Um, I now call the special meeting of the Prior Lake Savage Area Schools Board of Education to order. Uh, thank you board members for your flexibility and and your commitment to come early tonight. Um, the tonight's agenda is centered around
the two options we have in filling our superintendent position. um MSBA's director of leadership uh development and executive search uh is joining us to walk us through the process and to answer questions this
evening. And it looks like we are waiting on Barb to dial in. Barb has been with MSBA for like seven years. um she has fel uh fielded many many superintendent searches. So I'm
grateful for her to be able to join us and and walk us through process and um answer board member questions. I know. We could we could sing. >> I'm I'm going to text her. Um Barb had emailed me last week stating
uh just as the agenda says, we have two options. conducting a full superintendent search or um seeking an interim with uh how late it is in the in the process. Typically a a full
superintendent search is 3 to four months. So um uh with that given the time constraint uh she was >> in okay thank you Martha. Um, oh,
>> is it? >> It's kind of like when we're doing agenda planning and you can't get in. Um, but yeah, so she was saying that um just with the with the time of the year that we're at. Um, and
she'll walk us through all all of that. >> We while we're waiting, maybe just get a point of clarification on um how long we have. So, when is Dr. Thomas's end date? I believe he had a 90-day period. Is that correct? So,
>> that is that was part of the contract um language but not in full. So, his contract resignation will come up um next Monday's meeting. >> Okay. And the ending of the contract,
the contract states it's um it can be uh mutual agreement between the board and him um or 90 days is one of the uh stipulations. So the 90 days wasn't the
full contract um language. >> Hi Barb, can you hear us? >> I can hear you. Oh, thank you so much for joining us tonight. I appreciate that. I did a a little bit of an introduction for you. Um, but if you'd
like to introduce yourself and uh uh go through the um a the sample agenda um some of our options, we'll let have you go through that and then open it up for uh board member questions.
>> Okay, that sounds good. Um, thank you so much for letting me zoom in to meet everybody or who will meet everyone tonight. Uh, my name is Barb Dorne. I'm the director of leadership development and executive search at MSBA. I spent all my time in superintendent search and superintendent evaluation and I also
help uh school boards for the end of search season find interims if that is something that they're looking for as a next step. So, uh, one of the first things I always share with the board um, in your position is that you do have two options. You could conduct a full superintendent search time is running
very short to do that, but it's always an option. It just means a very short timeline and less community engagement. You also could find an interim, and that interim could be either an internal or an external candidate. So, I think what I'd like to do is just review uh briefly
the agenda that I typically use to discuss with boards what their options are. My entire goal today is share information with you so that you have what you need to make informed decisions about the next steps for Prior Lake Savage Area Schools. So, I'm going to go
ahead and jump in with that. And please do uh jot down questions as I'm speaking because I'd love to be able to answer any and all those questions and I know you have another meeting coming up tonight as well. So, I'm going to go a little quickly um but we will have time for those questions here at the end. So
uh first and foremost if you are considering an interim search there really are two types of candidates who will be interested in that opportunity. One type of candidate will be someone who is interested in stepping in for one year and one year only. We always just
call it a one-year gig. Uh they're there to keep the uh wheels on the bus, hold things steady, move the district forward. uh but not any new initiatives or any big leadership initiatives that are new to the district as well. So that person is um a placeholder to make sure
that everything stays steady. The second kind of candidate is someone who is looking for the opportunity to almost audition for the role of superintendent and they are interested in sharing with you their skills as a superintendent even with an interim title so that you
as a board might then choose to appoint them as the superintendent forgo a search entirely or still conduct a superintendent search next winter and allow them to apply for the position if they are interested. that can also be someone from either the inside of the
district or outside of the district. A couple things to keep in mind um in terms of the hiring process for the interim superintendent, it's affected by which sort of candidates are interested. So, for example, if it is someone who is perhaps a
retired superintendent uh looking to step in and help you for one year, um those kinds of candidates generally speaking are not willing or interested in going through a competitive public interview process. And the reason for that is those folks are usually very
seasoned uh veterans of the superintendency. They're not interested in competing with their peers or their colleagues for a one-year contract, but they are happy to step in and help the district if that's what the school board would like them to do. So, in that case,
if it's a one-year gig, someone who is perhaps retired or a former superintendent, the board would typically uh narrow that down and interview potentially one person because names will go public as soon as the board decides to interview them for this
position. So, those candidates appreciate the opportunity to be the only person you interview. Uh, typically there's been enough vetting done where you're certain that they would be the right fit for a one-year appointment. So, they would come in and interview, but typically not against someone else.
Okay? They don't want to jump through a whole lot of hoops. Um, they've served public education well for many years. And so those folks will come in and potentially you'll have one person the board interviews and then offers an interim contract to if it is someone who is interested in um auditioning for the
job of superintendent while they're in the seat. An external candidate is going to be taking a bit of a risk because an interim ca um interim contract is typically one year one year or even less sometimes. So, they may be leaving a a
great job where they're at with a lot of history and taking a risk on a one-year contract with you in expectation that you'll really like the work they do and potentially appoint them as the superintendent after they've been there for six to seven months. Um, but that is
a risk for folks from the outside. internal candidates that are interested in helping the district as the interim superintendent. Um they very often are also looking for the opportunity to prove themselves to you as the superintendent and would welcome potentially either being appointed the
superintendent or the opportunity to apply for the job if you conduct superintendent search then they would be interested in applying for it as well. Now, a few things with internal candidates. Uh, one, they will have continuing contract rights. Any internal
candidate that you might um welcome in as your interim superintendent can go back no matter what to their job they had before. So, continuing contracts are important for internal candidates. if they are an internal candidate and
are serving as your interim. And if you, the board, choose to do a full superintendent search next winter, if that person is interested in being your superintendent and applies for that job, they may tell quite a few people that they're interested in staying on as a
superintendent. What that will do is it will significantly decrease the size of your pool because other candidates will not risk their name going public interviewing with the board for this position if the internal candidate is
perceived as having a leg up on the job. So an internal candidate who applies for the job will typically depress the size of the pool that you get if you do a full search. an internal interim ca uh superintendent also could be appointed
to the position as superintendent if things go well and or they could go back to their other job with continuing contract rights. So those are the big considerations as far as what kind of interim superintendent might you be seeking there. As far as formality of
the search, I'll tell you that the timeline for an interim search is much shorter and it is relatively informal compared to a 3 to four month search for a superintendent. You're uh getting short on runaway here because you will
need someone July 1st, though I would anticipate an interim search might take maybe about four weeks. You could probably do it in two or three weeks depending upon what candidates you might know that are already interested. It could take a little longer than four, but no matter what, you do need to have
a licensed superintendent on board by July 1. So, the timeline will be shorter. With an interim search, uh because it is shorter, you will also have very little time for any public input, whether it's a survey, focus
groups, etc. uh you just don't have time to do a thorough deep dive with your staff, your parents, your community members, etc. So, an interim search there usually is not any stakeholder input in the process just because of the time constraints that you're going to be
under. As far as the hiring criteria, uh the leadership profile is not generally fleshed out in detail as much as you would have for a superintendent search. it might be um a little bit more abbreviated. The role of an interim does
tend to be a little different than the role of a superintendent. And the way that I usually like to explain it is that if you're looking at uh the big picture of a superintendent versus an interim superintendent, a superintendent oversees uh tasks like managing the
staff, maintaining the budgets, monitoring student success, and here's the big difference. The superintendent will also further the vision for the district. And so an interim superintendent on the other hand is intended to bring stability during
transition. Um transition does bring up anxiety for a lot of people. The unknown causes us to be anxious. So they'll bring stability to the role and they will also uh continue the priorities of your strategic plan. But as I mentioned earlier, they're not going to come up with a whole bunch of new ideas because
the contract is just for one. So it does tend to be a little bit easier to think of in terms of the superintendent is a leadership role. An inter interim superintendent sometimes is more of a management role because it is definitely more more short-term.
Uh the posting itself or the vacancy brochure will be a really short window. You may want to keep your posting open for disposition perhaps only a week. uh see who applies. You can post it for free on MSBA's website. Uh you could
post it internally on your own website. Of course, uh you may have contracts with MASA or EdPost. You could put it there as well. Uh word will get out. I do believe that the community of administrators in the state of Minnesota is pretty tight. People do know who's
moving where. People are aware that the superintendent will be moving on from private lake area or private secretary of schools. So, I'm sure there are people who may be interested that are watching for the opportunity potentially to apply pending whatever decision the board makes um to uh take next steps
here. On to statute. And I know I'm going kind of quickly here, but I want to make sure I leave time for questions. Uh the open meeting law will apply to the steps of your interim superintendent search just as they will to your superintendent search if you do one next
year. Keep in mind that you're not required by statute to conduct a superintendent search. It is not like uh going out for bid on an HVAC system or a roofing project. You are not required to ask firms to um submit proposals and
you're not required to take the low bid like you are for those types of projects. You're not required to do a search at all. If you have a candidate in mind, you do have the option of appointing them. We believe it's also best practice if you appoint someone to the position that you may talk to your
HR team and talk about posting it for a week. Uh you're an equal employment opportunity employer. So your HR team might say it's a best practice to simply post the opening even if you get one applicant. That might be a best practice for you to consider. But the open meeting law will apply because you have
adopted policy 213. That's the school board series. in policy 213 specifically speaks to school board committees and in your case you adopted 213 the last time the revised version um April of 2025 so exactly a
year ago you adopted 13 that says that your committees will be treated according to the open meeting law. So if a committee is involved in any way uh with your superintendent search or with your interim search, a committee meeting would be posted according to the open
meeting. You're not able to do any of this process in private. It is a public meeting and you'll do these meetings in public data practices act. We just want to make sure you're aware that government data practices act that's the data privacy laws here in Minnesota.
Those will apply as well. So if people are interested in your position or if they actually apply for your position, those names are private data. Now if you as a school board are reviewing applications, you have to be very careful not to share the names of the
people that have applied for the job of interim superintendent or superintendent because of the privac privacy laws here in Minnesota. Their names will only go public if the school board chooses to interview them for the position. So that's how statute defines a finalist.
Someone who is selected to be interviewed by the school board for a position is a finalist. Even if it's a semi- finalist if you're doing two rounds, but if you're going to interview them as the board, their name goes public prior to them. Anybody who's applied for this job, you have to protect those names. Those are private
data. All right. Uh lensure, they must have a current and valid Minnesota superintendent license. That's just a non-starter. you have to have someone in place July 1 with a superintendent license here in the state of Minnesota.
That's an easy one to cover. Um, but we can certainly answer questions about BOSA and Pelby and things like that if you need help having uh someone get a current license. Um, maybe they just haven't renewed it for a while if they're a former superintendent. That process is usually not that difficult, but they do need to have one by July 1.
And then contract options. I just put interim superintendent versus superintendent. The contracts are very similar. It's the length of time that are really the difference. So you, as you know, can have superintendent contracts that are up to three years in length. An interim superintendent can be
for a shorter period of time. Um, most interim contracts are for one year, but sometimes it's monthtomonth if they're thinking that a superintendent will be hired mid year, but you can certainly work that out. And then the only other piece to think about in terms of contract is if your interim
superintendent is a former superintendent, retired or something like that, they may not be interested in all of the extra benefits, the benefits package. You know, they may not want or need health insurance. They may not want or need um any retirement contributions.
And those kinds of things should be considered if you're working with someone who is coming back out of retirement to help you for a year. and they'll need to be careful of the tax implications on their end as well. But the contracts really are are typically the same. It's the benefits and the
length of the contract that are the biggest differentiators in a contract. I just covered an awful lot in just over 15 minutes, but I think that was about my goal to make sure that if you do have questions, I am here to answer them for you at this point. So, I hope that was
helpful. I apologize it's a lot of information to throw at you very quickly, but I will now turn it back over to the board and if there's anything else that you need to know, I am happy to answer your questions. >> Thank you so much, uh, Barb, for such a complete overview. Um, I think we'll
just open it up for, uh, board member questions. Um, and and they can you can go, you know, we can start at one end if we'd like. Um, Director Atinson, if you have any questions that you want to share, you want to start us out.
>> Um, yeah, sure. Um, thank you. I've watched many of your searches and I think you guys do a great job. So, thank you. Um, I also know you're not the only option of for a search firm. So, um, I looked back at what we did previously in our district and um, I don't know why
the the j the board chose to use BWP, but they had a 60-day timeline. Um, so and then I just looked at Anoka Henipin and they use another search firm and they have a 60-day timeline as well. So, um, I I'm less concerned about the
timeline versus finding, um, really hiring the right person is what my, um, my thoughts are. Um, the other question is, um, do you have you shared your fees with the board as far as what your search firm fees are or what your
contracts look looks like? I have not um I should clarify and thank you for asking that. Uh I am not here as a search firm at all tonight. I am here just as MSBA as a resource to the board. If you'd like a full proposal, I can certainly put one of those together. So, um I have not done any of that. I didn't
anticipate the need for a search firm tonight. I just want to make sure you had information. >> Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Um >> that's probably the only questions I have. So >> yeah, if you think of anything else, Director Johnson.
>> Yeah, I'm um Anoka Henipin. I mean, they're the largest, >> you know, school district in the state. They're only seven days. They've only been going for seven days and they're only going till late May. So I think we can definitely go on for a full term
>> for a full >> for a full search. Um if they can do it, I think we can absolutely knock this out. Um if not then you know we look at doing an interimm after that. I think that's the best idea for us.
>> Dr. Mason I was going to ask a question around that too. So what does you know you talk a lot about the interim process. What does it look like to do a full search and is it possible to start a full search and let's say we get candidates maybe we're all not coming to an agreement on and then pivot back to
an interim. So, you know, and just again to clarify timeline, I'm not sure that July 1st is correct given the 90-day notice period. So, assuming we had 90 days, what does that full search look like? And could we at some point in the middle of it say, you know what, maybe
the candidate pool isn't as strong as we would like. Let's pivot back and now look at interim and we can do that quickly after a month in or so. What does what would that look like? Is that possible? >> Absolutely. And that one I'm going to be careful answering because I think it depends on which search firm you work with. Sure. You want you want to look at
the contract really carefully to make sure that you would be able to pivot at any point along the process. So you certainly can do that. Um if you have access to applications that's another thing that you want to confirm that you have access to all of the applications so you can see how strong the pool is. >> Okay. >> Uh some bring just the recommended slate
to the board. Other firms will give you access to all of the applications. So those those differentiators when you choose a firm will be something important that I think you'll want to talk about. Uh but absolutely there's been firms that um excuse me there's been searches where once the position's
been posted um the pool comes in and it's either not the depth or the breadth that you are hoping for. Maybe there's a few people in there that are really good. However, it's not that you need seven or eight or 10 strong candidates. You might only need a few candidates. And so you might have the right people in there but instead of interviewing
six, maybe Interview number three. Um, outofstate candidates will be at a bit a bit of a disadvantage because out of state candidates do assume that Minnesota has reciprocity with superintendent lensure. We do not. We're one of the very few states in the country that if you have a
superintendent license anywhere, even in a nextoor state, you cannot come into Minnesota and assume you're going to get a license. There is a process you need to go through to get a provisional license, and that can take that can take a month or so, if not more. So, you want to be careful that you as a board
wouldn't um fall in love with an out ofstate candidate that says yes, if hired, I'll get a Minnesota license because there's a very good chance they will not have time to get a provisional license by July 1. It could still work though if that person came on as um I
don't even think you'd call them a superintendent. you still want to contract with somebody uh maybe a sitting superintendent in another district just for a month or two to sign your important documents as a superintendent while your selected superintendent, if they're from out of
state, has time to pull together all of their materials. So, um yes, you absolutely could pivot, but I'd want you to check your contract carefully, make sure that you can do that, and then go the interim route if needed at that point. >> Okay? And just maybe a quick run through. >> Sorry, go ahead.
just maybe a quick run through of like the steps for a full SI search like how how does that process look and like >> um you don't have to issue an RFP that does slow it down a little bit but if you know the firms you want to talk to about selecting the firms to do the search you can make phone calls you
don't have to put a whole RFP together okay but phone calls to each of the firms that you think you're interested in ask for uh proposals let them know the timeline if you'd like someone on board by July 1 or if for some reason you're thinking you could push it out to August one. Um, there will be some
Minnesota candidates that are already in our contract for July 1 that I don't think they would come and start with you August one because contractually they are bound to their own district. They wouldn't leave a month in. But you could get proposals from firms. Uh, usually people need a couple of days to pull
those together and send them to you for your review. You could hire a firm strictly off of the proposal if you'd like or you could bring two firms or three firms in to interview with the school board and then you pick the firm that you want to work with. Um those are always options. One thing I was trying
to say is that the biggest challenge for a search starting at this point um you have very limited time for engagement with your community or engagement with your staff. Uh you just wouldn't have time to engage potentially. I mean you're a big district. I'm assuming you
have, you know, 1,500 people or more want to take that survey and the turnaround time is simply not going to allow that. If you want someone to start July 1. So, if your community staff, whomever is understanding at the the speed with which this board wants to move, I think that's okay. There might
be some that are disappointed in the uh lack of, you know, a month of community engagement focus groups. You just don't have time for that. Did that answer your question? That was a whole lot of stuff that I just said. >> Mostly, I think so. If I missed something, make sure you let me. >> Yeah. No, that's fine.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Director Mason, that you >> Okay. How about you, Director? All said, >> um, thank you for coming. Um, Miss Dorne, appreciate your uh your expertise in this area and thanks for hopping on
in quick order. Um, the the number two option, the under interim, interim like an audition is how you how you called it. Um so this is somebody who would be you know potentially interested in more than a year wanting the the full you
know role. Is that is that kind of person is that a yearong too typically or is that kind of whatever is decided between that person and the board? >> Great question. So it is typically a year.
>> Okay. Again, it's a much higher risk for someone from the outside to come in and take a one-year contract. It's less of a risk from someone on the inside to take it because again of those uh continuing contract rights. Um we do have sometimes an interim superintendent. I know one
interim superintendent that stayed in the district for eight years and for the first three years it was one year contract after another year contract. they stayed an interim superintendent for two or three years, one year at a time, and finally the board just said, "Can we call you a superintendent?" Because then they were comfortable
signing a three-year contract at that point. So, I think there's always flexibility built into the expectations around the candidate. Being very clear with the candidate about the opportunity to apply for the job or stay on for the job would be a professional courtesy.
So, they know uh the candidate knows for example if they're not going to be allowed to apply for the job if you hire them as an interim right now and then you're going to do a search next year, a full search over four months. There was one person one time that said they applied for the interim job, they got
the interim job only to find out that the board had already decided that there was no opportunity for them to apply for the position. The board wanted a robust pool and they felt the interim applied they wouldn't get a robust pool. So they were very disappointed because they wanted that job. So that clarity of
expectations would be super important with either the firm you're working with so they can handle the questions from applicants around that whole topic or with the candidate themselves. Um so yes, option two, the kind of candidate you're bringing on if they want to audition for the job. Very often you can find someone who's great, it's a great
fit, they know they have a year to prove themselves. It's actually more like six or seven months because if it's not going well, you're going to want to start your search probably in January, February, the latest. um even while they're still your interim. >> Mhm. >> Okay.
>> Yes. Thank you. Um when you had said um that we actually uh in in our situation, our kind of district, we are not required to do a search.
