form the basis for the red line that is shared as part of the content. So you'll remember that this policy was last updated in 02/2001.
The board discussed it most recently in April 2025. The the policy now is, relatively short. It lists a lot of different holidays, identifies some as required, others that really aren't. So the policy itself also does not incorporate the guiding principles that you'll remember were a significant portion of the board's conversation. So there are some requirements that need to be met in this policy.
And there are there are layers to the requirements to be addressed in this policy. I think thinking about the board's just immediate discussion about minutes. There are specific financial rules in colorado about instructional minutes. There are definitions of the academic year. I don't think that good policy just carries forward every minute detail that may be present in the regulations. But I do think that when we look at our negotiated agreements and our practice
in this area, they give us sort of a more practical way that we can reference It also It also identifies that four days have been set aside as conference days. It addresses specifically teacher workdays and professional development. And then all of the negotiated agreements have some language about holidays that need to
be considered. And this slide is from our April 2025 discussion. I should have updated the list of those holidays, so I'll talk about that more as we look at the red line the guiding principles. These are the items that have been in place for a number of years that have always been a part of the academic calendar discussion, but have been sitting outside of policy. So the guiding principles, this is the background, that they were developed in the early
twenty tens. And then you can see the bullet pointed items there that the board did have significant discussion about in April. So based on the discussion in April, the underlying legal requirements and the elements of the negotiated agreement, we I provided a red line for the board to consider tonight. It addresses the following items that are listed there. The current language from the multiple negotiated agreements, incorporating elements that sat in policy, those
elements that were in the guiding principles and the elements that the board talked about when we were together in April. For example that looking at where our staff live, what other school districts we might want to coordinate with, Looking at the priorities the board had talked about. Obviously focusing on students, but making sure that we're writing a policy or that the board is adopting a policy that will meet the needs of all students at all levels. So, so the red line itself, which we actually, I'd like to stop and just
talk about the red line itself, which was is in your board agenda. So we have added significant volume to this policy just to make it clear. So from the board's discussion and the process that had been actually in place and what we can do in light of the negotiated agreements language around specific timelines in January. The board will recall that our original policy talked about November. So those things were really out of alignment. As a result, the first part of this process now includes a section titled development
process. It reflects the state law requirement that we get teacher input when we're establishing professional development days. It also incorporates the language in the negotiated agreement, as well as the board's discussion about the importance of listening to teachers, staff and parents. So that updated section now captures the timeline that is actually in place and the one that meets the language of the agreements themselves. The next section of the policy then I pulled forward the requirements.
What must the calendar do? Not necessarily to the level of the minutiae of minutes, but the requirement that there be at least one hundred and seventy six days during which students are actively engaged in the educational process. That first requirement implements the financial rules, the funding rules that schools have to address by defining what active engagement in the educational process is. The next requirement number two talks about additional contract days to be used for teacher
preparation and work days. And then the third requirement really brings in the discussion about holidays and vacation dates. So when we look at that language, each of the negotiated agreements is just a little bit different. This language captures all of them. Some of the questions that the board had the last time we were together was, for example, is Veterans Day a required state holiday? Veterans Day is not a required state holiday.
In fact, it's one that a lot of schools are, in in class for and that are negotiated agreements talk about what happens, for example, when people do work Veterans Day. So there was a lot of confusing language that we had to bring together here. The holiday that is not included on this list that was left on this slide is Columbus Day. Columbus Day is, only referenced in the classified employees negotiated agreement.
It is referenced in language that says the board must establish a calendar that that considers these days. And it's someplace board member sergeant where the comma takes very significant, importance in terms of how it's used. So BBC EA's negotiated agreement lists the holidays And then between the commas, as one of the things for the board to consider, it says Columbus Day or Veterans Day.
So by including Veterans Day as the holiday in your policy to be considered and addressed, we are in fact complying with what all of the negotiated agreements would say and reflecting, reflecting the more contemporary understanding of Columbus's role and Indigenous Peoples' Day and really removes from board policy that will likely live another five, ten or twenty years maybe before it gets touched again so that we don't have that antiquated language that
sits in the board's policy. The last factor to be considered references a new regulation. That regulation would incorporate the guiding principles. That was something that the board had requested. And then the final piece is just that authority that board member Medler was just talking about, recognizing that schools will have to have a little bit of flexibility around a school calendar that will reflect the board's calendar, but also incorporate the important events
for each school. Those are the highlights of the policy itself. In the red line version, the proposed regulation is just the last page of the red line. And the regulation would just be entitled or as currently proposed, additional factors for school calendars. It lists a number of those factors, both from our existing guiding principles and those based on the board's discussion. I think that the board had spent a considerable amount of time on discussion in
April about how do we prioritize the factors, how do we wait the factors. And when the board is adopting a policy and a regulation that's expected to be used for some time, I think that we may wind up too prescriptive if you try to, establish or assign a permanent weight characterization or priority. So the proposed language for the board that precedes the factors is just says factors
are to be considered overall with no specific assigned priority or weight when establishing the calendar for the district. And then it lists those items from the guiding principles from the board's discussion that we would propose would form the regulation in this area. So when you look at the regulation then and the policy together, it would shift the timeline for the board's work in this area. January is the reference in the negotiated agreement for the creation of those proposed calendars
when they would be discussed considered proposed based on input that would precede a February board work session where those proposed calendars could be discussed. If there's to be a revision of the calendar that's proposed in January, the negotiated agreement requires that there be an additional waiting and discussion period of thirty days. So that's factored in with the March time period to allow for the additional feedback. And then the adoption of a proposed calendar would happen in that April, May, June
timeframe. The policy retains the board's practice and the board's prerogative to establish multi year calendars. The board is able to adopt a single calendar or calendars further into the future, which I think is an important consideration as you think about the impact of the shift of the timeline as we look at the proposal and adoption of academic calendars.
Thank you for that overview, Kathleen. Kitty, I see you'd like to kick us off with question and discussion. Yes. I'm really glad we're coordinating spring break with CU. When my kids were in school, it never was. And, you know, they're the biggest employer or, well, besides us, in town. And then also with St. Vrain, how does that work? Do they have like, do we know when they set their calendars? I could just see that it would be it could be confusing trying to do
that, but I don't know because I'm not the one who does it. It's it's impossible to do when they don't align with with, CU Boulder. So if we wanna align with the University of Colorado Boulder and Saint Fran decides not to align with the University of Colorado Boulder, then we have to pick and choose. And so, it's it they they have a different policy. They we do not dictate their timeline. You know, so the the same frame. And so we do coordinate with the University of Colorado. There was one instance in my tenure here where we had to make some adjustments.
And to your point, Kitty, they are the largest employer. A lot of our families work at at the University of Colorado, and so we wanna make sure that we align with our largest employer. And, at some points, Saint Vrain, Adams twelve, GEFCO, sometimes they align, sometimes they don't align. I know Adams twelve adopted a whole new different calendar maybe a year and a half, two years ago. The the majority of our employees either live in BBFC or Saint Vrain, the vast majority of our employees. And we can we can double check that data. But we have no authority over St.
Vrain. We have no so, so for them for us to align with St. Vrain, they have to really align with University of Colorado Boulder. Wait. I can use Jason's. So do you know does does CU have their spring break always at the same time or not? Because and the reason I ask this is that when my kids were in school, you could take it to the bank that BVSD had their spring break this the last full week of March, but it typically didn't align with CU.
It would be nice if CU did because it's nice for parents to know that this week of the year will be spring break, And we know how parents felt when we had to change it at, you know, what was perceived the last minute. So I I don't know. I don't know if that's the case or not. All I know that is, for the past seven years, we've aligned with our spring break has always been aligned with University of Colorado Boulder. Jumping on that comment, because where folks live changes over time and because we cannot
guarantee alignment with Saint Verint, I think the the intention of that that sentence, that bullet point, is to say aligning with CU because they are the biggest employer, but then maybe rather than calling out St. Vrain, we say in neighboring districts where a significant portion of BVSD staff may live. I I I mean, we could, over time, see folks not being in St. Vrain. And if this policy is supposed to last a while, that's the intent of calling out St. Vrain right now, but it might look a little bit different moving forward. Alex?
Yeah. That's working. Right? I guess, I look forward to feedback on this one. My observation was in the last process that the board had opinions and beliefs. And the process of having the draft and then having the board talk about it, made it difficult for the board to feel like they had agency to make any changes to it that then lead to the month long cycle again. And it looks to me like in the timeline, I'm not sure that we've solved
that problem. And so I and again, I I don't have, strong feelings about how to do this. I just want coordination that works and supports learning and families. But it does seem like the Board, wanted to have input about some of their feelings in the process, got all the input from the stakeholders, came back to us incorporating the stakeholders, but not so much the input from the board, led to a board having a follow-up discussion that led to changes that then need to go back to our partners at at the through the collective bargaining agreement with the teachers and
everybody else. So I'm interested in a policy that doesn't set up there to be frustration between any of our partnerships. And, I'm not sure if I see that working in this that reflects sort of the concerns that were raised in the last cycle. So I'm curious what other board members think about that or whether that's something we can accommodate where the board can articulate its input earlier than February. Board members, other thoughts? Jason? Yeah. I I, I did have strong feelings about certain things when we talked about this in April, and I agree with Alex.
I'm wondering and I don't know the what a what a good proposal is, but I do feel like having a proposed calendar and then coming to the board and then expecting that there would could be changes, which is probably unrealistic by March, it doesn't seem like, it seems like we're creating the same problem we had last time. And so it'd be great if we were able to have a session before that where we can share our thoughts. I know our thoughts are in the guiding principles, but I think kind of a a, you know, a first, discussion of this before calendars are are created.