So in that vein, again, just spitballing. So if we didn't do an official search and we just I guess for lack of a better way to put it did it on our own and our own HR team you know kind of went out posted in all
the right places and things like that. Is there any kind of I don't know conflict of interest in that if you don't have a third party help you search. >> I don't think so myself. Okay. If you
have um a great HR department that has room on their plate for a superintendent search, that probably is the bigger uh defining factor for um for staff and for the school board to consider because there there's quite a bit of heavy lifting that needs to be done for a soup
search. >> Yeah. And if your staff is already stretched really thin despite their capabilities, you'll either need to find a way to move work off their plate so they can take on the work of the superintendent search, the posting, the handling of questions, bringing in applications, reviewing them, working
with the board to pick the finalists, things like that, then it certainly can be done. It's just not something that you could easily give to someone and say, "Okay, now this is other duties as assigned run our search internally." It's it's a lot of work. Uh, so you don't want to burn out your staff, but
you absolutely could do that. Um, some districts talk to firms about doing the front end, which is the marketing, uh, recruiting, posting the position, collecting applications, reviewing, vetting candidates, recommending the top, I don't know, four to six people,
and then backing off and turning it over to the district to run with the second half of the search, which would be um, working with the candidates that have been named finalists, coming up with your interview questions, scheduling the interviews, conducting the interviews, deliber deliberating over who the the
best candidate might be to move forward to a second round. All of that could be done by the district and the first half which is the more complex half usually because it involves all of the HR protocols and collecting of applications and vetting lensure and things like
that. It could be like a half a search and then the rest of the search just handed over to the district for someone to run with. Um that's usually done in pretty small districts, but it certainly could be done in a larger district if you have the capacity on staff to do that. >> Okay. Um two more questions if that's
okay. Um lensure, even if it's on an interim basis, just to so we're very very clear, even on an interim basis, you must have a superintendent license. Correct. >> Correct. Either the superintendent license or the provisional superintendent license. And BOSA, the board of school administrators, are the
ones that would help a candidate jump through the hoops. They need to enrolled at an accredited university if they're not mistaken to uh take the classes that are I mean they're required to jump through a couple hoops uh to get their license, but they have two years to get a full Minnesota license, but they would
have to have at least a provisional license on July 1. And that involves um that involves working with BOSA to get through all of their requirements so that BOSA can say yes, you will have a provisional license by July 1. because if they don't, you're in violation of
statute if you don't have a licensed superintendent wouldn't for your district as of July one. >> Okay. Uh last question. Thank you. Um when it comes to um third party search firms, um I know nothing is in front of
you, I realize. And if this is completely inappropriate, please tell me so. I'm not meaning to put you on the spot, but for a district our size, I'm sure it depends on dis on different kinds of districts. What What are ballpark kind of costs associated with
search terms for again not meaning to put you on the spot and I know there are a million factors, but um what are we potentially potentially looking at? >> What's the student body enrollment there approximately? >> Approximately 8,300
Right. >> More than that, but yeah, >> yeah, I mean something around >> Okay. >> approximately 85. So around 9,000 students. >> 80. Yeah, about that. Yeah, give or take. >> Um, for a district that size, it would
probably be between 22 or 23 and up to maybe 33, 34, somewhere in there. Um, but you're right, there are a lot of factors, but in general, um, a search firm with a district your size and being in Metro should provide you with complete, you know, background checks on
all of the semi- finalists. Uh, national advertising would be included in something like that. All of that um, would be part of that fee. And if you're trying to save money, you could always try to negotiate and say, "What if we don't advertise nationally? Uh, what if we only do background checks on the
final two or three people?" So, there's there's areas that you could potentially cut some costs. >> Um, if you don't do a survey of your community, if you don't want to do a stakeholder survey, all of those things, I think you could shave off some of that, but generally probably 22 to 32
somewhere in that ballpark. >> Thank you. That's very helpful. >> Great. >> Director France, you've you've been through the search process. Do you have any questions for um for her or uh No. I' I've been through this three times. Um and we have and one of the contracts
was split up the way you said uh where um we were smaller at that time. Now I wasn't on the board at that time but I was part of a smaller committee. Um so I was very familiar with it and the last two and I I believe we could probably
drum up those those contracts, but I appreciate you saying the amount of uh background work that is done. I know the last one that we did because the question in the interview process has to be also performed in a way that has
integrity and um and uh is consistent between all the candidates um particularly with any uh superfluous questions etc. Uh, one of the things that I very much enjoyed about our last search firm is they guided us in that and gave us gave the board a training uh
to make sure that that process was uh consistent and above board. Um, so um that helped a lot. Um, so I I know that we used I think we've used three different search firms in the past, three distinct ones over the years. Um,
but that also helped a lot. I do have a question with regards to um uh and I first of all I appreciate your your comment about the interim um that that that was brought up the last time we did a search to make sure that if we chose
that if we didn't find a candidate pool etc. Um but my my question more or less has to do with um if we were to go it our alone. Um the ability to actually
not only have the resources do it but to post and get a pool for that um appeared to me last time to be a lot harder uh because the ability to reach out. A lot of the superintendent are actually called by the search firms who have
expressed an interest in change in moving etc. So posting that on our own and being able to get the message out um seemed a a lot more difficult uh in the last couple years. I'm not sure if there
are um mechanisms uh that that are employed now um by those who who can't afford the full uh search ter sorry search process etc. Like we could go out and look for it our
own and then have the search company vet for lensure do the background checks etc. Um that are a little bit above and beyond and and the vetting of the of the candidates. Um, what are your thoughts on that? I mean, how to go it alone?
>> Uh, that's a great question and thanks for your service going through three superintendent searches. That can be a lot. So, I'm sure you've learned a lot along the way as well. >> Yes. >> Uh, you you certainly could do that. Um, I think what is it? End of April. So,
>> end of April. Hopefully, >> we're May essentially. Yeah. Well, we're the end of April. We've only got a few days left in April. So, >> okay. So, you have May and June. >> Um, there will be sitting superintendents that would apply
if they had a longer runway because they may hesitate to leave their district with a month's notice or two weeks notice in the middle of June. So, even if those folks are approached and asked or invited to apply, they might say, you know what, I it's just so late in my contract that I just can't do that to my
board kind of thing. I think once you're into June, especially difficult to find folks willing to do that. Now, you might have a lot of really great emerging leaders that are are not necessarily, you know, the tip of the iceberg and working with their school board and things like that. So, associate
superintendent, cabinet members, uh, principles, directors. There might be some people that are definitely looking for an opportunity like this and they don't have the constraints necessarily of a contract and the turmoil it would cause if they leave in June. Um so those
folks I think would be interested in May and June. Um things like that. There there is something to be said for um advertising recruiting. I'll tell you though, the most powerful tool at your disposal is word of mouth. And that is
the number one driver of pools is word of mouth about uh school districts. There is what 330 331 school districts across the state of Minnesota. And sometimes there's a pool of 25 people, 2530 maybe. Sometimes there's a pool of
three. And that's driven typically by three things. It's driven by location in the state. I mean, if you're on the Canadian border as a school district, it's a little harder to get folks that want to live in that part of the part of the state. So, location is a big driver. Uh, the salary range you're offering,
and you are required to publish a a salary range, base salary range. Now, it's been in place for just over a year. So, you have to come up with the floor and the ceiling of the salary range you're willing to offer. So, that can drive interest. And then reputation, reputation of the district itself and in particular the board team,
superintendent, school board relationships. Those three things will dictate and the time of the year uh because we are a little bit late how big your pool's going to be. But again, you just need one superintendent. You don't need a pool of 20 people if you get two or three or four excellent candidates.
And so you just don't know until you know. Um but that's a great point. And then the the the things that fall into place will will be for your if you want your staff to manage it internally after that. I don't know that they'd have time to do any recruiting, but trust me,
people know that this position is open. Uh they're aware that Dr. Thomas got an offer from Hopkins and will be leaving if contract negotiations are successful. So, people know about this. So, I don't know that there's going to be a whole lot of recruiting, per se, that's
required at this time of year to get people who are interested in your in your pool. Um, the same goes for retired superintendent or people willing to take interim roles not interested in or full-time to allow us uh a full search.
How does it how do how are those people found? Is that again word of mouth or is that some >> list I have a list of folks that say, "Hey, if an interim ever comes open, I'd be happy to step in and help." Uh, sometimes there's folks that have geographic limitations. they only want
to serve as an interim in lakes country, central Minnesota or southeast Minnesota or the metro. So, I keep a running list of people that are willing to do that. It's not a super long list, but there are also people that are retiring this year effective June 30th, that maybe
they're willing to step in right away, July 1st, in another district. So, I keep a list. I'm happy to pass that those names and contact information along to the board if you'd like to talk with those folks. Um, keeping in mind that again, usually someone like that is not looking for a competitive interview
process. You certainly could do that and there'll be a couple of people that say, "I'd love to help, but I don't want to go up against my good friends that I know are also looking for interims." The only other thing I'll say about that is, um, we're entering interim search season right now as well. So, those folks might
be committing to other districts that find themselves in need of a superintendent, you know, in a month or two. So, uh, that list will get a little smaller as the year moves on, but generally speaking in the state of Minnesota, I'd say every year there's probably 12 to 15 districts that end up
with an interim superintendent and then they plan to do a search next year, launching it in December or January. Um, so those folks are out there. I'd find them for you. I'd pass those along. There's no charge for that. But all I do is pass along name and name and number. And then it's up to you as a board to
figure out how you're going to vent that list down. If you need us to do a little more than that, we certainly could do a little bit more, but I'd need to charge if it's beyond just giving you names and phone numbers. I could charge a little bit to do a little bit. But, um, otherwise, I can get you names for free.
>> Okay. >> Thank you, >> Director Smith. >> Yes. Uh, again, thank you for being here. Um, so there was the again, we we've kind of talked about the if we're interested in the uh interim route where it's more of an
audition. um you know well and I guess before that so you've kind of talked a little bit about surveys focus groups leadership profiles again is that kind of like an all a cart where if we want to save some
money there we can we can do that ourselves or is that something that you provide or how how does that look >> I'd say what you'd want to do is if you're going to work with a search firm once you've hired a search firm uh you'd want to meet for the planning meeting to obviously lay out the timeline create
the leadership profile, all of that. And at that point, ask them, "How can we save some money?" Because most firms, especially this late in the season, you know, there's a big difference between doing a survey that 2,000 people respond to and doing 20 focus groups versus it's
only open for a week and you have 300 people respond and you don't do focus groups. So, I would think most firms would say, "We know we're not going to do a month worth of engagement right here because there's no time. So, we'll do a little bit for a little bit of money or we just won't do it at all." and you can remove X dollars from the
the feed if you don't do any of that community engagement. So, I would think most firms would be willing to work with you to negotiate that down >> if there's things that you don't need or you don't think it would be worth doing it in such a short time frame versus having a lot of time and luxury of doing it. >> Okay.
>> So, long answer, yes. I think that anyone you're working with should be willing to to talk to you about your limitations on finance and what's what's logical and not logical to try and do in the next two months. Yeah. Um, yeah, thank you. Um, and then, um, I'm assuming it would look very similar
for if if we were going to do, um, a full search. So, we we go the interim route, but then we start a full-scale search in December or January. Um, kind of that same thing. Um, just kind of discussing what our options are and and
what's available with us to us from the search. Okay. >> Absolutely. pros and cons to doing all the different things that search firms do. Maybe you don't need some of those things and I I would hope that they work with you to not charge you for that stuff. >> Yeah. So, that brings me to the question
of if if it is that audition route, but we still want to engage our community, engage staff and and look at it. How does that work? Is that a possibility to just kind of again like we've already kind of figured out, okay, this is an
addition. we really think that this is somebody that we just might appoint to this role, but we still want to engage the community. Is that something that we would still do ourselves or again, could we leverage a relationship with you a little for a little as you've kind of put it? >> Yeah, I would think so. Well, in fact, this I'll just tell you a real short
story. So, this is um exactly what happened this last year in Nina. So, they uh got an interim. They ended up um interviewing and hiring one candidate. They only interviewed Dr. Dan Bitman when they were looking for an interim. And I think I'd sent him six or seven names of folks that they talked to.
Their governance committee narrowed it down from eight or 10 applicants to one. They hired him. He was only interested in the one-year job. Um, but as time moved on, it was clear that he really enjoyed the role. The board really enjoyed him. The staff really enjoyed him. So, Edina launched a full search in
the fall. They came out early and I want to say their search started in October >> which is pretty early but they had two months of community engagement in October and November and so there were lots of focus groups and a very robust survey and then in December we presented
the results of that report to the school board and there was a lot in that report that aligned with the interim leader that they already had Dr. Bitman. It sounded like a lot of the traits the staff and the community were looking for
were already here. And so the board said, "Would you consider staying for a contract of, you know, up to three years?" He said, "Well, yeah, maybe, but I want to have you hear what the community says first." And so the community decided it was something that they wanted to explore. So the board
paused the search. >> So the original timeline, they just paused the whole thing >> and they waited until after the holidays because people were pretty busy. And then in early January, they interviewed Dr. Bitman for the permanent position, but he was the only person they interviewed. They never posted it. They
never had other applications. And after that interview, they said, "Yeah, we we've got the guy here that we want to hire." So, the search was suspended. And I think we only charged them like 40% of the search fee because we've gotten all the way through a very robust engagement
process. But they never did post the position. They developed a leadership profile and a vacancy brochure, but they stopped it in January because they did exactly what you just suggested and it worked. It worked for them. Okay. Same thing in like six years ago. Same thing happened in Rochester. >> Okay. Helpful to know. Thank you so
much. Appreciate your time. >> No, you always have options. If there's nothing else you remember from tonight from everything I've said, you as a board always have options. Don't ever feel like you have to do something a certain way. Um there's lots of creative ways to find a superintendent. The only things you actually have to do would be
statutriven or polic driven based upon the policies you might have adopted. But otherwise, this would be your search. You would have to design it to fit fit your district. >> Barb, um, thank you so much for all of uh the just very thorough information
and and answering all the questions. Uh my questions will be more logistically if you could walk me through um or walk the board through what does it look like for us? Um we received a lot of information tonight and I guess my
question would be um where we have a a regular meeting next week. Um I'm wondering how does the board typically walk through making you know reaching consensus on how we move forward? um
that if you could uh give any context or any guidance on that. Um there was part of me that was thinking that tonight um I was maybe considering reaching a
consensus on full search or interim. Um, but I don't I given all of the information that was given tonight, I feel like the board should have time to um, even though we are kind of in a time, you know, time is of the essence,
I feel like, um, having some time to, uh, take the information, process it, um, and coming next week with something. You know, I'm just spitballing these ideas. If you could offer any guidance how a board reaches consensus on what
they want to do, how they want to move forward, I'd really appreciate that. >> I'm going to give you the answer that Terry Mororrow very often gives, which is it depends. It really depends on the board. It depends on the dynamics of how how well you work together, how quickly
you build consensus around other issues. You know, this is your one employee. This is the one and only person that works directly for the board. So, it's the only person that you hire. It's the only person who actually oversees. Generally speaking though, I do think boards can reach consensus pretty quickly about whether they want to do
the search themselves or hire a search firm. You know, that's one of those forks in the road. If you're going to hire a search firm, I think it's best that you gather some information before you decide anything. Um, there are boards that simply call up a search firm and say, "Hey, we want to work with you on a search. Just tell us how much it's
going to cost and meet with us next week." There are other districts that call one firm for proposals or they call two or three firms for proposals. Some districts interview everybody. Some districts don't interview any search firms. So, the biggest decision though is are we going to do this on our own or
with a search firm? And you obviously have to have the budget to pay a search firm to work with you on this. Um, and then the next decision will usually be interim or permanent superintendent or the compromise, which is an interim who's auditioning for the permanent
superintendent. You could still work with the search firm on that. Um, it might be a lesser fee if it's, you know, no community engagement, um, internal and external application process. Maybe it's a pretty simple vacancy brochure instead of all the
bells and whistles. So, those are the the two things I think you need to talk about as a board. If you could have some discussion about it tonight and then maybe sit on it until you're meeting next week or ask people for proposals by next week, then you could decide next week. But you want to have a planning meeting, I'd say, immediately the week
after so you can post it by the second week of May >> and then maybe you only leave it open for two weeks. Anyone who's interested in this job is going to have their materials ready to go. So, they're going to be able to apply pretty quickly. Maybe you only leave it open for a week. I mean, you don't necessarily have to go
a full two weeks, 10 days. So, um you'll just want to start that moving pretty quickly. So, those are the two big decisions. Did that did that help? >> Um whether we're doing it on our own or the search firm is the first one. And then whether we're doing full search or interim search,
>> right? >> Okay. >> Interim with audition. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, um, board members, is there anything else that you'd like to ask, uh, Barb before she disconnects?
Okay, hearing none, I just thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for all the information and your time, Barb. Really appreciate it. >> You're welcome. I wish you all the best. If I can be of any more help at all, please just let me know. And, uh, appreciate the chance to join you virtually tonight again. So, have a good
night. And my email and my contact information, phone number are all on MSD's website. So, if I can do anything more, let me know. Otherwise, take care and I wish you all well. >> We'll do. Thank you so much. >> Bye, everybody. >> Good night. >> Thanks, Martha. I appreciate the link.
>> All right, team. Well, um I I uh we've been given, you know, the two choices that in which we um should reach consensus on. Um and
if we could just entertain maybe um going with the first decision uh doing this on our own or seeking a search firm. If I take if we go from uh side to side just saying who would prefer what
is that does that sound okay with all of you? Um all right so uh with that being said can I start with you director Atinson? What would you prefer? On our own or using a search firm? >> Um, I I think um based on the accolades
that I've heard about MSBA and their experience, I would have no problem working with MSBA on the search. >> Director Johnson, >> I agree. Uh, same. MSBA is fine with me. >> Director Mason. >> Um, yes, definitely. A search firm, I think we just don't have the resources
and time to do it ourselves. Um, I agree. I've heard good things about the MSBA process. I have no problem working with him. >> Director Alstead, um I would be okay with working with MSBA, too. Um but before we made a huge
decision, I' I'd still like to see what they would charge. Um yeah. Okay. Final answer. >> Final answer. >> Very good. Uh, director France. >> Um, yes, I would uh prefer doing a
search firm. I think it will expedite things and I think we should review uh the template contracts that we already have on record from the previous one so we understand the terms and conditions and the options available uh before we make a decision on um there's not that
many search firms that do this. It's >> not a large pool. >> Dustin, >> third firm. >> Search firm. And do do you want to name you're open to just using a search firm? Okay. And I would I would agree um uh
based on my conversations with what we learned tonight and I had a conversation with um Barb on Friday, she did talk about um MSBA has no charge to hiring an interim. It's just when they take the
reigns to doing search the search and uh uh she had shared with me you know5 to $8,000 as a guesstimate on on Friday on my on my conversation with her. So just to to plant a seed of what a limited um >> if we went the interim
>> if we went interim. Okay. So um yeah so uh I think we reached consens consensus unanimously that we we agree that uh we to seek guidance with a search firm. Um, and then the second thing to reach
consensus on would be interim or full search. And I'm going to do the same process um just going director d by director um and just get our initial um thoughts on that.
>> Initial thought. This isn't like a >> I feel like I feel like we are you know we have a meeting next Monday and uh I think it's just important to get it so that we all are getting a feel for where
we are lying after this um batch of information got downloaded to us. Um, but I think, you know, just getting a feel for where we all lie as far as, um, doing an interim search or a full search, I think it would be helpful for
us. So, with that being said, um, I'm going to Can I start on this end this time, Director Smith? >> Sure can. Um, I am adamant that this is a an interim situation. >> All right. And how about you, Director
France? interim either internal within our district who's already familiar with it or retired superintendent interim >> and I'll insert myself um I I too am feeling interim just based on the things
that I've heard uh director Olad um I am leaning interim I don't know if we if if it's interim or interim with audition um but I am leaning interim >> because of timeline Oh, sorry. No,
director Mason. >> Um, I actually would prefer us to start a full search to just get a candidate pool and see what we get and then if we need to pivot again, assuming we had 90 days, if we needed to pivot after a
month or two and just get an inter interim candidate, you know, we could do that relatively quickly. Um I I think we have um a unique situation where we would like to put a levy on the ballot I
think this fall and my biggest fear is without a leader in place um that's a huge risk. So >> that's where my mind goes and I just for me like I would love to see us just like try start it and see if we get a what
kind of pool of candidates we get and if we don't get a big pool or a pool that we're comfortable with then great let's let's find an interim um which we can do much quicker. >> Can I ask a question? Where did the 90 days come from? Because we're talking just May and June because that's 60 days.