Melania and then Katie, and then I have some nonrelated thoughts. Are you are my fellow board members suggesting that tentative school calendar shall be developed with input from teachers, staff, parents, and the school board so that you would like our input to be integrated in with the stakeholders. Is that what you're asking? That's what we're asking. Yes. Okay. So yeah. If I may, from my perspective, again, I, I wanna just make sure that we're
not creating a dynamic in which the partnership and the input's harder to do and people feel like they're being not heard on either way. So I agree you're in principle, you're talking about where the board is has a process to provide input earlier, whether that's included in that sentence or somewhere else. I don't know where it is. But I would like to protect, my colleagues' ability to articulate their feelings on it earlier to provide the rest of the stakeholders with information early. I think Rob's gonna respond, and then, Katie, I'll pass it to you. So there's language in our negotiated agreement around this process.
And so, whoever gets to go first, whether it's the board or whether it's the stakeholders, like so the board, you could put your thoughts down. And if the stakeholders think something differently, have different priorities, right, you're going to still be in the same situation. Right? Like like, I I don't know that there's any avoiding that scenario. Because certainly, the board can say in their policy, the board will first meet and discuss the policy and then bring that to stakeholders for feedback.
Right? As opposed to, we'll go through this community wide process to get give the feedback and then give something for the board to to respond to. Right? But if you if the board wants something different than the feedback we collect, whether you go first or whether you go second, I still think that there is going to be so so I don't see a scenario where I could guarantee to you that the feedback that we get from stakeholders is gonna be what you want. Now you could change the policy to change the rhythm and the order, and we have the language in the negotiated agreement that we could bring up as an interest
as we negotiate to try to pull that out if that would be the the will of the board. I do think that, this last go round you know, this this process had been going on for quite some time, and I think that it just took people by surprise because they felt like once the stakeholder feedback was done, it was just approved by the board. Then that didn't happen. This is the board's the board this is your vote. You get to decide how this works. So, I I think you could be first, you could be second. Either way, I don't know that you'd take away all of the tension if what
stakeholders are engaging in when they want is different than what you want. Well, I was much of what Rob just said about, the process, I was gonna say too because I think everybody who wasn't brand new on the board two years ago was very surprised by the reaction to the calendar. We've never had board members who had such strong personal opinions about how we should do the cam calendar. I know it provided extra work for staff.
So and I'm, you know, I'm not gonna be here, but I think that whatever we adopt, it needs to be something that does not provide surprises and does not provide extra work for staff members. So like Rob said, everybody was taken aback by it because it was something brand new. I am of the opinion that if there is a general consensus among stakeholders One or two individual board members disagree with that.
I think at our we would, at our peril, adopt what, you know, a minority of board members really want or even if it were more than a more minority rather than the majority of what what the community wants. Because we don't come back with we don't ever get presented a calendar that is wildly, you know, inequitable or, you know, there's nothing really wrong with it. It may just be little things here and there. But I just wanna make sure that for the new board going forward, that this
can be a smooth process. For staff, it can be a smooth process, and the same for stakeholders. I feel like this is our chance to give our input in the policy, right, in terms of setting up the priorities and the process, and the considerations there, right, as opposed to after the fact, after the stakeholders have listened to what we said was important. And so I think to the degree that we could be as transparent and clear now in aligning these priorities and factors to be considered, I think that's where our
input primarily lies. And then allowing the process to play out and work and hopefully with minimal changes on the back end from this board. And so I I so that's kind of where my head is at. Just a a bullet point on additional factors for school calendars and the regulation. The first factor to consider is having one calendar for all schools and levels. But that's, like, a requirement in general. Right? So that shouldn't be an additional factor. That's just what we have to do. So all schools follow the same calendar?
Right. But it's also consideration on the additional factors list. It's just a two a point of duplication. I figured I don't wanna forget to wait that out. I agree with what Jorge says that that policy is our opportunity to provide the guidance for those folks, the stakeholder groups that are giving feedback. One thing I wanted to elevate in those stakeholder groups is students are not listed. We now have youth equity council, student cabinet. We always get emails from students about Friday after Halloween or the day after Halloween. And so I think it's important for them to have a voice. We're giving them a voice in a lot of different ways, so including the word
students there. And then thinking about who we're including and who we're not including in the language of this policy, I actually think we've been hearing feedback from our non licensed teacher professionals within the district about using inclusive language around staff members. And so when we're using specifically calling out teachers or teacher contract time, it's not necessarily inclusive. And so using, like, district and school staff instead of teachers and staff. Likewise, with the, requirement number two, it talks about those are teacher contract days.
Like, could we just say calendars must include the dates for all in service programs, something to that extent? So we're really talking about all of the types of employees with our district even though some of the BVA contracts are the most rigorous, but just refreshing some of that language is are a couple, thoughts I had around that. And then does a testing does state testing count as active instructional time? And following up to that, one of the considerations says that the contact days need
to be similar, but April is such a heavy testing time that there's not as much instruction in tends to unless the days are not even, the actual instructional time between the semesters are not the same. And I just think about classes that only run one semester and may not have the ability so the kids in first semester, AP psych or whatever it is, have less more instructional time than the students in the second semester. I know that's really high school specific. But just to clarify, are you talking, is the consideration the number of days or
the instructional time? And if it's instructional time, can we phrase that differently? And then the question about, does state testing count as active time? State testing counts, and and it's the balance of the days. And the hard thing about making Nuance exceptions for for one off course is is not everybody tests. Right? I don't know that we can get to that Nuance and solve that problem. And I I do think that that's the challenge in doing a calendar, which is why, you know, there was there was just kind of a rhythm at the disc right or wrong that the district was in.
You may solve some problems but create others at any point in time. Right? There isn't there you know, the the there I don't know that there's one that solves all the problems. Right? So to Nicole's point, to Jorge's point, as you think about your policy that the board has the authority to set to the extent that creates the clarity and puts the the priorities and the, beliefs of this board in that policy, then that's where you start.
Right? Now the regulation is the superintendent's way to activate the policy. Remember, the guiding principles, which people didn't even know existed, right, because they were they were not like any like, they were just written, like, somewhere and followed. Right? And that's just the way that it was. Moving to a regulation at least makes that clear. Right? And your discussions make things very clear of your intent as well. So, you know, I think that that there's opportunities to think about the things that
are important to this board, and then how as we as we go from a red line to implementing a policy, what feedback would you wanna give individually and then collectively for us to consider as we bring this back, which I would guess is for another study? Or do you think it's going right to action? Because are we gonna get behind? One more question, and it's about the the principle around limiting partial weeks. I think the last calendars the board approved, we took that very literally and have
Mondays and Tuesdays off instead of Mondays and Fridays off. For those long weekends, there have been some complaints around that. Chess and sports are and activities are often on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so it's been creating some hardship there. So, like, the intention, I don't know what the best way to convey the the intention of that is. I I think it's really that the more we're not having standard school weeks, the more disruptive it is to the learning process. And while having a Friday and a Monday off might result in two partial weeks
versus one partial week if it's a Monday, Tuesday. Like, I don't know if that's our intent is to be that nitpicky, but it's to doctor Essen's point, like, what is the board's discussion on that? What is the intent? And I would hate for any of this because they're all guided they're considerations. They're not requirements. Like, what is the consideration? Same thing with professional development. Like, is it better? Do we know it's better to have it on certain days at certain times? Like, maybe that changes over time. How do we put ourself in a strong position and not tie our hands in ways that creates unknown consequences? Doctor Hansen.
Yeah. I'll just remind the board that our last calendar was built for something that we then adjusted to accomplish something else. Does that make sense? Right? So we built it one way, and then we said, oh, we wanna do these other things, and then we adjusted it that way. Right? So if you know what you're trying to do going in ahead of time, I think you could be more thoughtful on some of those things. But then also, I think that we just have to there are there are certain things that could be with intention. Like, you can you can't have both. You can have one or the other.
Right? And I think that those are the realities. Now, so but so but I'd want to hear from you all on what are the things that this board feels are important. Right? Because the last thing we wanna do is to engage a bunch of stakeholders on a bunch of things. You know, lead them to a path where they feel like, okay, this is what the calendar is gonna look like just to come to the board and not meet your expectations. That's not fair to the people we've engaged. It's not fair to the board. Right? So I think that that's what I'm trying to avoid, to know and understand these are the rules of the road, these are the guidelines, these are your guardrails.
You can articulate those then to the folks that are giving you feedback and input, and then they could try to work within those things. And then maybe it's a tweak or adjustment, not a, Rob, you totally missed this or school district, you totally missed this thing that we said we wanted and you didn't and it didn't provide. Alex and then Jason. And then, Lalena, did I see your hand? Yeah. I wanna reinforce what Rob just said and offer, an edit that might address this. I totally agree with Rob. And again, I'm mostly reacting to what I see as strong governance that supports and
honors the public engagement, honors our partnerships with all our different bargaining agreements and everybody else. I believe strongly that when law or policy says that a board shall adopt something, that under Robert's rules, that includes the opportunity to amend something as part of that adoption. Otherwise, you are literally just a rubber stamp. And I believe that after 30,000 people vote for us, we are in a representative government, and the board is entitled to discuss what it's trying to do and bring those issues, before us as we make decisions.