>> Well the the SI contract has a 90-day notice period. So that's where I was asking for clarification on that. >> Our current superintendent contract had a 90-day notice. Okay, that's what you're referring to. So we would >> so if we have 90 I mean if we have a month or two to start a full process and
we see what kind of pool of candidates we get in a month. Um again if it's not great and we're not comfortable making a decision then we go interim. Um I don't know that's where my mind goes. I would like to try a full if we can. Again,
going into fall, I feel like it's a risk without a leader in place. >> Director Johnson, >> that's that's where I'm at. Um, same thing. I' I'd like to go full and if we >> Right. I'd rather start somewhere,
right, with >> the ability to pivot if needed. >> With with the ability to pivot if we need to 100%. Director Atinson, >> I would actually like to hear the board directors who are interested in an interim what their perspective of as of why they would prefer an interim versus a superintendent search full search. I
just want to understand like why are you um stating that versus going through the full search >> and with with time being at six o'clock I I mean we can we can do that if we can. I mean just a just I mean I I sure
it's great to make a decision and I'm all about making decision but I just want to understand different perspectives. >> Sure. Absolutely. >> Yeah. I I know for me um I was leaning interim actually for this. I completely agree like we have a lot going on with a potential levy and things and that's
actually my reasoning um for thinking interim versus full um because we we're biting off a lot right now. Um, and I want to make sure that we get I mean it would it would have to be a good person, right? Like I agree good leadership is
really important. Completely agree with that. Um, and I know on an interim basis, you know, she made the comment it's more managerial than leadership. I kind of disagree on that a little bit, but um, I think it's a little bit of
both. But um, uh, that's actually my reason. And I just think with everything we've got going on, if we can get a good a good solid person in here to help steer the ship, um, with everything going on this fall, um, and decisions
that are still yet to be made, I think that would be that would actually inform um, a full search in in my mind. So that's kind of where I'm coming from. >> Yeah, I appreciate you sharing that. Um,
you know, for me, I look back I looked back at the timeline of when Dr. Thomas was hired and it was 60 days and then I look at an Noa Henipin, it's 60 days. So, I don't have a problem with the timeline. I think our timeline right now is actually perfect. >> That's not that's not actually correct because we got notice a long time before
the 60 days. And so, the >> have it right here, director, would you like me to pass it down to you? >> The search Well, I was part of that. >> I understand. I have it right here. >> I I don't care what you have there. I was physically part of that. We got very early notice. Mhm. >> We had the decisions. We went through um
uh a retreat to talk about after all of the reviews of the search terms were done. That actually took two to three weeks itself uh and then to determine whether to do the search term uh search and then we got the candidates. We got the second level candidates and we made
the decision um in a timely manner. But it actually took oh gosh three or four months easily. >> Well, it didn't. So I appreciate your perspective. Um, no, it's not my perspective. It's fact. >> I'm not going to argue with you, but I have a 60-day timeline in front of me,
and um I Anoka Henipin, the largest school district in the in the state, is doing theirs in 60 days. And I know why they're not using MSBA, there's a conflict of interest with one of their board members. She serves on the MSBA board. So, I guess um I my concern is the only way I'd support doing an
interim is if it was an external candidate because um if it's an internal candidate, it really like Barb, you we heard it from Barb, Mrs. Dorne this evening, an internal candidate um creates expectations for a future role. And um I think that I mean my biggest
thing is I don't know why we wouldn't cond conduct a search because we're trying to find the best person and if there's somebody out there who is in a current superintendent role and like I said the timeline our timeline actually I think is perfect that they would
potentially apply and then they're going to end their contract on July you know they're they're this is the end of their contract. So, I just think it would we are here as a board to make a decision on hiring. This is one of the most important decisions we make just like we've done strat plans and all the things. And I just I don't understand
why we wouldn't do the full search, see what pool of candidates we get. And if we don't get a great pool of candidates from the get-go, we'll know right away. Um then we could move to the interim. Barb said she has a list of interim candidates that she could move this way. So that's that's my perspective. So very
good. >> Chair Bullion. Um, first of all, the the initial question was why the people chose intram, not why somebody else chose not intim. So, let me just um let me just explain uh first of all, it took a lot more than 60 days. Second of all, I don't agree with the 90 days. I think
we're in a lot shorter time frame than that and I'd like to see that validated and potentially uh we can get that validated Dr. when Dr. Thomas joins us. >> Yeah, it's in his contract and then um it's partial that's partial verbiage of the contract. >> I've read it. Yeah. Yeah. Um, the other
thing is that if we're going to go into a levy, um, I would appreciate somebody hitting the ground running that's been through this before or is very familiar already familiar with our district, has some sort of experience with that in order to enable stability. But it's not just the levy, it's also the building
move, the building sale. Yeah. >> And everything else. And um whether we get an external superintendent that's already done this um or we have an internal candidate who's already familiar with the staff uh and the um and the environment that we're dealing
with and has already been through some of these decisions. It's that continuity and stability not only for our our overall staff and students. Uh but also for the community to have some sort of um almost uh kind of relief in the fact
that they're not having somebody come in that's never done this before. Now our district has been in the in the role and particularly at this late of time uh where we have chosen people that were not superintendent before and there was a huge learning curve. I'm not quite
sure we can afford that. Okay. >> And I'm not quite sure we have the the time >> in the interest of time because I see Martha wanting to uh bring in um Dr. Casey for our study session. We want I do want to get um from uh Director Smith
why you chose interim. If you can do a quick just to share with the perspective. >> Um so it is the most important role. It is our one employee. Um and my thought is it mustn't be too hasty. Um this is this is a critical role for our district
obviously for for many reasons. Um and again I I agree. I I I think potentially bringing in somebody externally while going through a levy push. Um I also think that uh if we're talking about uh
interest from superintendent, there are uh four seats on this board that are up for election. And I don't know if anybody's going to be applying to this without knowing who they're going to be. I'm sorry. Is that funny? >> No. I just hate bringing politics into our school district. It's a reality. Um,
Director Smith, it's just really Okay. It's discouraging board members. Okay. Board members. Um we were just you I will I will follow I'll if you have are you finished with your how you picked interim over? Okay. So I will just wrap
that conversation up for me. It's it's timing and also um I think in my conversation with uh Barb she shared and and also actually talking with some of the team the uh with the full search the community engagement is a really
important part of it. Um and not uh not truncating that or making that too short. Um, and given the amount of things that we have, um, coming up, uh, you know, with the the possible levy on
the ballot and all of those those things, the transitions, um, it's just a lot. And, uh, there was a comment made about the community is already dealing with a lot of those things. So, if if it were to lessen the
pressure of uh you know hiring for a three-year time period and and and giving some leeway with an interim, that's that is why I would would buy for an interim. So, with that being said,
I'm going to adjourn the special meeting and we can take a quick break um and we'll come back uh and join for our study session. Thank you. forgetting anything like I feel like. >> Okay.
>> All right. I'm logged out. Here we go. All right. And we're going to do the pledge of allegiance this. Okay. Are we ready? Is Liz got to give us a >> Did you give a >> Just did she was a thumb or a finger?
>> I don't I don't know actually. Better wait. >> Okay. >> Oh, >> good evening everyone. Um I now call the study session of the uh Prior Lake Savage Area Schools Area Board of Education to order. Thank you all for being here and please stand um with me
for the pledge of allegiance as able. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Okay. Up first on our agenda are some special reports. Um, annual survey results. Uh, Dr. uh, Casey representing Stuart education is going
to be providing a summary. This isformational report only. There's no board action requested. Um, Dr. Casey, good to see you. >> Can you hear us? >> Okay, very good. >> Good to see you again.
All right. So, if you would um take us into the annual survey results. >> Glad to do so for you all. All right. Well, lovely to be joining you virtually for our annual review of
the Prior Lake Savage area schools experience survey results. If I have not had the chance to personally meet you, my name is Casey Blhoviaak and I serve as the vice president of leader coaching for student education. Um, and in the
time that student education has worked with Prior Lake Savage Area Schools, I've had the privilege of serving as the leader coach serving your district in the work that we've done together. So tonight, what we have in uh in store for
this particularformational report, we're going to provide you with an overview of the experience surveys themselves. We'll then provide a high-level summary of each of the three experience surveys that were
administered in the 2526 school year. And then we'll take a deeper look into the quantitative results for each three of those surveys on number three for the 2526 results. Leave you with a few points of
reflection and certainly create that space to address any questions that board members uh would have of the report and the results that we share this evening. So, the survey re uh that we're surveys
that we're going to be reviewing this evening, each three of those surveys, the student, family, caregiver, and employee surveys ran during the same survey window, which as you can see from
the slide was February 23rd, March 13th of 2026. I'll track down just the student overview. Now, when we peek at those results, you will see there are 20 items
available for students to answer. And those items are on a scale of a one to five in terms of the responses that students select. They also have the opportunity to
respond to what's called a net promoter question. And in a moment, I'll talk a little bit more about what that particular question looks like. And students are asked only about their school. Now, you'll notice a few
differences as we move to the right and review the family, caregiver, and employee experience surveys. families and caregivers, their survey items. There are 15 of them, and we'll see what those items are as we move through the
report tonight. New to your experience survey for this year were some particular items for board related experience that were only included in the family, caregiver, and
employee experience surveys. So you'll see those results as we go through the review. You'll also notice on the family caregiver as well as the employee, there are two net promoter questions that
respondents have an opportunity to to respond to. one relates to the organization as a whole. So, the Prior Lake Savage Area School District and then their child's particular school and
the experience there. You'll then notice on the employee survey there are 20 items that are a one to five scale response. Four board items and again that opportunity to provide that net
promoter feedback on the organization and then the school or department in which those employees serve. You'll see a few particular terms in the overall survey results that we want to
provide a little bit of context for you on. One is a reporting term that is called a top box. Those are the percent of overall responses that are a five out
of five. on the responses. A five is a strongly agree response. And so when we look at top box percentages, those represent high levels of satisfaction from those that responded
to the survey. You'll also see reporting on what's called top two boxes. Following that same logic, it are it is the percent of responses that are a four or a five out of five. That four is
agree and a five again is strongly agree. So when we look at the top two box percentages, those are really strong levels of satisfaction from our respondents.
Before we take a peek at the results themselves, the last score that we want to spend a little time grounding in is what's called a net promoter score. This is a crossindustry
score of high or of levels of satisfaction with an organization. You may find as a consumer or someone that frequents businesses, you sometimes receive a question around your level of
satisfaction or your experience with that organization. That's a net promoter question. You'll notice on this particular question, the range for responses is much wider. Respondents
have an opportunity to select a zero all the way up to a 10. You'll also notice as we look at these results, the range for the scores are much wider.
Net promoter scores can range from a negative 100 all the way to a positive 100. and the methodology for the net promoter score and we can look at this in
grounded in your particular results that we take the percent of promoter responses so responses that are nines and tens and subtract the percent of detractor
responses. So 0 to six and that becomes your net promoter score. So we'll talk a little bit more about that when you see the actual results in the report. Here's what I'd ask you to hold on to as you
begin looking at reports here in a moment. A net promoter score anywhere in the positive is seen as good performance. A negative net promoter score invites
our opportunity uh to ask what would better look like as we serve those in our organization. So we'll begin tonight by providing you and in working with your uh senior leader team providing you an opportunity
to first see a highlevel summary of some findings of the results of your experience surveys in those three categories. You're going to see again from your students experience really strong results as we look at that
national benchmarking. Really excited to share with you this evening. You'll see your students results on that overall mean score in the 85th percentile compared nationally
to other partners that provide the same experience survey to their students. So, incredibly strong results there. You'll also see that high level of satisfaction from your students represented in the
average or the mean score of nearly a 4.0 on a scale of five. There's been a nice jump in that net promoter score. Again, students responding to if they
would recommend their school as a good place to learn, perhaps to a friend. Students also reported strong leadership and in fact gave the highest rating of the overall survey to the statement that
they believe their principal is a good leader. We'll also see strengths there. students reporting on the survey that their learning is important and that their families are treated with respect. Some
opportunities to get curious and seek out uh the answer to the question of what better would look like are in the areas for students of specials and elective opportunities as well as their
experience of healthy food choices during their lunch periods. We then see on the parent caregiver results maintaining a high overall experience rating of 3.96.
You'll see that that is consistent with the results from last school year as well. We do notice a growing level of agreement. Again, that idea of those top two boxes. So, a a small increase there
in the overall percent of responses that are a four or a five. So, agree or strongly agree. On item three on the current slide, you'll also see that one of the highest
ratings that parents provided was around the statement, I am treated with respect at this school, which we saw on the previous slide aligns very similar to what your students are ex reporting.
We also see a high level of confidence in school facilities from students reporting that the school is clean and well-maintained or that families, excuse me, are reporting that the school is clean and well-maintained.
And then finally, some opportunities to get curious uh for improvement. parents reporting not always feeling their child or their children might have those necessary classroom supplies and
equipment for effective learning. And then our final high-level summary results relates to the feedback from the employee experience survey. While we are going to see some decline
as we look at those individual survey items, there are areas where staff are maintaining that positive experience and feedback. One of those areas relates to staff
sense of purpose. We see a strong result on the employee experience item. I believe my work positively impacts those that we serve. So that really strong commitment uh to impact from staff as
they report on that experience. We also see on number two staff reporting having a clear understanding of the expectations of the jobs and roles that they have. Number three on the slide
representing support from immediate supervisors. We continue to see that there's a small or a strong excuse me a strong connection between the individual employees experience with their direct
leader or supervisor and we have some opportunities for improvement. This year's results, we saw fewer staff indicating they would recommend the district as a good place to work and
also some opportunities for improvement around perceptions of resources being allocated to maximize the effectiveness within the organization. So high level those are the findings we
see. Now, an opportunity on each of the reports to dig in just a little bit deeper. When we look at the overall student results on each of the slides, you're
going to see three years of survey results. So, this year and the most recent two from the past. We've indicated a couple of areas on each of these slides to be able to create some
takeaways as you might examine them this evening. You'll notice that the participation of students in spring of 26 when compared of spring of 2025,
we did have a a small decline there. As we've already indicated, we saw an increase as represented by that green arrow in the overall mean of the student experience responses,
which places you at an incredibly strong place as students relate their experiences in that 85th percentile, which is just an incredibly strong place to be in terms of celebration. And then we have our first peak here on
the bottom of that slide at that net promoter score. You'll see the question that students were asked right here. How likely are you to recommend your school as a good place to learn? And you'll see
that that response, this delta here, represents the change in 26 over the previous year's score. And that is moving in an incredibly good direction. Remember net promoter scores that are
positive is where we want to be because our percent of promoters out paces our percent of detractors. We don't calculate the the passives when we
look to to understand the full net promoter score. So, lots to celebrate on the overall student findings. Peeking in just a one layer deeper, we want to call
a few things out as and I'm sure that is very small for you all if you're looking at the screen. Um, a couple of things to note on this particular survey. We won't review all of the 20 questions that
students had an opportunity to respond to, but we want to highlight just a few. The green stars indicate the individual items that saw the largest increase this
year over last year. And you'll notice that is item number six, students reporting thinking their school is clean. And item number 11, I set learning goals and track my progress. So
nice items to celebrate there. The yellow boxes indicate the overall highest score on individual survey items. And we've pulled some of those out for you already in the summary. And
the red boxes there provide you that detail and peak over time at the items with the greatest opportunity for improvement. Taking a look now at the parent and caregiver survey.
As we indicated previously, when we look at the spring 26 results, we see that our mean as well as our top box percentage remained flat or consistent from last year's
administration. And that also results in our mean score maintaining that 20th percentile. As we look at national benchmarking, our adults who had the opportunity to
respond, again, they have two net promoter questions available to them on the survey. The first item is how likely are you to re recommend the district as a good
place for your child to learn? And you'll notice we did have a dip there in terms of that overall net promoter score for 2026. The second net promoter question then
asks, how likely are you to recommend your child's school as a good place to learn? We did see a dip there in the overall score, but that result remains
positive. And remember, that's where we want our net promoter scores to be because this is the first time we're seeing these two scores. I'll offer a small bit of context that we see from
our partners nationally when we look at net promoter scores. It is very typical for respondents to report a higher level of satisfaction
with their child's school as opposed to the organization. They have more interactions with the child's school. It is closer to them. Um, and so that is very typical to what we see is reporting on what's closest to
you, being more positive, and seeing a very typical uh difference in the results. When we look at the organization or the district, taking a peek then at those parent and
caregiver items, there are 15 uh possible on the parent survey. Again, those green stars indicate the items where we saw the highest level of improvement. Those for the parent
caregiver are item number two that uh I believe school rules are enforced consistently at this school. And then item number 13, so I receive positive phone calls, emails, notes about my
child from the school. saw our largest increase there as well. And that one, as you know from the red box, remains one of our opportunities for improvement. And those yellow boxes, as we shared in the summary, provide the um celebrations
from the parent and caregiver results. You'll notice um on the slides for the parent caregiver uh as well as the employee there will be two different slides and the reporting looks a little different. So I'll share with you the
why behind that. The board questions that were provided by Prior Lake Savage Area Schools are unique to you. So we do not have national benchmarking on these. And because this is your first year
asking these particular questions, we don't have a historical report, which is what you're seeing on each of the other survey slides that we are providing in the report this evening. So the view that you have here is really directly
out of our survey reporting tool. So unlike our other questions, you see the frequency spread on each of these items as it relates to uh strongly disagree being a one up to strongly agree being a
five. I also want to provide a bit of context on the response totals that you see on the parent and caregiver board questions because there is a bit of variance between the overall responses
here and the overall responses on the parent caregiver full survey. Four original items were included on the parent and caregiver board question set.
The additional item that you don't see on the screen there related to believing that the school district is the preferred employer. During the time frame that the survey was open, it was determined that that
question was likely not best aligned to parent and caregiver feedback as it related to the board. When that was brought to our attention at Stutter Education, rather than turning that one particular
item off, the entire board set was hidden for a period of five days and then re-elilluminated with just the three necessary questions for the board and caregiver survey. So,
because of an error on our side that we took responsibility for with your senior team, there were a number of responses from parents and caregivers when these items were hidden. Um, and we've done a little bit of work to provide some
additional context for the board should that be valuable, but wanted to be incredibly transparent with you about uh those results during the window. Next up and the final full report that
we'll look at is the employee experience. You'll notice with the yellow arrow arrows that we had a dip in participation this year over last year as well as a decline in mean this year
over last year. And then also uh seeing on the slide there where that places that mean in terms of the national benchmarking against other organizations that provide us the same survey to their team.
When we look then at the two net promoter questions, both of those items did decline. Our recommendation for the district as a good place to work remains an opportunity for improvement. And when
we look at the recommendation again for that immediate work environment, very typical to what we see that work environment being a more positive report response than the district. And while
that we saw a decline, that number still remains positive, which is a place we want to identify and then continue to grow from um that strength. When we then look at our employee experience results, we don't have any
items here that individually grew from last year to this year, but you do see those items that we reported on the summary. core strengths. Those are your items marked in the yellow box. And then the opportunities being our lowest
scored items in the red boxes on that slide. Finally, you'll also have the opportunity to review four particular items added on to the employee survey as
it relates to board perceptions of um of employees who completed the survey in prior Lake Savage area schools and those items remained visible for respondents through the entire duration of the
survey. All right, you've made it. I've talked more in this stint than I have uh for most of my day today. So, I'm going to provide some points of reflection and then pause. Um Dr. Thomas, allow you of
course to provide any final comments and then opportunities for the board to ask questions. Overall, what we would provide as points of reflection is that staff's satisfaction levels, as you've seen, have fluctuated annually. We've
seen peaks in 2023 and 2025 and have seen dips in 2024 and 2026. Your students overall continue to report such a positive experience as
represented in that survey and a real celebration in terms of 2026 being an all-time high and again just that incredibly high national benchmark. As you saw from the results, staff and families have expressed some concerns
related to resource allocation, some connection uh to class size and the level of support available in classrooms, and then really looking at the surveys in whole, some opportunities for growth around decision making,
resource management, and staff support. Thank you for your report. Thank you. Thank you so much for your report, Dr. Casey. Um, and Dr. Thomas, do you have anything that you'd like to >> Sure. Yeah, I'll just Yeah, sure. I'll just say thank thank you, Dr. Casey, for
for the information. And yes, like we do every year after we receive this as a leadership team uh both at the district level and throughout our schools, our teams are in taking this information to process what does that actually mean for
us at that local level. Um this is where our our staff begin to dive deeper into what is behind some of the conversations that folks scored on the survey. This is where we begin to have some qualitative conversations with our community, with
our staff members to really understand what was some of the thinking and into the context behind uh their scoring. Um I think we've noticed some patterns too. Ironically, um, as you know, we've seen in the years past when we've gone
through, um, budget negotiations or significant conversations as a district, we see that reflected in the data and it kind of goes up and down on almost uh, uh, in sync with that cycle. Uh, and so we know that that picks up a lot of the conversation that people are probably
having. This year we've been having conversation about, you know, another year of successive budget reductions, which is a real challenge to to work through. So, I know we picked up a lot of conversation in there that we've been having with our departments and with our school staff. So, this is where we'll be
spending the rest of this school year as we set forth our school and department plans uh improvement plans for next fall. So, I just want to um share that context as to what our next steps um are do are that we are doing right now. >> Thank you, Dr. Thomas. Um, next we'll
open it up. Dr. Casey, are you available for questions, for clarifying questions? >> Most certainly. >> Very good. Um, uh, board directors, uh, are there any questions that, uh, arose? I will maybe start with you, Director Smith, if you're, um, if you have
anything for Dr. Casey. >> Yeah, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate your time. Um, so I'm just curious. So you had mentioned um the
uh the board questions for the parent caregiver and and for the I'm assuming maybe you said it, maybe you didn't, but for the employees as well. Um and you said that you don't have benchmarking data for that and that we're the outlier. Would you or or maybe Dr.
Thomas, would you would why are we kind of the outlier here? wise are we the only ones that do this or >> Dr. Thomas, do you mind if I take that? Sure. Go ahead. National benchmarking. Okay. So, we we are only able to provide
national benchmarking on common survey items that are used across all of our partners. These are particular items added to Prior Lake Savage Area School District's experience survey. And as
such, we can't compare them to any other partner that uses this survey. >> Gotcha. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. >> You're most welcome. >> Um, I don't think I have any other questions right now.
>> Dr. France. >> Um I had a similar question about the school board because um prior to using stutter we used to put schoolboard questions into the survey as well. And um these are obviously different questions. So we're not going to be
comparing apples to apples. But um did did you by any chance get a chance to review the questions that used to be put into the community surveys prior uh to stutter coming on board? >> I believe back when we started our
partnership four years ago, we did have an opportunity to work alongside the senior leaders and review the survey. um these particular items that were added were advanced to us from your senior leader
team. >> Okay. Um and correct me if if I misunderstood this, but the only place those particular questions weren't appearing was in for a brief period of time was in the um portion that went to
uh parent and caregivers, but they were in everything else. >> Yes, ma'am. There was a 5day window during the 3 weeks that the survey was open uh where because we had removed one
of those questions inadvertently rather than removing one question the whole block was turned off. Um our team did some analysis behind the scenes um that is available to the board should you wish to review it where we looked at a
number of scenarios of how the distribution of responses were coming in during the the open periods um and could and that's been provided to your team should that be something the board wanted to look at.
>> Okay. Um and then my other question had to do with the difference between the student perception and the parent caregiver perception of the schools. Um um I interpret this and I'm not quite sure if that's a a how it should be
interpreted that the um impact of the teachers in the school environment is essentially um not uh reflecting the our current financial situation and the situation
that the parents and caregivers may see may may see from our cuts, etc. that the the students aren't experiencing that. They're still experiencing uh a consistent and increasing um benefit as well as um satisfaction
uh within the the school itself, mostly probably due to staff and teachers. Um and they're not necessarily impacted by external events. Um, is that I is is is is that the way I should be reading it or is there something else that I'm
missing? >> So, here's here's what I'll offer. Student education, we see the surveys, be they real celebrations like we're seeing from our students or that opportunity for improvement as a
starting point for a conversation. So what I can report to you is overall when we look at your student experience results they are incredibly strong nationally. the why underneath their
daily experience. That would be your educational uh leaders and experts really having that opportunity to have some conversations or continued conversations with students about, you know, what is really working well for
their experience in Prior Lake Savage area schools. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Dr. All said, how about you? Excuse me. Um, I
simply cannot remember. Um, were there any um questions that led to openended answers? >> There are open-ended questions. Those
are on the adult facing surveys. So, your parent caregiver and your employee, those weren't reported on tonight. We kept those results in terms of the quantitative numeric results, but those
have been uh supplied to to your senior leaders as part of the survey report. >> Great. Thank you. And I know uh sometimes they're divvied out by by school perhaps, right, Dr. Thomas? That >> um Okay. And I guess my whole point is
um that that's great that that's for you all to digest. Um it could just speak to the why. Um if if people offered open-ended answers, which I don't think they were required to do, obviously or well, I shouldn't say obviously, I don't
think they were required to put anything in open-ended. Correct. >> That is correct. And I'll I'll actually provide one level of clarity. None of the individual items, be they the standard numeric responses or the
open-ended are required. So you Yeah. >> Underneath the data, you might even see some fluctuations in overall responses because there are no required items on the survey. >> Yeah. >> Um thank you. I I just one no more
questions just a comment. I wish I wish more parents and caregivers would take this survey um because this is our annual survey and there are opportunities to um you know put in open-ended you know comments and
you know what it could be well mom filled it out so dad didn't or or vice versa or um I get that or or grandma filled it out so grandpa didn't or you know whoever. Um so I do understand that. Um, but I do wish that more people
would take um, this survey. We had more students, you know, take it than parents or caregivers. And I obviously understand reasons for that, too, because there's more than one child sometimes, um, in a household. So, um, I do, um, get that. I'm happy to see that
our our babies are happy. Um, overall, um, that makes me happy. Um I wish um our employees and our staff um would be happier. Um and so um I look forward to you know just hearing how we can we
collectively um can can do more um for them and I know it's just a hard time right now and a heartbreaking time and hard and um emotional and and I do understand that. So um so I wish more people would take it though. Thank you.
Director Mason. >> Um, thank you. Yeah, just one question. Um, what were the ages of the students that took it? Did all of our students I can't remember what grades take it? >> It would be 3 through 12. Dr. Thomas, I want to just confirm that the approach.
>> Okay. I couldn't remember. Thank you. That's all. Director Johnson. >> Um, yes. Just the clarifying one. So on the on the part that was um taken out for 5 days. So
do we have um the numbers that you're showing us here? Do we have everything except for those five days? So before that and after or is this only the after that? >> So the only thing that would be removed
from this would be the response of the one question. Yes. Otherwise, everything else pulled through. Um we as we did that analysis, our um our survey team of experts that live and breathe
this, our um director on our survey side has her doctorate is in statistical analysis. She did um a number of different uh ways to view it in terms of how the distribution would break down.
Um really when we looked at all of those options, your areas of strength remained your areas of strength and your areas of opportunity remain your areas of opportunity. And so again, what we would offer from student education and our
work with partners on experience surveys is that numeric score invites where we should be asking questions and getting curious about the experience. The score in and of itself won't tell us what to
do. So as Dr. Thomas indicated your your uh team is actioning on their results um as well as how perhaps you might as as a board that's really where I was trying to get at is just make sure that the overall was still the same even with the
the missed few days there was my overall so I appreciate your uh explanation. So thank you. >> You're most welcome >> director Director Atinson. Yeah. Um, thank you. I when I took the survey, the
board questions weren't there. So, thank you for the transparency behind that because I um was wondering why that was. So, um anyway, um you know, starting with the parent caregivers, I mean, those are that one's always concerning to me because those are the ones who are putting their making the
decision whether or not the kids students um enroll in our district or not. And so, it's it's disappointing to see that score go down. Um I also would like to go to um the parent caregiver
survey number six I believe it is where it shows a.9% change. So in if I'm reading this correctly it's one of the highest levels of change on that um on that graph and it says I believe my child has the
necessary classroom supplies and equipment for effective learning. And so I'm hoping with the feedback that we get and Dr. Thomas, will you be sharing the um the detailed comments like you have in the past with the board. Great. Um I know it's takes some time to go through all those comments. Um can you re can
you share with us how many comments there were? I mean I think in the past we've gotten an overwhelming amount of comments. >> I can't recall off the top of my head this year, director, but yeah, same as last year. Quite quite Yeah, there's a lot of qualitative data. Yeah, reading through those comments, um I mean you there's just a lot to unpack there and I
think it really helps our district um get to the bottom of some of these um this movement. Um >> the staff one is also concerning to me. I mean I think not having a contract in place during this time period. That was correct. It wasn't solidified at that
time. Um that unknown and uncertainty of a contract creates anxiety within um with our employees. So and you can see that the dips over the years. So, um, anyway, I think anytime an annual stakeholder survey is done, it helps us
to understand how we can do better. So, looking forward to seeing these scores um hopefully get to the bottom of the Y and um look for some improvement next year. Thank you for an excellent job that you do um going through the survey. I really appreciate it. >> Any any final things before I just say
thank you again, Dr. Casey for um for your presentation and and your your thoroughess and explaining it to us. Appreciate you. >> Thank you so much. And we are honored to call Prior Lake Savage Area Schools
partners in that. And I will also highlight the quality of that report is uh the quality that it is because of the senior leaders who uh dug in those results right alongside us. So, um, recognition goes to them as well. So, thank you so much.
>> Thank you. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> All right, team. Uh, next up is um we'll we'll now move on to information relating related to the operating levy and capital projects levy. Uh this also
is information informational only with no board action requested at this time. Um and uh will you be beginning it doc director writer? Okay, very good. Let's see how this
go. Let's make this make it work. >> Okay, thank you. Um this evening we do have a guest here from Ellers and Associates. Um they are our public financial advisors. Um this is Matthew Hammer and he's here to speak with us
about our referendum discussion and we've heard some of this information in past um sections of my reports to you and such, but I'm not the expert on this type of information. So we wanted you to be able to um hear from him as well and ask your questions if you have some.
>> So I'll turn it over to Matthew and Yeah, good evening members of the board. Dr. Thomas, um Matthew Hammer, I'm municipal adviser, senior municipal adviser with Ellers and um as Lisa said, we get the opportunity to work with school districts across the state of
Minnesota on these types of conversations that you're having. And you're not alone in this situation as we start talking about um potentially opportunities to generate some additional resources for school district operations. um
uh as we uh work with school districts really tonight is um an opportunity for us to provide some information, potential scenarios, some information on what's kind of going on um across the state of Minnesota and then answer any
questions. So we when we start um these conversations, we always like to orient school districts to tax base makeup and and kind of how that plays into the overall picture of school district finance and your specific school
district. And we're the unique entity in Minnesota that gets two tax bases to spread tax levies over. Um on the far left is what's represented is what Scott County assesses the value of your property or in the types of property and
they classify it into each one of these areas and then it gets spread um depending on what type of tax levy is either over the referendum market tax base or the net tax capacity tax base which is represented on the far right.
The main takeaway for your school district on this slide, there's a lot of numbers here, is the residential homeowners are uh paying a majority of the taxes. Um, and depending on the tax base that you're spreading over doesn't make a huge difference on what the taxes
are um that a residential homeowner or property owner in the school district is paying. Um, this would look different if you were in Brainer, for example, you had 25% of your property that was made up of seasonal wreck. that wouldn't pay towards an operating referendum. Or if you were in Marshall um and you had a
lot of egg property, it's going to look different. So for for your te taxpayers um regardless of what type of levy and we're going to talk about a couple different types of operating um or levies that uh generate operating dollars for school districts, the tax impact isn't going to isn't going to
vary much. Um as you look at this the your overall tax levy is made up about 40% of your levy is spread on the referendum market tax base and the other balance which is um where most of the categorical levies
and your school building debt are spread is on the far on the far right. Um as we look at the basic education formula, this is a um this is a look a snapshot over the last 20 years of how that formula has trended
to inflation. And um for the vast majority of us that have been in the public education sector, you've seen this chart on an annual basis. And there's nothing new here. I think the main takeaway is right now we're about 19% lower. If we just would have trended on
the um consumer price index over this last 20 years, we're about $1,420 per student less that school districts receive in revenue on the basic education formula. Um you'll see that there's been a pickup in recent years and uh I think anybody as you go to the
grocery store to purchase food um you go to the gas pump um costs are up right and that's no different for schools school districts u it's costing more to get supplies to maintain the schools more um to operate your schools from the
standpoint of supplies in the classroom more for health insurance so on and so forth and and this trend um from from the standpoint of the revenues that are coming in and just aren't keeping up with that inflationary pressure that we're seeing. So, what that what does that mean? Uh,
school districts are asking for additional resources. And I I think when we talk school funding as a whole, um, most of it's really driven by what the legislature allows school districts to do. And there are very limited ways that
school districts can generate additional resources for operations. The formulas are statutoily driven. they're going to be driven for the most part by student enrollment, the amount of revenue those formulas generate or um if and then at
the same time those local levies are set at maximum levies that there's not additional levy authority for school districts just to go generate some additional le levy revenue through your local levy without asking voters. Um
when we look at where things have uh trended um that means that the majority of school districts have additional voter approve um resources that are helping operations as a whole. Those two types are the types of areas are either through capital or the bonds.
Right? So school districts generate money for um capital facilities through bond issuance or bonds for building. And then there's two ways that school districts can generate um revenues for operations. The most common one is an
operating referendum authority that is a per pudent pupil amount that is uh that is authorized by voters and generates annual revenue. And then the other area um is through what we call a capital project levy. And then in the Twin
Cities metro area, that's predominantly funding technology. Um, and it's funding technology for district's technology budgets that free up resources for for other um operating needs. Your school district has an operating
referendum that was authorized back in 2017. Uh, so that's on the books and it's uh generating revenue through fiscal 28. uh that provides the district with not quite $5.8 million of annual revenue for
what is projected for fiscal 27 and it is a fixed dollar amount. So, um it isn't subject to inflation. It's something we'll talk about tonight that a lot of these formulas now across the state of Minnesota when they're brought
to voters have an inflationary adjustment in it. So as um the as the inflationary index changes um which is a straight a state driven index that revenue increases over time based on that inflationary change. Um with the
law change that happened a few years ago. Um now school districts do have the authority to renew those levies one time at the same term. Um and if it doesn't have an inflationary adjustment, you can't just put one in, right? everything is uh has
to be um directly aligned with what the voters approved, but then it can continue on at the same term like it never expired. Um that authority is uh the district's in that window right now and that window ends June 15th of 27 um
for board renewing that levy. Um, we'll talk a little bit of of how we compare and and really as we look at comparisons, we're benchmarking Prior Lake Savage against the Metro 48. And
there's a reason for that. As we look at um your school district, you're within the seven county metro area and there is formulas that are indexed to the a metro factor, right? So, it makes sense for us to look at the metro 48 when we look at
um your school district and you're um predominantly located in Scott County was with which is in within the sevenount metro area. So, there's 48 districts that are represented that MDE considers metro districts. Um and that's defined by they're predominantly within
those seven county metro counties um that are represented. So as we look at this, this is a analysis of and I don't this isn't taxes. Um I want to make sure that's clear, right? This is a
representation of operating revenues on a per pupil basis that these school districts generate above and beyond what they get through the statutory limitations um that are set in state law. Um, these are
additional voter approved resources that either are being generated what's represented in orange through an operating referendum levy or what's in blue that's represented in a capital project levy. Um, and we've indexed that
um capital project levy column to a per student amount. That is not how it's generated. We'll talk a little bit about that as we go forward in the presentation. and that's a tax rate levy, but that on a per student basis is the equivalent of what they're generating um in these areas. So, as we
look at where um Prior Lake Savage is compared to Hopkins is the top of the list. Um and as we go down, um Prior Lake Savage is uh right now fifth from the bottom of that list. um you generate
$624 of revenue above and beyond the statutory limitations um for additional resources that help support district operations. Um as we uh look at that, I think of this
as how much more does each one of these other school districts get to operate um and provide programs and and various other things as part of their daily operations than than your school district is. again not taxes but revenues. Um as we
look at um options for generating additional resources um the ballots allow we talked a little bit about this um in the subsequent or the previous slides allow for an annual inflationary increase and I just want to give you some context of of how that's
derived and kind of what's been happening um since 2018. And so we've looked back to 2018. There's been across the 7ount metro area. Since that time, there's been 57 questions that have been asked to increase revenues.
Um 49 of those questions had called for an inflationary adjustment. And out of the questions that passed, 37 of those questions passed that had inflationary adjustments, 12 failed. Eight did not put that in there. And you can see that
was about a 5050 um pass success um ratio. This is looking at 7count metro area. You can go beyond that 7ount metro look to and it is predominantly the norm right now where school districts are adding that inflationary sense into the
question. Um and it's um more often than not that that is a part of a a ballot question um today um when districts are presenting operating questions to voters. Really, what does that mean? There is one sentence added to the ballot that
says that this question would be subject to an inflationary change each year. And I think the important thing to note there is the school district doesn't decide what that inflationary adjustment is. That inflationary adjustment is
decided by MDE every single year and it is the exact same formula that they use to set the statutory cap on the operating referendum formula. So whatever the operating referendum formula cap increases on a percentage
basis each year that's the same percentage change that if a district has an authority that has an inflationary adjustment is going to be changed by. Um if we look on context if we would have went precoid we would have in the
previous 10 years prior to co that would have been about a less than 2% average change um from an inflationary adjustment. ranging right now as we look forward based on those estimates between two and 3% each year is what MD is forecasting that adjustment to be for
context when we talk about an an operating question um this is a sample that has an inflationary adjustment but the language is very prescribed in law and there is very little um variation of what this
question looks like depending on election council there might be a slight tweak in wording, but um it's going to predominantly say the same thing. You're generating additional general education revenue um at a set amount and whether it's tied to inflation or not. And in
this case, we're we're looking at a revoke and replace. Um this would revoke the district's existing revenue authority um of 62397 and replace it with that higher authority in this case of 1385.97 per
pupil. What does that look like from a a tax perspective? We've uh worked very closely with uh um Director Ryder and Dr. Thomas to align our tax assumptions based on the enrollment assumptions that
the district's using as part of your long-term planning right now. And uh this illustration represents a $32 per month increase on an average home, which is about $525,000
in the Prior Lake School District right now. Um the current authority uh is $623.97. That's about $39 is of the overall uh levy, which includes other levies, right? but it's
$39 annually that the school district property owners if you had an average home that was valued at $525 are paying towards that levy. The increase would go that you'd be paying $686 a year and the net change is $377 is what the estimate
would be. This tax levy would uh start with taxes payable 27. And we'll talk a little bit about levy levy timing, but um with school district levies, you're levying um for those levies and the revenue doesn't come for a year, a year
and a half later. So this would be revenue that would be available to the school district in fiscal 2728 or July 1 to 27 ending June 30th of 28. The estimate is this would generate about $7 million of net additional
revenue um for the school district to operate. There is uh so outside the inflationary adjustment, there's another uh means that school districts can use to step
levies up over a period of time. Um this is an illustration of what that could look like. Um there's various districts that have used this uh um methodology when they present questions to voters.
Um Edina, Minnetonka, West Tonk are a few districts that have had successful step up levies that have been presented to their to their uh voters in their school districts. Um, but really what this represents is the same revoke and replace of the
district's existing $623.97 per pupil. Um, this would have an increase starting with taxes payable 27 that would bring that authority to the authority we talked about that would generate about $7 million of additional revenue and
then it would have a subsequent step up that would take place in taxes payable 30. Um, and that would reset the authority at that point in time and take it up to $1,800 per student at that point in time.
Um, what that represents um, for property owners, this is just a an estimated look at what that could look like. And I will say these are estimates um, because this is estimating changes in tax base, changes in
enrollment, um, various factors as we look at these estimates. But if we assume the same enrollment estimates that the district um is using for their forecast, um you're looking at about $7 million of net available revenue that would be new to the district starting in
fiscal 28. That levy would stay at that level. Um the authority would stay at that level for two years. You can see that enrollment's fluctuating. We're using the state um estimated inflationary adjustments in those two
years that that formula would be adjusted. The enrollment's projected to decline. The formula allowance would be projected to increase over the next two years. And then in taxes payable 30 that um on dollar amount would reset then to
$1,800 and there would be a subsequent increase in the tax levy at that time. Um, so this this illustration is really representing what are you currently paying on your current levy of 623.97. What would you start paying in total
with the authority? What would you be paying in total for each of the years? Step up would happen in 30 and then what would you pay for that total value of that levy um starting in 20 2031.
This illustration right here is saying the exact same thing in a different way. So, what we're trying to show here is um property owners are paying $39. There'd be a $377 increase to your taxes in 27.