And I also believe that if we adopt our input in our policies and then review them every seven years, someone elected next year would, at six years later, be able to influence those guidelines in that process unless they're able to overcome the inertia and do it sooner. So I I do I would like the radical proposal of adding to the policy that, the board will be updated at a study session in November, and have an opportunity to discuss what they in the community have heard about last year's calendar and
what they're thinking about it to provide that kind of clarity on things like Monday and Friday versus Tuesday and Thursday. So I would the change I would suggest that I think helps us communicate clearly to the field discussions that any future board members might have would be, to add a study session in November in which the board gets an update and has a chance to op to discuss it before we start sending stuff out for all the community engagement. And then we'd be more likely to get the kind of engagement and participation that informs our deliberation when a board can actually then amend before it had approved something
under Robert's rules, under good governance. And then, I really do think we're trying to get to, something that is efficient for the staff, not inefficient. I think what we did last year was less efficient and wasted more staff time, and was not as good at honoring the input as we want it to be. So I'm pushing for a change, not to make more radical changes later in the process, but to streamline it, be more efficient, provide more input, and honor the prerogatives of a governing board that might be here in the future.
So I think having an extra study session added to this in November might achieve a lot of those goals. You know, I don't know if it's maybe the underlying or kind of the unspoken issue here is that if you you know, we added these guiding principles, and I'm really glad we did that. But if you look at this and it says, you know, no assigned priority or weight, but the bottom line is there are some that are that we do assign weight and that we we do prioritize, and so that that inherently limits, you know, our ability to consider the other guiding principles. You know, I've raised to, you know, some people's you know, a lot of people
raised concerns about it. You know, why do we start so early in August? It's hot. You know, we have, you know, increasingly hotter summers. And so, you know, there's a line in here, which is great, about considering the impact of climate change and weather. But we cannot consider the impact of climate change and weather because we have the other one right before that that we have to end the first semester before the winter break. And so I think not to reopen this debate, but I think that's maybe the, like, biggest challenge of this in addition to the sequencing that Alex talked about is these just are intention and some you just can't accomplish. And so maybe if if if it is a top priority and then kind of
nonnegotiable that we end before winter break, and I'm not trying to reopen that debate, like, we can't really consider some of these other things because it's just not possible to do all of those things. So we say these things. We say there's no weight and there's no priority, but we really do have priorities and we do have weights. And, you know, some things are in agreement, some things are in law, and I get that. But I think that's for me, at least, that's the tension in this debate is or this discussion is, like, these things don't all work together, and that's, you know, that's the challenge of all this stuff. But I I think some of these things I'm like I said, I'm glad we added the the language about concern and impact of weather, but we really can't do
anything about it if we have these other nonnegotiables that limit the rest of our calendar. And so that's my frustration here, and maybe it's just, you know, like before, I'm maybe a lonelier voice and surveys show that I'm I used to have a very lonely voice. But I think it's crazy that we go back to school on, like, August 10, and I've I've raised that before. And I'm glad it's a consideration. But we can never do anything about it because of the other factors that we consider. So that's just getting my two cents out here about my views on this, but I think that is maybe underlying this discussion is that we, you know, have these
principles, but we can't do stuff about all of them. No, I don't. I don't. I agree with you, Jason, that I think it's very difficult for community to navigate it when our principles here can't coexist. I see that too, because Chassa is also running that show about when school starts. I mean, I don't I don't exactly know that interaction, but I think that that
probably affects when we start. But yet we've taken out and the school year prior to Memorial Day. So, you know, I find it that if we're going to send these principals out first with the hope of feedback from our community, we're gonna have to do better on sending out what our real priorities are. One thing I would ask this board to, consider, and I'm gonna approve whatever it is the majority want because like I said, I'm not gonna be here.
But two years ago, I heard loudly and clearly that incoming board members wanted to streamline meetings, make them take less time. And at least on this issue, we've spent more time discussing the calendar in the last two years than we spent in the previous six. Now it's up to you all how much you wanna do that, but I would consider giving given the workload well, and I guess that would be with anything we're doing, but with this particularly, because this is here now, is how much time and
effort and work do you wanna put into it? And it can be whatever you want. I'm not like I said, I'm not gonna be here. One thing I'm thinking about board members that could be helpful, I am a little hesitant to lock us into November. We with the having fall break, it's a tight month for us. So I'm a little hesitant of picking a specific month when we have to have this conversation. I think it would maybe part of the process and it doesn't may or may not need to be in policy is just, like, we're getting feedback sooner on the calendar once it's happening. There's a way to collect, like, the feedback we've been receiving since the last implementation
and to understand. And I know it's part of our surveys, and we're doing that to some extent, which is why while Jason can continues to advocate for not ending before, the winter holiday break, the surveys continue to show that the vast majority of our community does. I think what would also be exceedingly helpful is when we're given a calendar, asking the folks that are presenting the the proposals to to talk about how they, in that period of time, weighed weighed those different options to come up with what was
available. Some of our holidays float or at our different times of the year or, you know, what what were the considerations? How do they trade off professional development and climate and weather with some of these other things? Like, I think some of that information would be exceedingly helpful, to to and help future boards understand where the state the why behind some of the things that the stakeholders were presenting so so the board could better understand and the board could have questions that are a little bit more targeted and wonderings rather than just, like, I
just don't understand why you continue to think that way. But what is the logic behind some of that could be helpful. I I tend to lean again to personally less stringent policies just so they can evolve over time and we can address things that come up that we're not planning for for today. And I also agree that we need to have a policy that provides enough direction so folks are bringing calendars back that aren't way out of line. And the other thing I would say, I do agree. I like, the idea that this comes back for another study is making me nervous
because we did spend an exceeding, like, a very large amount of time talking about the calendar the last time. We've spent a great deal of time talking about this policy. I know we wanna get it right. We may never come to consensus, and that's okay. Like, we we continue to learn that consensus isn't always possible, and we continue to move through. So I want us to move through this conversation on policy in a way that is also productive. So I'm gonna try to bring us all together here on what I've heard. I I've heard that the board wants you you don't want something given to you
that you can't react to and adjust. Right? That as elected board members that you take the, the vote of this seriously and that that you want to make sure that the things that you've heard from constituents and you consider to be important to be part of this process in a way that previous boards maybe didn't engage. Previous boards bring into the committees whatever the committees say, we're just gonna vote, and that's gonna be it. This board has has has a different take on that, which is perfectly okay.