Net change. What would the impact be? Each year would be basically no impact, right? We're estimating about a $2 a year increase in 28. basically nothing in 29. The value of the increase or the net change that would happen in 2030
and then based on uh forecast going forward that's about ag4 annual change based on current enrollment estimates. Um this estimate does assume that the tax base would grow by about 1% each year too. Right? So if you think of um
valuation changes in your district um you've been outpacing that. So I would say that's conservative in nature. But I think also the important thing that we're trying to capture is we're not trying to capture assess growth changes in existing properties. We're really
trying to capture changes in um properties that would be new construction, right? That's really what we're trying to capture here. Um because if we just try to capture the change in overall valuations, we're just spreading those same levies across the same
taxpayers at a different rate. So when does revenue become available? Um as we look at revenue recognition right now the soonest the school district could get new revenue in for operations would be fiscal 2728 and that
would happen with an election here November 3rd of 26. Um operating referendum elections can only be held in November. Um that's a requirement in law. you can't hold a election outside of November unless you're in statutory
operating debt sod um or you're holding a mail ballot election which is um not a a very coste effective way for a school district like Prior Lake to hold an election. Um that levy if approved would end up certified
by the board at December 6th. taxes would be collected in 27 and the first t uh um year of revenue would be fiscal 2728. Um so um right now that's the soonest right so if you wait till after November then
you're looking at fiscal uh 2829 would be the first year of being able to get new revenue into the system. So, as we look at uh the district's overall tax levies, um a portion of that is the commitments that property owners
have to your existing debt service um levies. And what's represented here in the gray bar, um there's a tiny little um uh purple bar there as well as your existing commitments for your outstanding obligations on your debt service um general obligation bonds as
well as your leases um for a coop or certificate payments that are getting paid out of your lease levy. Um what's represented in the gray is your school building bonds. Um those were the bonds that were issued back in 2017 for the um
that were authorized by voters um during that time. Um and that represents um an annual payment uh that is roughly around $12 million a year. And there's about a $3 million or $3.8 million scheduled
drop in those debt service levies that's going to take place starting with taxes payable 28. What does that represent? It represents about a a $17 per month on the average household reduction in what property owners are currently paying for those
debt service levies. Um though in total uh that uh gray bar there represents um roughly about $66 and on a monthly basis of taxes. And
then there's a a what represents in gray there would be about $49 on on average monthly what's left after we get to 28. So that just gives you some context. Those levies then are scheduled to drop again um in a future year which is
between 2032 and 33. So, as we look at these opportunities from a tax perspective, um really it's an opportunity if you had no other needs, right? If you had no other operating needs, no other capital needs,
it's it's an opportunity to have taxes go down for a school district, right? Um, right now as we look at your overall long-term plan, um, it does provide the school district a potential opportunity to generate some additional dollars
without increasing taxes beyond the levels that property owners are currently paying. So, if we go back to the previous slides, that was represented tax increases, right? So, it's about a $32 a month increase on what property owners are paying right now. As we look at this illustration
when we go forward, this represents um what potentially could be filled into that space for additional operating revenues for the district that would start with taxes payable 28. So districts can present questions that
don't take place in the next tax year. Right? So as you look at the opportunity to um present a question here, it doesn't have to start with the subsequent tax year. So what was represented um with the the first
illustration was taxes would start with taxes payable 27. Um that would be the increase um in property taxes, but that would be estimate for 27 and property owners would continue paying on the the rest of the taxes they're currently paying. What this represents is that a
that a second question could pres presented for a capital project levy that could help fund items such as technology, such as curriculum, such as other district needs and then free up um those resources that are being utilized
in the district's operating budget for something else. Um if a question would be asked for approximately about $3.8 8 million that would not increase taxes in taxes payable 28 above what property owners
are currently paying. So that represents about a $17 per month change. But that 17 per month change is the reduction in the district's debt service levy um that's scheduled to happen between taxes payable 2728. What does that uh look like here is that
the school district could have two questions. You could have a question that would ask to increase operating revenues for the school district. And I think it's important right as we look at the ways to generate additional resources. That operating referendum is very flexible.
You can use that revenue for anything that you need in operations. Um, you can also look at um asking a second question that wouldn't start right away. It would start with a one-year delay and it would
start with taxes payable 28 and then property owners wouldn't see a increase above the levels that they're currently paying at that time because you have that debt service levy that's scheduled to expire. Um, that expiration represents about $3.8 $8 million of
potential operating revenue for the district. Um that would become available without increasing taxes at that time. >> Is that an additional 3.8? >> It's an additional 3.8. So think of that, right? That's a scheduled drop in
your debt service levy. That 3.8 million you could fill in, right? So that's what's represented in blue. Um you have a drop in the gray that is going to be a scheduled drop in your levy. taxes would otherwise go down if
that wouldn't be filled in. What does that look like from a ballot construct? And really what we're showing here is most broad. Um these school in a capital project levy, school districts have more ability to
explain how the funds are going to be used. So unlike an operating referendum, you're you're saying that you're going to generate a per student authority that's going to generate additional general education revenue for the district's budget. Very broad, right? It's the communication of how that money
is going to be spent. In this case, when you start talking about a capital project levy, the ballot itself is going to include items that the district plans to use those dollars on. Um, for the most part in uh districts in the metro
area, it's going to for surely include technology. And when we talk about technology, that's technology equipment for infrastructure. That's technology equipment for staff to maintain the technology. That can be
training for technology that district um needs to do for um teachers and other staff as they deliver education in the classroom. It also can include curriculum. Um, curriculum has become something very
different in this day and age than it was even 10 years ago, right? It's subscriptionbased oftent times, right? And you're buying subscriptions that come with a fee and um those curriculum vendors have it figured out, right, that school districts now are paying annual subscriptions to access that curriculum
wherein um back in the day you maybe had a textbook that you'd use for multiple years. It also can include items such as technology equipment for safety and security, cameras, um safety infrastructure for door
hardware, all those types of things. Um career and technical education equipment, that's something else that um can be a component of a question. You think of shop equipment, you think of um medical um type tables, those types of things depending on how your career and
tech programs and what kind of needs those have. um playgrounds, maintenance, um other types of items that can be also included in that revenue stream. And typically, um
if you make this question broad, right, over a 10-year period, it's going to allow you some flexibility to how to use those funds in various ways over that period. In your case too, um unlike some of the other districts around you, you have limitations on how much annual
deferred maintenance revenue you have. Um you're limited to a prrated formula of $380 per student for long-term facilities maintenance revenue. Your buildings don't get to the cap, so you get a a a pr-rated allocation of that.
This can also support deferred maintenance needs. And if you think of this um over that period of time, instead of borrowing money to meet those needs, you can have an annual revenue stream that's just um included as part of this revenue stream that could help
support some of those needs as well. So that gives you the broad kind of opportunity with what could be thought about in a capital project levy. Um, I think a important component of it for your school district is going to for
surely be um technology and potentially some of those other deferred maintenance needs and safety security items that the district will have in your long-term plan. This is different um than how the authority is established for an
operating referendum. So the operating referendum is established with a per student amount and that's going to trend based on how your enrollment trends and you can see in the um estimates that we had as part of the um calculations the
district enrollment is scheduled to decline over time right now based on um assumptions that are being made now that could slightly be offset by the inflationary adjustment. This question is going to be established as a tax rate. Um, and the tax rate is applied to
the district's net tax capacity on an ongoing basis. And as the district's tax capacity adjusts, it's going to generate additional revenue or less revenue. Right? So, it's not out of the question that tax district's tax base declines too. That's happened over a period of
time. But, um, it's going to trend based on tax base changes, not on um enrollment changes. So, election timelines. Uh, if the district's looking at um an operating referendum, this is the
statutory deadline um for calling for an operating referendum election. It doesn't mean that the school district doesn't call for that election sooner. Um but you have to call for an election by law by August 11th of 26 if you want
to get it on the ballot. in November. There are a few changes that are kind of floating through the legislature in regards to election law. Um so typically right now um with the legislative session open, we're not recommending a school district call for formally call
for any special election prior to June at this point in time. That allows for if there is any changes that happen at the legislative level that directly impact election law that would start right away. that allows election council to account for any of those changes as
part of um the resolutions that the school board would adopt. Um that election would be held then on November 3rd and then as I said revenue would be available. Um tax levy would start with 27 if it was approved and revenue that
would start in fiscal 2728. And that is what I had for information for tonight. Um and I can pause for if Lisa or Dr. Thomas have any other um comments and otherwise I can take some questions. >> Can you tell them a little bit more
also? >> Yeah. Yeah. I missed on that >> comment. >> Yeah. So there is if you ask for a penny outside of technology with a capital project levy um for example if it includes a deferred
maintenance component to it. There is a review and comment requirement that has to be submitted to the state of Minnesota. You would want to do you would want to have that review comment submitted to the department by no later than the end of June. And there's a reason for that,
right? Because the ballot requires that you say if you submit the review and comment that it's received a positive review and comment as part of the ballot question. And with um absentee voting that starts in the middle of September, you want to have that review and comment back from
the department before that happens so that the ballot is factually right. Right. That you have it back and you've received um that review and comment back. The Department of Ed education by law has 60 days to return that comment. So submitting it by the end of June
allows for the sufficient time to get it back in time um to make sure that um before that question would be presented if it if you did need a review and comment actually could read in that way and you actually factually have that review and comment back.
It's a it's a process that's not I mean it's similar to a building bond, right? is just a process where you're required to submit information to the department for the projects or funding that you're outlining um in the budget that is
approved by the department of education. >> Yeah, it is uh the capital project levy follows the same statutory requirements as the operating capital statute. um which is funding that the district receives on an annual basis. Um so anything that you can fund out of your
op operating capital budget could be funded with a capital project levy if it was put into the ballot. Right? That's the that's the caveat is you have to provide that flexibility within the ballot language. And what we represented there was the broadest
flexibility, right? acquisition and betterment that would give you broad authority to do pretty much anything you're spending within your operating capital budget currently. >> Um well, thank you. That is a lot of information and you're thorough. Uh I
had a couple questions. Um you had said the November ask doesn't need to doesn't need to start in 2027. um given our situation in this district specifically, can you tell me um why
would why would we consider that? Because it doesn't seem it doesn't seem that we're in a place that that >> Yeah. And really what our illustration was is as we look at the um taxes that are going to be
collected from your community right now, how can we best manage that to generate resources in the most coste effective way within the taxes that are currently being collected and what is forecasted to come off. And what we're representing there
is you wouldn't want to not have an increase in 27 for 28 for operating resources. But right now, if you're going to go out to vote so you don't have to come back a year from now, does it make sense to include a second question that would have a delayed
implementation that would not have additional tax increase at that point in time that could generate an additional amount of revenue starting in taxes payable 28 for fiscal 29. So think of it as we're showing $7 million of new
revenue that could start right in fiscal 28 pay 27 and another 3.8 in that illustration or another you'd be a little over 11 million of new revenue right but just one year delay on that that second 3.8 8 million.
>> And if I may, and just to clarify, that additional or that secondary question is for capital >> um versus general operating. Although any general operating that's currently cross subsidizing capital could be offset, so you could free up some of
that general fund indirectly that way. Um on that note, I just wanted to ask a clarification question. And you you were kind of alluding to this and I just wanted to bring it to the space. So um as we consider the the breadth of what
you could do with capital around some big areas that could also be put into restricted fund balance for said areas so that you have it for future use. If you know that right now our cameras
probably have I'm just arbitrarily saying has a uh threeyear shelf life remaining. So we would put restrict uh we could put capital revenue into that restricted fund balance so that when we have to go through that three years from now it's sitting there it's reserved. Um
that is an option as well to start kind of holding dollars accordingly for specific purposes aligned to capital. Yes, that's correct. And it's actually a requirement of the statute that you have to restrict the fund balances that are collected through a capital project levy
into a specific restricted fund balance code. So those dollars then carry over from year to year if you don't use them. Um, but that is one of the main purposes of the capital project levy is you don't necessarily have a defined need for
specific revenues in technology or or cameras for security that is going to happen every year, right? You might want to set $500,000 of those annual revenues aside so that you can do um a million dollar upgrade to some of those systems
at a specific point in the future. Cherry Bull, just one more. Um, just again just to bring it to the larger conversation space. >> So again, thinking about the potential cross subsidy that's occurring from general operating levy into capital
projects currently, if that were freed up um through that 3.8, for example, um then with that additional 3.8 eight that's realized from the cross in the op general operating levy. That too could then be put into the general fund
balance to start bringing our fund balance back up in addition to any kind of operating costs that we want. But that also allows us to build that back up to a healthier um kind of reserve if you will for um contingencies, emergency contingencies in the future.
>> Yep, that's correct. And I think one of the main flexibility that that capital project allows you to do, there's a lot of things, especially when you don't have um a significant amount of operating
revenue in your budget that filters into an annual operating position, whether it's facilities related that you have to take care of certain needs that become uh a general fund cost that could be taken care of. now because you have a
capital project levy that frees up those resources to allow you to get back to um fund balance positions as part of your strategic objectives as a school board, right? So, it just provides an additional revenue stream that can act as part of um a long-term plan and
getting financial stability for your school district as you move forward. And really what the objective of laying this out was is let's try to do it in a way um for taxes payable 27 that's going to get some revenue into your system that
you that you really need but then look at a future opportunity um that the district's going to have with some commitments that are going to be scheduled to come off and can we generate some additional resources that can help you um get to where you're looking to be
with a long-term um financial plan and long-term financial stability as you move forward. >> I had one other question regarding the um the second question ask a step up um I think you refer to it as
>> um I I'm wondering if you have historical perspective on on our have we in this district ever done a step No I didn't think so. Okay. Um, can you share what pros and cons are to having and and
maybe even some success rate or to having that second question or that second ask? Um, is is there >> I mean I think the the main pro of it is is that you're you're not out to your
voters on multiple times and coming back right year over year to ask the question. I think the con is is it adds complexity undoubtedly, right? And something more for the district to be able to explain as part of the question
um over the period of time, right? Because as I said, there's a lot of estimates that go into play when you're starting to look over um a 10-year window and then you have a stepped up increase in the middle of that. Um
there's been districts that have done it successfully, undoubtedly. um West Tonka, Minnetonka, Edina come to mind off the top of my head. There's also districts that haven't done it successfully, right? And there isn't a huge sample size. Um it's a it's um kind
of a unique construct, but really the purpose of it is is it's recognizing the fact that your operational costs are going to change over a period of time, right? And if you think about this from the standpoint of
where you're sitting today is you're trying to generate some additional resources in the short term recognizing that there's going to be a future need, but we're not going to ask for the full meal deal right from the property owners day one.
We're going to ask for a portion of that revenue and then we know in our long-term plan that we have a future need that is going to be projected and that authority then would come in um at that future date which would allow us to generate some additional resources that
at that time without having to come right back and ask within a pretty short window um um voters to increase another increase. >> Thank you for that. Um, I'll open it up for other board member questions. Uh,
Director Atinson, can I start with you? >> Sure. Um, I have a question. So, in the 2017 levy, it was actually 923 because there was a $300 that moved. >> We can't put that on the ballot.
>> You cannot put that on the ballot. And that was a law change that happened. Um, it actually happened with fiscal 21 and for districts like Prior Lake, there was no net new revenue. It was purely a change on where the revenue came um as
part of the formula. So, they shifted a portion of that revenue into a different funding mechanism that's still the same, right? Your your revenue is exactly the same as it would have been um without that change. It was a revenue neutral change, but it decreased your authority.
They also decreased the state cap at the same time, right? So, um there was a state cap change that happened um at the same time in fiscal 21. So, you can't go get it. >> Okay. So, >> but just to clarify, taxpayers are still paying the 923. >> You're still paying the 923. Um it's
just part of a different funding formula. >> Right. Right. Okay. >> That I think is a real big challenge for us as a district. Um um the other thing how about um timing on levies 5year versus 7-year versus 10
year. Do you have any feedback on >> Yeah, for the most part districts it's very uncommon to ask for a shorter term than 10. 10 is a statutory max. Um there's various there's been various terms that are asked uh right but that
10-year period comes up quick, right? And I think in your guys's case, um, you've got kind of a buildup in revenue need, right? That that's happening over time. Um, and reducing that term to a shorter term really doesn't make sense for planning purposes, right? Because if
you, let's say we ask a five-year term, right, you're going to be three years into your budget cycle and can't plan on that necessarily that revenue, right, at that period of time. >> Um, last question. um based on your professional experience and you've seen
the levies that we put to the ballot in the past, ones that have passed and ones that have failed. Um what would be your professional expertise on or guidance on um I don't know if you can give like a dollar amount or would we go out and ask for something higher or would we
typically ask for something lower? >> I think that has to align with the feedback you get from your community, right? and um you've gathered feedback in various ways, but um getting out of line from the standpoint of what the
community feedback and support has been for a question um becomes more challenging, right? Then you're really having to sell that additional need um and the survey data is important, right? So um I think that's probably one of the
main things that you have to be cognizant of a district. There's obviously the operate the operating pressure of what what you feel your budget needs. But if the community is not willing to make that um effort from a a local ask um you have just as much
um challenge in not getting that new revenue into the system on a timely basis where you have to delay into another year, right, in another fiscal year from the pressure that's going to put on your operation. >> Right. I appreciate that. Thank you, >> Director Johnson.
>> Nothing as of right now. >> Very good. Director Mason, I was going to ask a similar question around the duration and specifically for the capital levy. So just again looking at the um the bond debt that we have and when it's
falling off if I mean would there be a reason to consider a five-year adjust on the capital given the fact that you know in five years we have more falling off and we can reassess right especially in a in the situation we're in where we're declining enrollment and we have
relatively new buildings and spaces so I Um I mean would that ever be a consideration or recommendation to do five years just to again we might have more room then in 5 years in 2033 when the other
>> well there's nothing that says that you couldn't ask a future question at that period of time and revoke and replace that levy and ask for an increase right so I think the important thing when you start thinking about these authorizations is budget stability um
over a long period of time So, um, when district administration's building long-term financial plans, right, they can plan around revenues that are part of that annual budget. And it kind of gets back to that conversation if you're planning for a five-year period and then
the levy falls off, right? It's hard to make long-term plans when you have to can't count on that revenue stream as you move forward for for operating your budgets, whether it's for facilities or operations. So in that case, right, like there's nothing that stops the district
from coming back at that future time when there's another decrease to ask a question um at that point in time to revoke and replace the capital levy, ask for an increase in operating other some other thing. But I think um that's some
built-in flexibility for um future boards to have that flexibility at that point in time, which is important as you look forward to. >> Sure. I mean, that makes sense from obviously from a budgeting standpoint. I'm just kind of going with is it is our community more likely to support it if
it given the uncertainty of our long-term enrollment. Um, also I feel like just you know that the $ 38 million number is a is a big number, right? So that was just came what came to my mind is it if we made it shorter in duration
would our community be more willing to support that? And I don't think any of this capital piece was really included in our survey right specifically. So um yeah. Okay. Thank you. I think that was it. >> Yeah, please. >> Um yeah, that was a decision, you know,
based upon feedback from the board to keep the initial survey focused purely on operational. So we did not um ask the community about that because uh the feedback was we don't want to confuse the the respondents and just keep it on
on what we actually you know desperately need around the operational aspect versus the capital. And then just a point of clarification, I think it was just a misspeak. It was 3.8 million, not 38 million. Um, >> the total for 10 years. Sorry. >> Oh, okay. Okay. I I thought she meant per year. Okay. Thank you. I just want
to make sure >> states the full total just again just perception, right? >> Yep. >> Director Alad. Um, thank you. Um, just one quick clarification. Um, the levies are for
learning, bonds are for building. I repeat that to myself all the time. um the the capital project levy authorization. I'm looking at the ballot language and I realize this is a sample um but I'm
looking at I just want to make sure say you know we moved forward with this option uh just for example can we use that for you know our our biggest piece is is people so can we use
that this this is general I guess I'm just trying to understand to make sure this goes into general But you had said right right when I walked in you said we could potentially if needed put some in fund balance if we needed to. I just I'm looking at the
examples of what we can use the money for and the only personnel is like technology related. So I just want to make sure that >> we can use it for salaries. >> Just in technology though >> you cannot go outside to pay teacher salaries. >> Okay. So we can't add paras we can't you
know any but we could for the other. >> So so I know so what I was uh actually what I was alluding to you're you're kind of scratching that surface here on this. So >> for example >> with the capital levy um we could
legally pay for some of our IT staff and code our IT staff who are currently being coded through um general fund operating funds. Um, sure. So now, let's just say, let's just say there was a million dollars in IT staffing,
hypothetically, we now have a million dollars in our operating funds that we can use for paras that we can use for class size that we could use for a variety of things. Um, and as you walked in, one of the things that was just bringing into the conversation space was
around that long-term financial sustainability of how do we build build up our fund balance? And so there could be ways that we could offset some of our operating um expenditures through that capital levy that are currently being paid for through our fund one or our
general fund I'm sorry and then we could take let's say that 3.8 8 million a year. Use a portion of that to make critical investments for example in classrooms uh academic supports uh class sizes uh you etc. and use another
portion of that to put into our general fund reserves, we can build up our reserves. And so when we get to a certain percentage threshold that is more comfortable for the board in our community, um let's say from 8% to for example 10%. Then we could um you know
do that over you know period of two to three years and then for the remaining seven years let's say of that operating or that capital levy now we have um more dollars that we can put into classroom supports um or enriching experiences um
for our students. >> So it's a both and. It's just a matter of how we >> um put together the the long-term plan. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's it for me. Yeah, thank you, Dr. France. >> Um, obviously we have a history of not
passing tech levies either here. Um, with the same descriptions, etc., and also adding an uh um a um graduated ops levy onto it. Um what happened with
our community is they voted for the cheaper one and and the fact that one time we got a bond and nothing to support it. Uh, so we couldn't so we got the bill so we got the money to open a school, but we couldn't I mean we got the money to build the school, but we couldn't run it. So we actually had a mothball at elementary school for a full
year until we could get something passed. So, I'm I guess what I'm wondering is is you know the best overall combined uh um scenario um that that you have
seen work in districts like ours that are incredibly tax averse regardless of the consequences. Um is there any feedback you have? Uh, and I want to take into account that you had said I think it was 59 total districts that you
counted and of that um 37 uh pass the one with inflationary and the other ones uh four pass. So that was basically um >> 50. >> Yeah. So 41 and we were in the negative of that. We're in the very small
percentage. Whoa. Sorry. I thought I turned that off. Um um so I has have you noticed any combination of these that have helped to kind of turn
the tide on that? Is there any um thing that that that language or situations that worked? because our situation is that we are still going to be basically cutting the budget every year even even with um the highest number we went out
in the survey to our uh uh to our uh constituents or um members of the district. Um, so just wondering what what combination worked that you have seen that kind of helped people helped
districts that had been continuously not passing a levy to actually pass a levy. >> Yeah. And I think every school district's unique, right? Depending on what the makeup of your existing levies are, right? what the opportunities are
there to um generate new revenue and what the tax impacts are. I think one thing that your guy your district has done right is you've made reductions for numerous years right now. Um and that
for districts that have had success or had issues with success becomes um part of the overall story, right? when you're trying to create financial operation stability as you move forward because there has been numerous changes that are
impacting class sizes and other things in in your school district. Um, in regards to that specific combination question, um, in this case, this could be a contingent question, right? Like you wouldn't have
to you could require question one to pass before before question two would be authorized to pass. I personally don't think that you guys are going to take that revenue because it's going to help you financially in
either way, right? If um question two for some reason passed and question one didn't, right, in this case because there is some operational benefit to funding some of those needs that would be identified in the second question as well. But that is an option, right? That
you could um require the second question to be contingent on the passage of question one, which would in essence mean if question one failed, even if question two fa passed, you wouldn't get the funding. I personally, right, don't think that
you're going to take that revenue, right? So there's not a probably a a good reason to make that second question contingent. Um but it could be if you're felt strongly enough from the marketing perspective or the communication perspective that that was important that
could be an option. Um when it comes to uh the balance of of uh creating scenarios that create a balanced approach. I think this is kind of a classic example of that when you look at your long-term
plan because you have direct operational needs in your school district that you don't have enough resources that you could generate through a technology or capital project levby to support, right? There's not enough things that you could offset. Undoubtedly, there is things that you're paying with in your
operating budget right now that the capital project levy could be used to offset a portion of those operations that indirectly, as Dr. Thomas said, are going to free up resources for your operating budget as you move forward. So in this case, as we look at this from
the analysis, knowing um and working very closely with director Ryder on her long-term plan, we were trying to do it in the with the feedback that was provided through the survey to try to provide an option that generated some
additional revenue in the front end, right? To try to keep the taxes in line with what those estimates and feedback was. and also looking at what things that you guys have in your district that comes forward to what I refer to as kind of a balanced approach, right? It's
generating additional resources to increase tax revenues in the short term and then managing within the existing commitments to generate some additional resources as we look forward in a cost-effective way for um the property
owners that are going to support the levy and support the taxes as you move forward. Um, the combination is going to be unique, right, depending on the district and it's going to be unique on the words that you're going to put in the ballot.
Um, and you might want to think about the feedback that you have and um, what would be successful in that capital project levy ballot from what's important to your community specifically. This was purely an illustration of what's possible, right?
And as you guys think of um what that second question, if there is a second question would have um that that language can be modified. >> Um is it um within I know it's an open question, but can we put in there that
if only the second question passes, we're we're still cutting? That's my that's my concern. >> Well, >> because 3.8 million doesn't solve our problem. >> Sure. If I if I may, Sure. Um, so I I
want to be clear too on the scenarios that we mentioned >> and every one of them that we mentioned is that we're cutting. This is due to the projected enrollment loss. So we we we have to account for that. So I just
want to be clear with our board and the community. um uh it's a direct correlation of if our if our enrollment is down our overall costs will be somewhat reflected. So we've built that into and I think
director Ryder has shared that too. So I just want to note that's where this is coming from. No, I I I understand that. But the the amount we have to cut every year in general with general increases and expenses and the continu and and the
potential um loss of programs um we're looking at 4 to 5 million each year. The and that's so if if only let's say using the example and I understand it's just an example of 3.8 million that's not
going to solve even the So you have the8 that's that's remaining. So figuratively so yeah essentially with the total package conversation in those graphs above you can take 3 million off of that and that's what the net would be. So and and that's what we tried to explain um
to our community around that as well. So in isolation yes that 3.8 doesn't do do much in combination with other factors it begins to um have a different impact. Director Smith, you have any clarifying
questions for >> I do. Thank you. How you doing? Thanks for being here. Appreciate it. Um, so speaking of complexity, um, one, so you answered my question about whether or not they have to be
contingent. Um I guess so the the other question that I had was um so this has the the language in there. The projects to be funded have received a positive review and comment from the commissioner of education. Um
is that the so what language in here is triggering that? Like if we just said uh technology like would that you wouldn't have to add that that the the >> yeah that language is required if you ask outside of technology right so if
you spend a penny outside of technology in a question that's generating revenue at that level >> you have to you have to go through the review and comment >> process and that's a required um statement that's required in law included in the ballot language. Okay.
Um and then it was talked about that that can be um spent similar to um the capital expense budget or in the in the general fund. So if it was if it was put into the general
fund as unassigned, it would still be restricted dollars, right? >> Yeah. It's going to be required to be restricted dollars, right? if it's authorized because under law, yeah, there's a restricted fund balance code where those revenues go into that um require it to be spent in the authorized
ways. >> Okay. >> And then um this is specifically so if we're doing the two questions here, we got the um the operating levy as the first question and this uh
question as a capital project levy. Does it have to be a capital project levy? It does not. Okay. >> Oh, it would not have to be a capital project levy. >> Okay. So, this is just an example. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um and then
we are uh I wanted to see if I'm following along here. Um so this is saying for um payable in in taxables taxable payable uh 2028.
Um if we weren't to add this question that would be a tax decrease right? So that because the the other money is falling off in 28. So this is kind of being used to to replace that
back up to that amount. Right? Um, is that right? >> Yeah. There's a scheduled decrease in the debt service levy. Unfilled in would result in >> a reduction in taxes and that that number is about $3.8 million that the levy is scheduled to reduce right now.
>> Okay, perfect. And then um with this question then so if we're just filling that gap um I guess my question is because it still says by voting yes on this ballot question you are voting for a property tax increase but that's technically but
it's technically correct because it's it's still going up. >> It's required by law to right. So that's a statement that's required to be in the ballot language when you're not renewing a levy that already exists. So that's a new levy. It's not a renewed levy, so it
requires that bold language to be in there right now under current law. >> Even though there's no net change. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Interesting. Okay. Thank you. Um uh that is it. That's all I got.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you for such a a thorough um if there's no last minute, I think we'll uh just say thank you for your presentation and your time. Um and we will move on to the uh levy survey results with um Dr.
Zimbush. Is that right? >> Well, thank you for having me. If anything comes up, >> Yeah. >> circle it through Dr. Ryder and Dr. or I mean Director Ryder and Dr. Thomas and we'll get you what you need. So, have a good night. >> Thank you so much. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Hey. Mhm. Okay. Good evening, Chair Bullion, Dr. Thomas, members of the board. Um, I'm here to present the um the survey that we conducted over the past um week or
so. Um, and uh I will just dive right in. The purpose of this survey was to gather feedback to help guide important decisions um including whether to pursue that operating levy and how to prioritize resources to support
students. Um it's also the purpose was to help us um formulate those ballot questions. Uh the timeline of our survey was um early morning April 14th to midnight
April um 21st. Uh so a week it was open. Um the communications department um helped with the uh outreach and distribution. So we had um this is a description of all the different places where it was um posted uh both
physically and electronically. Um we had a specific website for it. There was a popup uh social media posts. There was um districtwide emails. Uh schools sent emails. They were in newsletters. um they were on our digital sign boards in
our communities and then um there were flyers in schools, libraries, and local businesses around um both Prior Lake and Savage. Our survey items, I'll go through the questions that we had on the survey. It was designed um to be very brief. Um so
we asked for standard contact information that includes first and last name, address, city, and zip code. And then we asked if you're a resident of Prior Lake Savage Area School District, yes or no. And then we also asked if you have school age children attending PLSA
or expect to in the future. Um so the the answers to that were yes, currently attending, yes in the future, or no. Then we asked, would you support an operating levy to maintain and improve programming in Parlake Savage Area Schools? And the response options were
definitely support, unsure slash need more information, or definitely do not support. So just three response options there. And then we asked what factors most influence your decision regarding a potential levy. And that was an open-ended question. We then asked uh
what are your top priorities for our schools? Uh people could choose up to three. Um and they were provided reducing class size, increasing academic supports, um increasing behavioral support and behavioral and mental health support, maintaining current programming
and course offerings, expanding advanced accelerated and career pathways and other which provided a fill-in- thelank um for what the person wanted to write in there for the other. And then we asked um this very very long
question but um basically it uh how much are you willing to invest each month in terms of um the um the per month and again this was based on the $525,000 home. Um and we
had a link on our website to um additional information that you could look up to see what that would be depending on the value of your home. Um, and so all that was provided directly linked in the survey. Um, and again, these were based on that $525,000
um, home value and the options were zero um, a month, 15, 32, 46, and 67. So, kind of in summary, this is the the um the meat question in terms of how
much are you willing to invest each month um in terms of um the levy question. In terms of our quantitative results, um I divided all of the um individuals into
two separate categories. One is voters. So, those are people who live in PLSAS but do not have children currently in the district. Um, and then resident families, which are people who live in PLSAS and do have children in the district currently. Um, which gives uh
our voting total. So, those are kind of the three buckets of people that we're talking about. Um, I don't think it's too surprising we had a much higher response rate from resident families because, you know, I we tried to disseminate in other ways, but really it it came from the school district. So a
lot of the um uh respondents were people with with current students. Um during the data cleaning and exclusions um any duplicate entries were removed. Um we asked separately if they had um kids well we asked if they had kids in the
district and if they were in the district and if they had students currently enrolled but are not in the voting area. Um those are out of district respondents. Um, so if we ever need to pull that information, we have that. There was 278 of those. Those were
not included in the main analysis. And then 39 were excluded because we could not verify um their um demographic information, but everyone else that was included in the population was verified based on their address. Um, and um,
duplicate entries were removed. There wasn't a ton of them, but there were some. So this chart basically asks would you support a levy? Um and again you have the three major buckets. Um the voters which is the individuals that live in
the district but do not currently have students in the district. Our resident families which makes up the majority of the number of of respondents and then that voting total. So here you can see that there is a discrepancy um between people that do and don't have um
students currently in our district in terms of their um level of support for a levy. In terms of the top priority um the um main priority across all groups were reducing class sizes um and then
maintaining current programming um kind of came in at second. You can see there's quite a bit of scattering of um the top three priorities um whether you're voters, resident families, or um the voting total. Um you know, students
or parents without students in the district um were much higher in terms of the increasing behavioral supports um and less so on the expanding um advanced and career. Those are abbreviated titles, but the full um questions are in
the first few slides. In terms of how much would you invest, um the vast majority of respondents did say they would invest that 67 a month. Um but you can also see the discrepancy between um voters and um resident
families. and um both in that 67 and the $0 a month and the 15 a month in terms of qualitative responses. Um in terms of I mentioned that other category in terms of priority prioritization
um for people that put other and then entered um a response in there um the largest sample size there would be um specific program preservation. So examples would be Minaps, immersion and SAGE. Um the second highest would be
teacher and staff support. Uh then academic quality and instructional effectiveness, arts electives and enrichment programming. Um some general comments about not wanting to cut anymore but didn't really give a specific theme. Um and then special education. So those are the top themes
within that other category. in terms of the top factors that influence levy the lovey vote um for voters specifically. So again student or voters that do not have current students in the district the top um factor is
transparency and specific use of funds. Um the next one has to do with cost tax impact and affordability. Um third highest has to do with distrust in spending from the district. Um general support for education. So kind
of on the other end of the spectrum, people generally saying um I support it kind of regardless. Um and then uh program preservation. I also listed out um all of the full categories of things that were factors
for individuals. I think seeing all the different things I think um you can see that there's a lot of different factors for a lot of a lot of different people. it didn't all fall within, you know, singular buckets. So, um, these are kind of this is a fuller list of all of those
factors um that were listed by the survey takers. In terms of our resident families, um, the top factor has um was a a category regarding just wanting to stop the cuts and want to stop losing opportunities
for students. Um, the second highest has to do with class size. um and what that does in terms of teacher strain and the student experience. Um then again kind of a general support for education and kids kind of saying um you know there's
not a specific factor but I generally support um funding uh education through this referendum or levy. And then a general um underfunding uh comments about we just need more revenue. And then um the the fifth
highest has to do with um the transparency and knowing specifically how the funds will be used. Then in terms of the full list of factors that influence residential um families, um this again is just the full list of the types of comments that we
received um in terms of the the large range of um factors that people identified. So in terms of takeaways um I think that within our respondents which we can talk
about um that kind of separately of um you know whether this was a um representative sample or not but within the people that took the survey there is that conditional support. there is a a broad sentiment that um families would
support um um passing something in order to provide more resources to the district. Um in terms of concerns, uh families in particular are really reacting to um impacts like class size, teacher strain,
just feeling the strain of our system. Um and then the core challenge uh in the data is really showing that um the the necessity of building confidence that the additional investment will lead to something meaningful and that they will
have transparency on what that will look like. Um and then in terms of a data appendex I just have the tables of the individual responses for each of the questions by each of the subgroups.
Dr. Thomas, do you have anything to add to that? >> No. >> No. Okay. So, board members, uh, is there any clarifying questions or, um, anything that you'd like to ask Dr. Zumbush can start from one end of the table or
if you guys can just pop in? Anybody have questions? >> I do. I don't know if you want to start at the end or >> I can or you can start. >> Okay. Um >> yeah, >> sure. Um just a question on the last slide. I think you added at the
appendix. Um I think some of the num the voting totals don't add up at the bottom on the right there like the top line zero per month 75 plus 124 doesn't equal 187. I don't know if are we missing votes. I
was just trying to add up numbers to understand like how many people support at what level. >> Um >> I mean it's an Excel formula so I didn't um I would have to pull up >> I just know they didn't match so it was
anyway I was trying to add up numbers and it wasn't making sense. >> Can you clarify which numbers are >> so the bottom right of it the voting total column I think the totals don't add on each level on each line >> like they're not the same as each other. Um, on the zero per month line, 785 plus
124 is not 187. >> It's 199. >> I I don't know if maybe I was trying to get that to align with the graph and I it wasn't making sense, so that's why it was going there. Um, >> they are all linked through
um I can take a look at that and follow. >> Yeah. No, perfect. I just want to make sure I understood the numbers. Um I I guess just I think feedbackwise um I think that the feedback here is very in line with what
we saw in prior surveys and the post-referendum survey in the community session. So I think that's great. It lines up with what we've heard throughout our community. Um, you know, I was a little disappointed in the
response rate from our voters or our our residents without our non-family residents. Maybe that's the way to say it. Um, you know, when I look at this, that is a large majority of our voters in our district, right? I think last
levy we had like 27k voters. So that would be they would be, you know, 18,000ish, call it, of our voter population. And so I think for me like weighting the voter side more heavily is probably important because it
is the majority of our voters. Um, and then when I looked at like the graph numbers, which again they kind of didn't align to the numbers, but I think the majority files, like you add up like the zero dollar are people that just won't
vote for it, right? The 15, 32, 46, like basically the majority of our voters are under 46 because the people that selected 46 would select anything below that, right? Or would vote for it. It's the way I interpret that in my brain.
Um, so that to me is like the majority of our voters. Um, I think, um, I don't know that I have any other questions, I guess, specifically, but just
I think our job, right, is going to be how do we get out to our non our non f non- studentent families um, and voters that don't have kids in the district. Um, obviously social media and the means that we sent this out isn't getting to
them. So, um, that will be important. >> Anyone else? Director Johnson. >> Yep. Um, thanks for the work that you put into this. Appreciate it. Um, and I think this along with everything else that we we're doing, um, as Director
Mason said, like this continues to give us good direction. um and definitely tells us that we're we're not reaching a target population, right, which is our residents that don't have children. Um
because they they get they get everything and maybe some of them are choosing not to do our surveys and right um and that's fine, right, if they don't want to, but we have a gap there. Um, and Director Mason kind of led into it,
right, with, you know, our population there, right? Maybe we hit about I just estimated about 8% based on our the the amount of people that voted for our levy last time. Um, it's a that's a large population of people. So, we know who we have to
target, right, for the future. And um I I I very much agree um with you know, as much as I think everyone at this table would love to see a 67 um I don't know if those the ones who
were not seeing take these surveys are going to be the ones to support something like that. Um, so unless we take another look and revamp and figure out a way to get those people right to answer these questions, um, we have to
look at what is going to pass and seriously take a look at that. That's that's all I got. >> Anyone else? >> Director France. >> Um, so I had a couple of questions. Thank you very much for your hard work
on this. Um I didn't see any numbers that didn't add up on the appendix, but um the we did a survey not this level of a of a you know non um third party survey like
we've done before. Um, how did that compare to the number of responses that we received prior to the 2024 where we kind of asked similar questions about what would you like to see improved in the district and where would you like to see the money spent and
stuff like that because I thought the number there was kind of low as well. >> Are you referencing the Leatherman survey? >> Well, um I know we did two surveys. The Leatherman survey was a little bit more specific and so they targeted people.
Um, and I don't really know how to compare them. >> Um, >> that was that was more >> all of them were even the one where we asked what would be what people would like to improve in the district. >> All right. I think the themes are the are very similar. I think one thing to
note is the Leatherman survey. I mean, we're we're we reside within the district. Leatherman ha is using census data from a voting perspective. So we come from a different lens and and our communications and our stakeholders are
largely families that attend our school district. Leatherman does a stratified random sample based on voters and actually makes calls. Um so the methodology is very different and the way in which he's reaching individuals
that are voters is very different from our um distribution method. Um he's also doing a very he will if he doesn't get a hold of someone he will replace someone within that same demographic versus we're really taking anybody who's
willing to respond. Um so it's just a completely different methodology. Yeah, I thought we had uh performed another just general survey as part of you know feedback on the district and all that before that that wasn't stutter sometime
before that that also came up with similar things like decreased class sizes etc. Um I know I've got some notes on it but um I didn't know if there was any comparison of the response rate. I do agree that overall out of the
percentage and number of voters um that um we've never been able to really reach everybody um even when we do it ourselves to our own students and all that they don't all respond. Um, but the thing that that I
see here is and what I'm concerned about is that whatever amount we put out there, uh, there's going to be a request to get some additional return on investment, not just tread water. >> Um, and so, um, that has and and the
cost of reducing class sizes is overwhelming. Yep. >> So, um we have a lot of education and communication to be had out there. Um and that that concerns me. But overall,
I think that we received a really positive feedbacks. I didn't think that as many people would go for the highest level and an overwhelming portion not only said we would we would uh vote for a levy but also a significant portion
went for the highest 67 um which is what we need. So that that's actually impressive. I'm just worried also as other people have stated about the population we are not reaching. >> I agree. I think the class size is an
important conversation because um in terms of a a research base um it is very expensive and it also doesn't inherently lead to measurable um academic outcomes. Um it it can in certain situations and
especially in lower grade levels. Um but that isn't inherently going to give us the return on investment um in terms of the measurable outcomes. So, um, that's another piece to keep in mind. >> Any other board members? Director Smith?