You wanna have a first cut at the calendar or a first like, here's the things to consider to give some advanced direction before we go out and engage the community. Right? So, Kathleen, you're following me. So somehow, someway, whether it's November, when it's whenever. Right? It doesn't have to be November. It could be whenever. You could do it, like, a yeah. A year in advance. I mean, you could start thinking about, you know, the calendars don't change. Like, the days, like, we know the calendar is going to infinity almost.
So, first cut, here's the thing. Here's the principles that we have. These are the other considerations. We take that out along with the principles we have. We start to engage stakeholders. They come up with we try to get consensus with your input in first along with stakeholders. We bring that back to you. We we bring that back to you, then you have an adjustment period. If you significant adjustments the way it stands now, is that we have to wait a month. Right? Because that's what's in the contractual language.
Right? And then we could bring something to approve. Now I will say, something didn't happen last time. But based on this that will happen again is you're gonna get a lot more community input. You get I I would guess that you're going to get a lot more of competing community input. I don't I don't see the answer will we're just gonna have to pick and make some choices. Right? So, so as long as the board knows that and understands that, right, then we're happy to go through the process. I I don't wanna spend too much time on the calendar.
Like, we've talked about it, and I think it's important because by talking about it here, it allows your lone employee, the superintendent, to be successful in delivering something to you all, right, that you can vote at least vote up, you know, vote for. But to the extent that the community engagement expectations become too time consuming, then I would have to make some recommendations as your superintendent. Say, you know, I understand what you're trying to do. This time isn't worth it. And so we're gonna go through the policy. I'll be involved with Kathleen to to try to get to where I think you
all want to be. We can bring it back for action. You can pull it if you don't like it, if that's better, or we could study it again and talk about it again. That's the pleasure of the board. And we'll we'll bring it back. We have this on when do we plan on bringing this back? Okay. As the plan was to adapt. And that keeps us on our timeline to be able to begin the next cycle? Yes. I totally support that. I just wanna be clear. My intention of bringing this issue forward and proposing that we add a study session to the policy is in fact to save a lot of time and to make
it more efficient for all the stakeholders, not waste their time, not waste our time, not waste staff time. And while still honoring my colleagues on the board's desire to talk about it and have a substantive discussion. So I think, just clarifying that the board would get an update and talk about it sometime in the fall, would would alleviate that and lead to less. And so I think it's relatively simple edit, that would set up future boards to have a more efficient process with less work. Board members, knowing that we do have an election coming up, this board will change.
It'd be good to clear the some of the policies and so the future board doesn't have a lot of just stuff remaining. Are we okay with getting this done before then? So and I to come back in October, if we're really unhappy with it, we can pull it and study it or discuss it. But it would be good, I think, for every in all of our best interests to have this done before we head into November or post election December. Okay. Thanks. Our next policy to study this evening, board members, is board policy CBA CBC superintendent
powers and responsibilities. I will turn it once again over to Kathleen Sullivan. Okay. Just when you thought you had enough policy, we have another chapter for you. This is part of the board's policy maintenance schedule is to make sure that we work through all of your policies on at at least within that seven year cycle. We had previously talked I think about board policy CBA CBC. While the current board policy does reflect the CASB red line, it doesn't reflect this
board's policy style. I think it reads a little strange. In particular, I do think that when the board goes about hiring a superintendent, they have the ability at that time to establish qualifications. I don't understand why that would be set in a policy. So the red lines that are presented are really largely style and formatting just to take that language, compress it into a powers and responsibilities policy, leaving, much of the
detailed elements of the job responsibilities intact. Any questions or comments on this policy board members? Kitty. Excuse me. To what you just said about the qualifications, I have a hypothesis about why that's in there, and I think it has to do with the superintendent who was a navy officer with no education experience. That doesn't mean I think we should have it in here, but and that may not be it, but it it this was done subsequent to the to his tenure.