>> Yeah, thank you. Um, uh, again echoing that, thank you for all your work on this. Really appreciate it. Um, and yeah, I was, um, you know, also just kind of looking at the results and, um, you know, I think back to when we
started some of these conversations. um and uh thinking about um the question that I asked which was what do we want to do and how much would that take right um
and I I think this is um this is a good sample this is this is data it's great um but it's not obviously complete as as some of my colleagues have set up here right um I think that there is
um a an assumption being made that if we were to reach more people that the voter total uh residents with uh without kids in the districts in the district um that that overall amount would go down. But
that's not necessarily true, right? Because if we talk about what their top concern was, which was transparency with how that money was going to be spent. Um if we look at the other when we talk about the um
the other responses um transparency and specific use of funds. I think back to the costing document that you and your team put together which said if we want x amount of teachers like this is what it's going to take. if we want six paras or six specialists or whatever it is. Um
because again if whatever number we decide on um there is a point where our job as uh board members and as leaders is not to solicit more feedback. It is to lead and it is
to convey why we chose this amount. Um, so I think it's important that given that transparency and specific use of funds and and that is something that I heard um from families and parents and uh and residents in terms of why the
last levy was unsuccessful. Um yeah, I think that costing document went a really long way in explaining why we needed what we were asking for or what the what the um what the argument would have been for a certain amount. um because
clearly there are voters that uh don't have kids in the district that would support it and it is um again if we want to talk about sample size that's also a relatively small number of people that that took it right so that number could go out could go up could go down could
stay the same um but it's up to us to communicate and uh and sell for lack of a better phrase um why we chose that amount So >> that actually joged my memory. That's the survey we did is um we asked um a
followup after it failed as to why people voted the way that they did, how they voted, and why they voted the way that they did. Um so I'm thinking that's the survey that um and and it was the main theme was just un certainty about
how exactly the funds were going to be used. Um so I think that's maybe the the survey. Um but yes, I think um you know I I would imagine that the voters in this survey sample are not
representative of our voters at large because they're probably the most tapped into um community or schools. So I I don't feel strongly like this is a representative sample. I think again that's where the Leatherman methodology gives us something different than what
we can do internally. Um, I don't think there's any evidence that we can say this is what voters at large without kids in our district feel or would vote for. So, yeah, >> if I may just add, I have it printed. So, it's from the June 9th meeting if
anyone would like to see that. It's actually in the deck from called like neighborhood school closure and facility consolidation. So, it was hard for me to find, but just so that you all know, that's the referendum survey overview, like the post referendum one. Yeah. Yeah, >> that was one of them. Man,
>> it's a little buried is why I was trying to >> That's not the one that I was referring to. Can I Can I ask one more question? Sure. >> Um Dr. Zambush, um you know, in all my years on the board, every single one of them have mentioned uh from a any survey
that one of their top three issues was safety and security. And yet I didn't see that in here at all. >> No, it didn't really raise to the top. I'm sure there was some comments. Um, but it it really wasn't a theme and and it has been a theme, you know, in the
four years I've been here. It's been a prominent theme in a lot of our surveys and I I just didn't see it in this one. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Director Atinson. >> Um, thank you. Um, just um so one of the things when um thank you for everything.
Um when I look at this survey, I really I look at it like we talked about as really one single data point. Um which truly as we know never tells the whole story. So when we talk about the post levy survey, um I think the Morris Leatherman survey still at there's some
value into that. Um I did go back and look at that. We they surveyed 500 people and 66% of them were res were voters, not they did not have kids in our district. So, um, it was almost the like exact opposite of the percentages
within this survey. But again, I think this is one data point. And I think if it tells us anything, I think it tells us that we as a district need to do a better job of figuring out how to reach our voters in our community who are not as connected. And even going back to
what something director Olstead said earlier about the um parent caregiver survey, the amount of respondents to this survey and that survey were about identical. And that's really only 15% of our district families. And so again, how
do we lay we how do we um raise that level of engagement? We have, you know, 8,500 students. We have 16,000 parents that are, you know, a voter. So you know what I mean? like this is just I get it. They're the most engaged. I fully understand that. Um but I think between
the post levy survey, the Maris Mo Morris Leatherman survey, the town hall feedback that we got um as well as there's this survey, like I said, I look at this as just like one single data point. Um, and just to clarify, Director France, what um, I believe Director Mason was referring to on that last
slide is if you go across from a Z amount and you add 75 plus 124, it equals 199, not 187. So there that's where the that's what she was referring to, Director France. Okay, >> I will follow up. >> Okay, no, it's fine. I just she mentioned that it was she wasn't sure.
So, >> okay. Um, but other than that, like I said, um, I think one of the most encouraging things about this slide that we did not see on the Morris Leatherman slide, um, is that I loved seeing the level of support in general. I mean, I
think our community, you see it in like um, PTC's, they raise money and um, people are just really willing to support our schools. they're um they want to support our schools, but they want that level of transparency and they want to know exactly what they're spending their money on. So, I think
there's a lot of great takeaways here. So, thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Zimbush. Appreciate that. Um we will move on. Um it is 8:36, so maybe at after public forum we'll take a little
break. Um so, up next is Are we on public forum? Okay, thank you. I just lost my spot on my computer. Uh, next up is public forum and at this time we will open it up to citizen input which is important to the work of the board. We thank you for your engagement and ask
that speakers respect the threeminut time limit and uh please speak in the manner in which you prefer to be spoken to. Our first speaker tonight is Richard Wolf to address the board on the referendum. Thanks. Uh many of you were elected to
the board uh touting your experience in financial technology or financial management believing that you were the people who would find the hidden pot of money or the hidden extraneous spending and that was the reason for our district
and its budget. woes. But while you rem while you were removing DEI proclamations, removing library books from the library, this district has been run straight into financial ruin. You have failed this district. You have sold
off buildings, closed pools, shuttered schools, cut programs, and are laying off scores of teachers. And now we need to find a new superintendent. This is not a set of achievements to be
proud of. No organization becomes exceptional by just cutting all the time. This does district doesn't have a spending problem. It has a revenue problem. We have the fifth lowest local levy in the metropolitan area. The last
local levy was passed in 2017. You missed the opportunity last November to correct this situation and add revenue and we are worse off for it. But I believe the residents do support public education and this district. We
did it in 2017. We passed both a bond and a levy referendum with a wide 24point margin 63- 38. But all is not lost and you can turn this district around. As you study the
possibility of new levy referendum, I believe that these three things are needed for its passage. Solid, fullthroated board support. That can't be emphasized enough. No more hedging about requiring more data or more
information. Tell us what the district needs and then stand by your decision. Follow our founding fathers and their support for public education for all people. Make an argument why public education is so important and the foundation of an
educated people and why an uh the foundation of an educated people are good for our communities and our towns. Every survey survey I have seen always lists uh every survey I have seen about what
makes a city desirable and adds value to the homes and its residents has a great school system as either number one or number two on the priority list. Two, get the teaching staff on board. They are your best frontline ambassadors
for the district. Three, engage people face to face and relay stories why the referendum is needed and what is great about this district. The district has great teachers and great programs. We have great parents and students. Make
sure voters know about that. Gauge them face to face. And I would like to take an extra minute here to do a special recognition to ane uh exceptional person in this district who is retiring from this district. I know I
I ask forgiveness. I know she doesn't like to be in the limelight. And Martha uh hopefully you don't hate me for this, but Martha Walsh is truly an experienced and special talent in this district. for everybody who has been on the board and
especially for board chairs. We recognize and appreciate her warm, friendly and knowledgeable style in dealing with parliamentary issues, state documentation and proper operating procedures.
I hopefully the camera can pan on her so everyone can see her. Uh she has been a constant in this community in this community education program and in the district administration for as long as I can remember. I counted five different
superintendents you have worked with. Okay, that's correct. So Martha, I appreciated all your help when I was on the board and I want to thank you for all that help and you will be missed and I hope you enjoy your retirement. Thank
you. OUR next speaker is Katie Gabriel on funding um our schools and the future of the district. Good evening, Chair Bullion, Dr. Thomas, and members of the board. My name is Katie Gabrio. I use she her pronouns. I
live in Savage and I have two students in the district. I want to start by thanking all of our staff, teachers, and administrators. I imagine many of you are feeling weary from what feels like a relentless storm. We are watching a country at war, a community navigating
the lasting impacts of Operation Metro Surge, impacts that continue to disproportionately affect immigrant families and people of color in our community, and a district facing ongoing cuts due to financial challenges exacerbated by some board members who
appear to be actively working against our district's success. Each of these, on their own, is a heavy load to bear. Combined, it may feel soulc crushing, exhausting, trying to keep standing as the storm keeps striking.
When exhaustion hits, I often remember this quote. The devil whispered in my ear, "You are not strong enough to withstand the storm." I whisper back, "I am the storm." To our staff, teachers, administrators, and community, if you
are feeling weary, remember we are the storm. We are the storm that stands up and raises our voices in support of our students, staff, teachers, and administrators. We are the storm that calls BS on board members who never supported the last
levy. Funding that was sorely needed to support student success and the district's mission. Yet now you sit there figning shock claiming it hurts your heart that cuts are being made and grandstanding with self-gratuitous speeches. You aren't fooling anyone by
voting against the very cuts that are ma made necessary because of the failed levy. A levy that you did not support. That's not leadership. That is cowardice. We are the storm that calls BS on the hypocrisy of praising our staff,
teachers, and administrators one minute and the next disparaging them and sewing seeds of distrust of them within our community. Please know that we will be the storm. When we head to the polls, we will vote for a levy that provides the funding needed to be a world-class district
centered on students and driven by results. And we will vote to fill as many seats as possible at that table with people who truly care about all of our students who truly support our staff, teachers, and administrators, and who truly value public education. Thank
you. Okay, next up is the purpose and agenda and I'll invite Dr. Thomas to review that. >> Oh, do does board members do would you like a resource recess? I feel like some of some of us haven't left. We feel good. We're good. Okay, we're good for
now. Let me know if if you want to I can do that. U so Dr. Thomas, I invite you to the >> to review the purpose and agenda for us, please. >> Thank you, Chair Bull and board directors. Uh this evening for our uh study session is our opportunity to engage in deeper conversation uh with a
variety of topics. Uh we have a couple of proclamations that we'll review this evening. Uh we also will go over some of our budget conversations and give you some updates on latest uh kindergarten enrollment. um uh historical list of a
budget adjustments um reconciliation of uh categorization of staffing um so that we can increase uh understanding uh with our community around how staff is coded. Uh and then the uh standing kindergarten enrollment update. Uh we also have an
elementary and literacy second uh secondary mathematics curriculum presentation and then an annual wellness review. Um and then we there might be a point for you to speak about the special meeting from the uh session you had this
evening around uh superintendent search and then a series of policies um to review. Uh chair, out of respect of time um I I'm going to request of of the board if we could move um the elementary literacy and secondary mathematics
curriculum presentation. We've got staff and teachers here who are uh ready to present and I know they've got kids coming in bright and early tomorrow morning and they're sure probably grading and prepping and all that. So if if it would be the will of the board to support that, I would like to start with them so that they can go ahead and tend
to other uh business this evening. >> So uh 6C >> uh to start off with 6C as we go into um absolutely >> the conversation. >> Anybody have any issues with that? Okay, we will do that. We will start with um
item 6 C on our agenda. Um >> thank you. >> The curriculum presentation recommendation will be brought forward uh for the board for board action at the May 4th meeting. So um I'll invite the
directors up to report on that. Hey Martha, what is the button I push? >> Oh, so I just need a >> Okay. Okay, just PDF. >> This That was pretty good. Good evening. Good evening, >> Dr. Anderson. Chair
>> Bull and Superintendent Thomas. I get choked up when you move agenda items earlier in Me agenda. >> It's my pleasure to be with you tonight uh to continue our exploration of and to move closer to finalizing the adoption
of the stuff we've worked so hard on for so long. you know our strategic plan and I just wanted to uh mention to you that um alignment to our priorities is a hallmark of this uh content this evening. Uh this committee uh at the
elementary level was 32 committee members big. They were excited to serve, put in countless extra hours um and sincerely desire to make an ever bigger difference for our kiddos and they're already seeing results based on the work that they've done so far. like to
recognize um uh Gwen Molden too for her stewardship of this process. Uh and I'm so proud of their work and those teachers who have been to the teacher and learning advisory committee uh and have been uh here this evening um I bet they would have stayed till 1:00 a.m.
when we finish tonight because they care that much. Uh and our kids are lucky to have these these folks serving. There's no doubt in my mind why the student survey comes out the way it does because despite whatever conditions exist, these people show up for kids every day. They'll be there tomorrow making a huge
difference. So, our agenda tonight um is to do that elementary literacy team update. You'll find a timeline and the requirements that you've seen before. You'll get information on the field test just like teaching and learning advisory committee did from parents and teachers.
You'll hear about the teacher experience, get their recommendation, and then of course implementation considerations, which are super important. On the math side, all those same things are true. Uh the teacher dedication is true. I think uh um Janine
would have stayed till 1:00 a.m. too. Um uh and uh a difference is we also got student data on the math side. And so that'll be important for you to to appreciate. So, elementary literacy, without further ado, you've seen this timeline before in the board packet. Um,
it's been a couple of years of this work and um we've done all the things. We studied the MDE requirements and guidance. We know what's aligned to the approved stuff. Uh we're aligned with statute. We're aligned with the science
of reading. Um we're very confident in the work that we've done. Halfway through the work, we developed a list of the things we'd look at for that field test. The field test uh provided the opportunity for parents and community members to look at those materials
and we did a thorough uh vetting. I participated in a few focus groups um with teachers around what they were finding, what efficacy looked like kind of in the at the beginning, the middle, and the end. uh and uh was there at the end when they wrestled, called an extra
meeting to wrestle further, met late into the evening to wrestle further and get to a place where we had consensus uh and confidence in the recommendations that you'll see. And I I already mentioned that we're aligned to the read Act, but I want to invite Gwen up. Uh the extra expertise
and hours that she's put in to shepherd these 32 excited educators is exemplary. So, please um just appreciate all that she contributes every day. Thank you, Gwen. Dr. Anderson. Um, I'm going to go back a little bit. I'm going to give you
a little of the historical context and go through each of these segments on that timeline. This may look familiar because we talked about it in the fall, but that was a long time ago. So, we'll take some time just to kind of reset so that we have that common grounding going into the rest of tonight. And those of
you on the teaching and learning advisory get to see it one more time. So, um, as Dr. Anderson said, the Read Act is really the inspiration for all of this getting started. So, that was passed into legislation in May of 2023.
And that reading to ensure academ academic development act, the goal is really that every child is reading at or above grade level. So, the reason that read Act really was propelled in our state is because of the science of reading. And so, you've probably heard
about that term um, being out and about. And basically what that is is it's a collection of 50 plus years of research about how we learn how to read. And the really amazing thing is all of that research has converged into an agreement
on how our brains are working when we're reading and maybe some things that are happening when it isn't working. So that research has really pointed us as educators to know what works best when people are learning how to read and how
we can effectively do that in our classrooms. So really the science of reading is kind of that what and what we instruct is really structured literacy which is kind of the how that we do that in our classrooms. So our teachers engaged in that training. So the phase
one training we talked about before that online language and literacy academy and that really grounded us in the science of reading and structured literacy. So through MDE they started with that training component and then they also did something unprecedented where they
looked at curriculum materials and let different companies submit their curriculum to be evaluated through a rigorous process through the state. So on that website that we looked at last time, there are uh reports that are multiple pages long. There are rubrics
that are evaluating from each of these curriculum companies. And what they decided to do was categorize them in different ways by highly aligned to evidence-based structured literacy practices, then partially aligned,
minimally aligned, and not aligned. So all of the different curriculum resources they were able to explore and look at and put in one of those categories. They also have a side category of non-ranked that we'll talk about kind of as we move forward.
So when our curriculum committee first got together, we decided we needed to really explore that website, look at the different curriculum resources that were out there and just try to learn a little bit more about the process that MDE was
using to evaluate those resources. So through that first meeting, we looked at all of them, whether it was partially aligned, not aligned, highly aligned to see the difference. And we had a big discussion at that meeting of where are we going to place our efforts
and it was an overwhelming I think everyone said we need to just look at the highly aligned. Why would we look at partially aligned? When we looked at those rubrics anything in the partially aligned is basically saying there are some gaps or holes in that curriculum
resource that does not align to the science of reading or structured literacy. So what we would have to do then is purchase something supplemental to fill that gap or hole. So we would end up training our teachers knowing that we would need to do more training
and purchase more. So that point we said let's just look at the highly aligned list. We know that that would have everything that we need. So since that's kind of confusing we put it in this table that's here because there's different types of resources.
So the first one I'm going to start is the one in green which is called comprehensive curricula. And notice the state identified one. That comprehensive package is like everything together that you would need. It would have your reading, your
writing, your vocabulary, your grammar, plus your early literacy, your phonics, and your word study. So it's kind of the complete package. So again, they identified one. If that one comprehensive package isn't something that interests you, then you would have
to pair two together. So you can see the foundational curricula in yellow, that would be your early literacy, your phonics, your word study, and you'd have to pair that with the knowledge building. So again, notice there's one knowledge building. That knowledge
building is your reading, your writing, your vocabulary, your grammar. So if you pair the knowledge building with your foundational, you get the same thing as that comprehensive curricula package. I also have foundations on there which
is our current resource in K3 for our phonics and early literacy that was placed in the non-ranked criteria because it does align to the science of reading in many ways but it was lacking or weak in phmic awareness and fluency.