One comment I have under responsibilities personnel because a lot of this language is taken out of the CASB example and because we do also in the new section titled powers, say the superintendent may delegate responsibilities consistent with board policy. Just to be tidy, I think CASB example the CASB example uses has an f under personnel. And I think just to be clear that we're not leaving out for a specific
reason and if because we are adopting this, I just put that back in there. I think that was just an oversight, not by Kathleen Sullivan, by the previous whoever did this policy previously. So I just f says I have it written down. F says develop and recommend to the board job classifications for all new positions. It's more just and he can delegate because we have the clause on delegation just to be all inclusive of the stuff that's in the example since the rest of the language comes from the example. That's okay. Kathleen's apologizing because I did call that out before.
Other thoughts on this policy, board members? It's a easy cleanup. Moving on then to board policy CBE superintendent employment and evaluation. So this is a proposed addition to the board's policy book, which we do, conservatively. In this case, when I reviewed all of the CASB sample policies in this section, and they have a a much larger section than our current. The element that really seemed to be missing was reference to the importance of a
good contract for the superintendent that protects the interest of both the board and the superintendent, and then a policy that addresses the evaluation of the board sole employee. So, while some of this language is from the CASB sample, when you look specifically on page two and we describe the evaluation process, this is an area where we incorporated the board's practice and the language that has evolved over time in the superintendent's
contract to make clear that that process begins with the board and the superintendent establishing the criteria for the evaluation, requiring that those criteria be based on the superintendent's responsibilities and the goals of the district. It incorporates the specific requirement that there be at least two meanings during the course of the year that comes from the superintendent contract language. And then, incorporating Colorado's open records act requirements for the elements of the superintendent's evaluation
that must be public. And then the final section is intended just to preserve the board's discretion in this area because as the board knows, this is, the board's primary responsibility is assuring that you have that superintendent in place and evaluate the superintendent. Thank you for this first draft, Kathleen. Board members, any questions or comments? Alex. Yeah. Sorry. In looking through, like, the intro paragraph, the second sentence where it talks about, the
board shall endeavor to secure the dignity of the position and the freedom of leadership appropriate to the responsibilities of the superintendent. That seems kinda like throat clearing, but it seems like a good thing to propose sort of, something about the relationship with the board and that too as appropriate for what is like that's all about the freedom of the superintendent to do what they want in their dignity, but you may also have that has to be balanced with the role of an appropriate governing board that is next to that. So if we were in the future having, not this superintendent, but another one's, you
know, tell the board that they're out of line when they say, Hey, we need to pursue this in the strategic plan. They're like, Hey, that's my role. I would like that sentence to start with or include something that references the the dual and balanced roles of the board and the superintendent. Does that make sense? I'm curious what you think about that. I like that. I think that that would be an important, way that we could bolderize that language. The dignity language does come straight out of a CASB sample, so I wanted to
offer it to the board for discussion. But, it read a little. It was just different language, and I think that that balanced language you've suggested would be a good improvement. In that same vein, because the con that contract language came directly out of a CASB sample tie entitled or titled the superintendent contract. I just wonder if in our title of our policy, we say superintendent contract employment evaluation. So if people wanna go back and cross reference in the future, they know that there are several. I don't love it when we have a whole bunch of letters and dashes, but
just the title. So the title references where some of that source was in a in a way that's different from the legal references down below. Doctor Anderson and Elaine. I would say, you know, following Alex's train of thought, you know, this is for some time down the road. Right? To the extent that at some point, this board will hire a new superintendent, you wouldn't want your policy to get in the way of contract negotiations if you found somebody that would be the perfect fit for whatever the board at that time was
looking for to be limited by policy. Because some of this is repetitive of con contractual language, but policy is much more clear and transparent to the public. Not all that my contract is always we post it every single year. And that people probably don't read through it. So I would just to to ensure that there's space there, that nothing in here would, either have to be written or compete with potential contract language for a superintendent in the long distant future that you might be negotiating with?
Thanks, Kathleen and team. This is definitely reflective of current practice, and I appreciate it. All except the very first sentence, which I am having a hard time getting over. Of course, it is demanding and complex, but I don't think that we want a policy that says that something is eternally becoming more demanding and complex. And I just I won't rewrite it for you, but I don't like it. That's another section where I'm like, this is not our language, and that's why when
I went to look, I'm like, oh, this is just right out of the CASB sample, which is a great place to start. I agree that some of their language can be far more cumbersome. And I think to Alex' point about the second sentence, like, how do we how do we boulderize some of that, and still give reference to where some of the intent is coming from? It is a funny paragraph. I have to hope it isn't forever becoming more complex, Rob. And and I just wanna add, I would love, current superintendent and staff's input to this to make sure that we are maximizing the attractiveness of this job to future
fantastic superintendents. Bert, is there any other questions or comments on this policy? Moving right along. Next, we have board policy CF, school bill school building administration and principalship. So thank you. We do. We have two left just so everybody knows. So CF is, is our policy that describes really the principalship and our school leaders. I think that the inverse is true of what we just talked about.
It seemed like our existing policy language was a little strange and that the CASB language was perhaps more direct. So I think they say largely the same thing. It's just the CASB language was maybe just a little cleaner. What's important to preserve about this policy is the recognition and the very clear policy articulation. The principals are the leaders in their building. They control the visitors to the building. They control the personnel. They give direction.
And, I think more important or as important as ever, the second paragraph then reiterates the board's expectation that principals are instructional leaders that are accomplishing the educational objectives of the district. And then the last paragraph in this section retains our existing policy language that identifies the principal's advisory council as that main forum for the district's principals and district leadership
to interact. So this really is just a language refresh. I don't think it alters what the policy itself requires or expects. It just modernizes it and assures that it's remains consistent with practice. Board members, questions or concerns? No one. Alex? Yeah. I have, one minor change upfront and then another question. Where in the first sentence where we talk about administrative office of their own buildings and grounds, I would just add comma and programs, for Boulder Universal or anything else we might have that might not have a building or a ground.
And then in terms of being up to date, I actually think the repeated references to standards based education program is actually kind of dated, and reflects stuff about twenty years ago in terms of the language. So I'm not sure what our current language is about our, educational playbook. And then to that effect, the the last sentence in the first paragraph that the principal shall establish the channels for the interchange specifically with regard to suggestions and ideas for improving programs. I'm curious how we square that with a district that is creating an instructional playbook
with a cohort based system of support from executive directors and improvement teams. So this is like setting up a future, effort to try to get a school to improve, to have a principal say, Yeah, I'm not interested. And of course it's not productive if a principal says, I'm not interested in something like that. But I think we're more centralized now than CASB imagines, or that we were before. So I'm curious what doctor Anderson thinks about that and how it meshes with what we do now. I I think we could work on some language, but, you know, not not that
comes across as that we're being top down, but we're being aligned. Right? So, yeah, I think we'll work on that. Other thoughts, board members? Alex, there's two comments aside. I do think the language has improved from the old draft. And I I think it's important to give make sure everybody understands that the principals do have they are responsible for their buildings, their grounds, and their programs, so I think it's great. Seeing as there are no additional comments or questions on that policy, we will make it into our final board policy of this evening, board policy CFD, leadership decision making
philosophy. So this policy was adopted in 02/2003. I know board member Sargent has been our historian, so she may have some insight as to why that happened. I can say that there is no CASB sample that touches on this. As board president Rajpal mentioned earlier during the grading and homework discussion, we do have in chapter a, which is more of the board's philosophy section where you'll remember the
neurodiversity policy, that was adopted last year is included. There are a number of policies in that chapter that we will be revisiting this year, But because we wanted to bring forward this entire chapter, we brought forward this, this interesting policy that is, not required by law and is not based on a CASB sample. I think this is a terrible policy. I feel like this is one that can be stricken completely, and any element that
staff find useful could be incorporated into some of our policies in the a chapter. Earlier, like Kathleen said, the educational program, standards based education, any if there are vestiges that feel really useful within here, we could place them there where it makes the most sense. I I feel like decision making processes are wonderful, and it's great to have consensus, and it's great to talk about those. But, like, consensus as we define it in negotiations is really different than consensus as
we define it elsewhere. And and do we need to have in a policy document, like, how decisions are made within the district? I think you can have practice that exists, and you can respect the input from all kinds of different people and engage in meaningful ways that does not require policy that somebody may or may not even exist. And so I really would advocate board members, and you can chime in, that this this policy in its standalone version disappears, and anything that district staff or staff members
feel is really important, we can insert elsewhere as needed. Lots of thumbs up. Any other discussion board members? Kitty. Since Kathleen mentioned instead of saying I'm old, who in the room remembers the New Century graduate? Okay. Three of us. Yeah. Jeff, because your kids are the same age as mine. Any other thoughts or comments on board policy CFD? Alex. Anybody listening to think that that's any walking away from how much we like to
collaborate when we make our decisions, how much we like to engage with our stakeholders in our community. But this I totally agree with Nicole that that's part of and parcel of how we operate. And when it needs to be different, it is in other policies. Great. We are now moving into future agenda request for members. It's the time at our meeting where we can bring up items we'd like to discuss at our next board prioritization meeting. Are there any items board members would like to elevate at this time? The only ones, Kathy, and other ones I've mentioned kind of taking into consideration as we work through IGA and some of these other policy, Those a a chapter and
some of those I chapter policies, but no rush on those. Okay. This concludes our business for this evening, board members. We are officially adjourned.