So we knew that that was something that was really important and that we would have to kind of study. So what we ended up doing is having pre presentations from all of these companies. We decided we wanted to hear from all of them. So they came either in person or were
virtual and they presented to us, gave us copies of the curriculum, gave us online access and we were able to really learn about those resources. Um during that process, we also had foundations come and do a presentation because after
getting on that non-ranks list, they didn't really like that so much from the state. So they put up an update and so they had another addition and so they presented and kind of told us the things that they had done to try to kind of fix what the state had found as being kind
of deficient. So we spent a lot of time as a committee looking at and learning about all of the curriculum. We also reached out to other districts who were either already piloting or possibly already implementing to get kind of their
feedback on what they were thinking on the curriculum that they were using as well. So, a lot of time really on this part of our process. You can see once we got to a point, I think it was June, we had had all our
presentations and we sat down for another big meeting looking again at all of our priorities, looking at what we learned from our training from our online language and literacy academy. Looked at what are really some district priorities that we know we have. And we
decided that we wanted to try in our classrooms the ones on that left-hand side. we did not care for the comprehensive package. So that one choice um for many different reasons. So that really led us to that arts and
letters as the knowledge building, the reading and writing um part. And we wanted to try two of the phonics. So back here on the yellow, we were really interested in the functional phonics and the UFly foundations. They were both
very similar in structure and we really wanted to see what it would look like in action in our classrooms and see how we could compare those. The other one that we ended up also trying is the functional morphology and that's a little bit of an outlier because it's really the only one for third, fourth,
and fifth grade that really focuses on morphology and study of words. And our third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers really felt like that's something that's lacking. and we've seen it in our data as well that just learning those parts of words was really important. So the
recommendation then came from the committee that we field test those four. So we had 42 classrooms that jumped on and said yes to the field testing. So all of those classrooms were working
with arts and letters throughout the school year. We had some of our K2 classrooms working on functional phonics. some of them using UFly and then all of our third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers were using functional morphology. They received training in
the summer on the resources and some time to try to prepare to use them with students. So, we have spent this school year um learning a lot about those resources and really about what structured literacy and the science of
reading really means in action because it's one thing to learn about it and to read about it and study it, but to actually do it was a whole another game. So, we've learned a lot and we do have some teachers here that can talk about what they've learned as well. Um, so
before we get in kind of to our next part, another thing that you might be familiar with is we usually have a vision statement for all of our curriculum review. So when we came here for math, this was one of the first things that we did in our process that would kind of guide us. We held off on
establishing that ELA vision until we had a chance to learn about the science of reading and until we had a chance to actually do structured literacy and feel that in our classrooms and experience that. So we started with our committee and our March meeting that we just had
and had them start kind of talking about what would you like or what do you think our classroom should look like with literacy? What should it look like? What should it sound like in there? What should it feel like? And so we have had a couple different drafts in our committee meetings, which is what you
see on that vision draft. And we will then get input from teachers as they start using the resources next year. And then we will expand that into 612 as they are now going to enter in phase two of the readact soon as well. So that
really kind of takes us through that timeline. Um the part that Dr. Dr. Zumbush is going to talk us through is what data we did collect during that field test time um during the school year. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um so like our other uh
adoption processes, we um followed a very similar uh methodology in terms of collecting data from our um teachers on the ground. So um we conducted focus groups. I believe um Dr. Anderson um mentioned this in our January um
professional development day. We conducted focus groups with all of the pilot teachers and collected that qualitative feedback. Um in terms of uh the summary, I think um we really this is a very these are very
rigorous curriculum packages. Um so I think we experience this um in in math in elementary as well. Um there's a big learning curve both for teachers and for students and a change in terms of kind of the ability for students to you know
their their stamina to sit through this um very rigorous um instructional um process. So um you know kind of the pros and cons that come with that rigor. It was um we the teachers were um complimenting the rigor um but also
noticing that um that does uh cause a change for students and and um we just talked a lot about that. Um also we started talking about what instructional blocks or um scheduling considerations we need to think about in terms of um
implementation of the science of reading for next year. Uh we conducted a parent survey of uh parents who um had students in the pilot classes. They all received a letter in the fall and then we followed up to ask their feedback as
well. Um the feedback was we received 60 respondents which I believe was about two respondents per classroom. So fairly low um in terms of parent responses but um there was kind of a wide range of
feedback there. Um there were some parents who reported um some very high engagement um and then some that were um you know noticing the the increased rigor and the strain and so um there were some frustrations as well. Um we
saw very similar things with our bridges um pilot as well. Um, in terms of our um, pilot teachers, we asked all of the teachers based on your experience with the pilot this year um,
what would you recommend in terms of what we do in terms of adoption? Um we asked um in terms of in general what are some of the strengths and challenges in terms of
your experience with this um field test process. Um the strength is really has to do with that rigor and academic growth. um the instructional cohesion and application the package really does um cross a lot of different areas and I'll let the teachers speak to that more
but that a lot of it is integrated in terms of reading writing vocabulary in a way that we haven't um experienced systematically before um and that uh there was generally um praises for um low preparation time and um relative
ease of implementation nothing is easy to implement um but relatively speaking Um it was it was um a positive report on that. Um and then the challenges again having to do with the pacing, the amount of content we need to cover, um the stamina of students. And then um just
you know kind of one of the conversations that we've been having over the past um year is really about what this increased rigor um means for um students in terms of you know choice reading or or reading as a class or some
of those more passionate areas for both students and teachers. So after all those um data collection processes, we got the committee together um and we went over norms and uh agreed in advance on a recommendation process.
So we agreed to a fist of five um process where um we were basically voting. Um, but if you have a one or a two, you kind of have to explain why you chose um that and and explain what would need to happen in order for you to feel
confident moving forward. This is the data from our ELA committee, the fist of five. Um, so the first one um in the upper left is that um conversation about um that Gwen was talking about when we're are we talking about do we want to
pick you or functional phonics? Um, this ended up being a much longer story. So, I'll get to that in a second and not make it that long. Um, but then, um, there was kind of mixed reviews and what we saw is that people really voted for the one that they implemented. So, they
generally, um, wanted to continue doing the one that they piloted, which makes a lot of sense. Um, in terms of arts and letters, we had a lot of fours and fives. Um we had some threes, we had one, two, that person was able to express their um opinion and and the
committee was able to move forward with that as well. Um and then we talked about the functional morphology that was a unanimous we need it. Um to Gwen's point, our CAPY data really shows that we're lacking in that um morphological
area and every teacher unanimously uh thought that this was the right thing for us to move forward with. Um so leaving that we we um as a committee they felt that we hadn't really landed
on like you fly versus functional phonics we hadn't really landed on a decision that everyone felt comfortable with. So to to the credit of the K3 teachers, K2 teachers, I think it was literally the next evening they came to the district service center and worked
for multiple hours to really disentangle what differences do we see between functional phonics and UFly. Um and it was like each table had a grade level. They were really looking to determine um what are the key differences? Um what
are the things that we notice? is one going to be better than the other and kind of teaching each other about the ones that they piloted. Um that was a huge ask for them to do that and they did it um willingly and brought tons of materials and books and all that and we
really did that sideby-side comparison. um at the end of it uh I think after all of the work and all of the um really digging into it um at the end students finished second grade really in the same
place between the two resources. So slightly different shape path but in the end um it really was um and and Gwen said this before very very similar products. um one of the real um and we actually had a rubric that we compared
on all these different um criteria. Um but really when it came down to it um I I think um the question at the end of it was um you know if we could afford to buy some additional books or something like
decodables is the is the one resource that we would really love to have in our classrooms. Would that make a difference? and and at the and then we had a a meeting to pull in finance and the superintendent and really at the end of the day you fly is a significantly
less expensive resource. And so after all of that um more or less the decision came down to um we would like to recommend you fly because it costs significantly less than functional phonics. Um so that's a long way to say
um we want to go with the the more fiscally um responsible option. One of the major components financially with it is that um functional phonex requires um consumables. So we would have to purchase um books that uh notebooks that
students um use and write in and we have to purchase that every single year and that is a an expense that we didn't feel comfortable like we could maintain over time. Um UFly does not have the um the consumable component. So that was our um
conversation about that. Um there's a lot to do in terms of logistical and material prep, especially as we're moving buildings, a lot of professional development and training. Um we actually have a meeting tomorrow evening um to talk about grading and assessment because there's a lot of changes um that
we want to talk about the elementary level in terms of grading um the scheduling, the building schedules for next year. Having this amount of literacy block is not necessarily in place at all of our schools. So we have a lot um and all of this came through um our various data and then really um the
need to have a parent communication plan. There are some really key things that parents need to know that is different from um maybe what they um know about the the um process of learning to read um and what some of the terminology is. So, um, having that
communication plan, um, and even some family nights or things like that, um, regardless of of the direction to to keep everyone up to date on on that science of reading. Um, and then we did present this to the
teaching and learning advisory committee, and I'll hand this back to Dr. Anderson. Um, very similar presentation, a little little slower. Um but we went to the teaching and learning advisory committee um and this was and then we asked for feedback on um what
the committee thought about um the feedback and then um Dr. Anderson will talk about that and then we'll hear from two of the teachers. >> Impressive in that um she did that all in one breath. >> Very impressive. Uh, no, that was super
efficient. And I think you can tell uh the incredible amount of work uh that's gone into this and the care that they that our team has. Uh I just would point out our district is pretty lucky for lots of reasons again related to the staff we have deployed. But um I'm telling you there's not a better uh
research and evaluation and improvement official than Dr. Jay-Z. So I just want you to know that she uh plays on six levels all at once and she doesn't complain that much to me. uh but she's top-notch and so uh she helps round out
our team and and make us way better. The teaching and learning advisory committee um u met a number of times this year. A big focus of that those meetings were literacy and math and uh thanks to director Olstead and director France for their fabulous engagement. Uh director
Atkinson as well u came and um got to see the smoke rising from the hard work we were doing. Uh here's some of the feedback that we got from that crew uh throughout the year. Um and relative to these recommendations, first uh there's
high confidence and this is a high percent. You don't get 90% on much uh of committee affirmation for the authentic literacy vision. So when we do exit ticket data gathering from TAC, we always ask what questions might you have? What affir affirmations might you
offer? And then what uh suggestions might you make? and nearly everybody turns those in every time and then we synthesize the data. So this 90% number um is one we can feel great about. Uh and some focus areas uh for the committee were appreciation of this real
world context that uh was uncovered as we work with these materials with our young people. Uh this focus on morphology at the at the older grades and then uh building reading stamina. You've heard evidence of that. And then this teacher voice point that uh super
high alignment between the teacher pilot feedback and what the committee then observed. They had a chance to manipulate the materials and ask questions. Here's some quotes from our valuable TAC members and a nod to these folks who give up their time uh because
they care. And um uh you can see what they said. I love these changes. Uh I like the idea of great lowerc costing curriculum. Dr. Jay-Z just talked about that. some advice about how we communicate. Uh surprising to me that not everyone thinks that we communicate
perfectly every time, but we listen to that and we think about what we can do with that. Um and folks generally found it to be a very thoughtful process. Uh and again that's because of the excellent staff we deployed. There was some thematics that crossed both the
math TAC feedback and the literacy feedback. So I I grouped them together here to try to be efficient later. in the math part, but um folks really appreciate on TAC when we can bridge gaps. So, uh can we do efficient
effective intervention work? Uh especially when we're thinking about transitioning from what we've had to what we're going to have. Uh and so we're going to pay particular attention to how to make that transition. I heard echoes of that certainly in the math side when we think about the trans uh transfer from middle to high school.
It's also true as we transition from what we've done in literacy before to what we're doing now because it's a big jump in rigor. It's a lot harder to do this well. Uh these are the people to do it. Um and we should feel good about that. And then concerns about time management. So how does the schedule uh
protect the things we hold most sacred in terms of literacy and mathematics and so we'll always be partnering with our building admin on how the schedule can best support learning um and learning excellence. A few other things here. We want high quality content at low cost. I
mean, again, uh the the committee now it's in their blood. They're thinking about what's the uh optimization of resources choices that they can make. Um we had some treatment of long-term licensing and resource allocation. So, I just appreciate that while their heart is in teaching and learning, they're
also thinking about our fiscal responsibility to our taxpayers. And so, I'm going to invite two of our star educators up here. Now, last time um when they came to TAC, their part was three hours. >> So, I hope that's okay with you. >> No, >> no. Uh I'm going to let them introduce
themselves. You can see what the recommendations are, but they're going to give teacher voice to it. These folks have been working um like the dedicated professionals making a difference for kids that they are. I'm so pleased to have them address you this evening. >> Hi, I'm Shaina Bates. Um I teach first
grade at Hamilton Ridge. >> And I'm Elizabeth Fry. I teach fifth grade at Hamilton Ridge as well. >> So, we're just reading what we recommend. >> Say what the recommenders. >> Okay. We recommend that um our school district adopt arts and letters. We also
recommend we adopt UFI for grades K through two >> as well as adopt functional morphology for grades three through five. And then you can see our big wise, but uh some of our biggest wise are the strong alignment between teacher experience, student outcomes, and standards
expectations. Um the consistent themes across stakeholder feedback and that this is a resource that can be or these are all resources that can be implemented effectively and sustained over time. Next steps would be if approved purchase of resources and detailed planning about
rollouts as well as long-term implementation plans. Um as part of this process I just would like to speak um just as a personal experience. Uh I have been completely overwhelmingly
proud of the process that we've had. Um we have worked tireless hours. Um we have fantastic leadership guiding us and um making sure that we are being diligent in our decision- making. Um this process is never easy. I would say
it's making those decisions and it's it's a lot of power in our hands to make these really a lot of pressure that not always is something that um we take lightly. Um, so something with this, I feel incredibly proud to have been um,
field testing this year. Um, some quick little stories that happened in at least my classroom in fifth grade. Um, I have loved the crosscurricular um, with between our ELA standards and our science standards. One of the things that we learned about in our units, one
of our modules was how do extreme settings affect someone? And we learned about the all 13 um, students. We read the book um with the a soccer team that got caught in a cave in Thailand. And we
one of the really unique pieces of these of arts and letter modules is that they um have kind of an intro and then a bookend to kind of kick off the setting and then kind of celebrate the ending. And to kick off our setting, we did a documentary just to kind of say, okay,
what do we know about these kids and what do we know about the setting? And just to kind of tee it up a little bit. And at the end of our uh reading of our module, we were reading the book. And with the reading of the book, mind you, they already know that like they all are
okay. So, sorry spoiler, but um they all made it out okay. And they were talking and we were reading the story and they already knew the characters and we had invested so much in these characters. because I felt like we were going through this journey with him that one of the boys I was running out of time and I was quickly trying to read it to get to the end of the chapter and one of
the boys goes, "I'm going to I I'm fine missing recess. I'm okay with missing recess. I just want to know what happens at the end." I was like, "But you already know. You already know the ending." But he was so engaged with the curriculum, with the story, with hearing how the author had
rolled out that plot in that setting was incredible. to hear a little fifth grade boy not wanting to go outside for recess because he wanted to hear an ending that he already knew which was pretty cool. Um it ties so well with our science curriculum as well. Um it's a car cave
that they got trapped in and so being how cars cave um is created has lots of holes and our science standards um we just finished a science experiment where we had a mystery powder that we had to like investigate and you know separate and figure out what that was. Well, that
mystery powder was what cars caves are made out of. So, that tied tremendously to what we were learning about. And then you saw the light bulbs go off and just be like, "What? That's the mystery powder that we just learned in our science experiment." I was like, "Yes, it's on the window sill right now. We can go and look at it and see all the
crystals. It's great." So, it's been um so fun to see how yes, the rigor and yes, the stamina has been a shift, but they're reaching those goals so wonderfully and they are able to rise to
that occasion. And learn change is hard. Learning is those changes can be challenging, but to see the light bulbs, to see the aha moments has been fantastic. And usually and typically I would say in the fifth grade writing can
be extra challenging where um those sentence structures, paragraph structures and things of that nature can be um difficult. But um at the beginning of the year sometimes at those meet and greets that I love when I get to go and sit down with those kids and just have that one-on-one time with them.
Typically I ask those questions of like what is you know what are you excited about for the year? What's something that you're nervous for? And kids typically say I'm nervous for writing. And I would say probably 80% of the kids always say that. So I always am like, "Okay, we need to figure that out."
Well, this year we do so much reading to build that background knowledge to tee them up so well with arts and letters for their writing that that very first time that they had to just write a paragraph even though I have kids that are reluctant writers that you know
wouldn't want to it would you could hear pin drop in my classroom that first time they went to go write because they didn't have to work so hard to have that background knowledge to create the ideas. We had built all of that. So that when they when they went to go write, they already had the idea. They just
needed to put it down on paper. So that has changed directory of of writing for my students particular for them to have that confidence to have that background knowledge to feel the success which to me is a huge win. So >> absolutely
>> those are just a couple of my stories but >> I don't need to add any stories right now because it's exactly what Elizabeth said. I think for me like the biggest struggle in the beginning was the stamina for the kiddos. Like it it's a tough ask right away. Um but now the
level of engagement is pretty it's unbelievable with the whole gamut of all the kids in the classroom. I mean the millions we're are we're just wrapping up our one module. all about wind power, which who knew you could do a whole module on wind power, but we did and
it's the kids loved it and um the amount of questions and that they ask and they go research at home and we all now know how windmills work and what they do and it's pretty incredible. >> You have any questions? >> Yeah, that's kind of why we're here,
too. Um, well, I just want to say I I thank you for all the for the stories, for the um the comprehensive work. Like I felt the work put into it through your
presentation, through all of your, you know, all of you, all of your presentations. I mean, I I I really appreciate how you presented this because um it increases my confidence in
not only um what you do, but just the hearing the increased capacity. Dr. Anderson, you talk about increasing capacity a lot and with that is a it's stretching, but it increases, like you said, the confidence and all those
things. So, I appreciate really hearing all the work put into it. Um, and with that said, um, I will open it up for conver or questions or clarifications from from them. Director Johnson. >> Sure. First, uh, thank you both for
sharing the stories. It's greatly appreciated. Um, and just painting a a truly vivid picture. Like, I can sit there and especially with, you know, the fifth grade boy, right? like >> it's just like you you see it all happening, right? So, thank you for
that. Um >> I only have one question and whoever wants to answer it or both of you, however, um with new curriculum having gone through that, right? Um it's it's difficult for parents too. And so I I'd
like to know how you guys dealt with that. um how how you navigated that and how you are I know that um Jay-Z mentioned that you guys are are getting together and you're going to you know explore that more next year. Um just h
how did you go about that? How do you want to go through that next year and help out your your colleagues? >> I mean to be honest I haven't gotten a single parent question about okay anything as far as literacy in the classroom. So, I mean, that's a kind of
a big tell, too, right? Um, but we also every week I just kind of put out a little blurb on what we're studying and if they have questions, let me know and that's kind of it. >> Great. >> Yeah. >> Um, I would say same. I haven't really had a lot of feedback from my families.
Um, but conferences have kind of aligned perfectly for assessments and kind of discussing that. um at Hamilton we did paper copy assessments and then we moved to um online assessments and we just kind of created a cover sheet to be able to communicate um what that uh printout
kind of looked like because it was a little bit different because it was standard based versus like an overall grade. Um so we have a website and we communicate a lot through that just updating it through the newsletter format. Um and then just allowing this is a learning opportunity, thanks
for partnering with us, please let us know if you have any questions kind of opportunity. Um but our committee our committee um definitely has been working on that whole piece with implementation. >> I sorry can I have one more thing because I did think of something. So with UFly the phonics part of the
curriculum we send there's half sheets that go home with every new lesson which is every other day. So really two go home a week that talks about the different words that we're studying the different type of pattern what you can do at home. So that's a big piece of the communication too that goes home twice a week.
>> Awesome. Thank you both. >> With arts and letters, they also have a family unit letter >> that is we have the ability to send home and there's also a website that parents can go on and click and there's tips and tricks and ideas for reading with your child at home, questions to ask, some
literature that you could be reading with them as well. >> Absolutely. I know you guys want parent involvement just as much as I think everyone else does and just any way you know tips and tricks in anything you can pass along and we can help with that.
It's you know let us know. So thanks again for everything that you you did up here. >> Dr. Olston. >> Yes. Good evening. Um I full disclosure both my babes had both these ladies for uh at some point. Um,
so I only say that because I know these are like the two most perfect people to pilot something new. Um, and um, my question is when you talk about like some of the or it's in here and you talk about some of the challenges about the
pacing and the stamina concerns, like I would imagine especially for first graders if you're doing something for an hour and a half. I can imagine, you know, things get a little wonky in there after doing something for that long. So is there any kind of feedback or any
kind of suggestions that you would have to shift some things like maybe next year in scheduling? I mean is it and along with that is it possible or a good idea to split it or is it better to just do it all at once? I mean
>> great question. Something we've definitely been like toying back and forth with. Um I think arts and letters is an hour chunk and then you would do the half an hour phonics or morphology a separate time. So at least there's a big break there. Okay. >> Um and then also for example in my classroom we do a bathroom break in
between usually the writing and reading part and it kind of fluctuates during the day what time or when we do that which is why it's nice to get up and move and go do that. But also a big piece of it is they're not just sitting like we are up and doing they're doing a mix and mingle. They're doing a we're
going back to our desk and we're writing two sentences in their journal. Okay, now come back to the floor and now we're going to do this piece. And it is a lot of moving. And I do think that's kind of where the art of teaching comes in too is knowing your kids, knowing okay, I can tell you've been sitting too long. Let's move on to this or we're going to
I am going to make you write this in your notebook this time because now it gets you up and moving and doing that piece. >> So I think that that's kind of does it's a hard transition, but once as we go on it does kind of start to come naturally, too. >> Sure. and it's built into the curriculum. >> Sure.
>> I would just d everything that she just said in the fact that it's just something that um every day looks a little bit different. >> Um it's not always the same where I think our structure in past years has been like a mini lesson and then apply that into their independent reading, a
mini lesson and apply it into their independent writing where that structure just isn't the same and every day just looks a little bit different. So um there is predictability in the structure but not necessarily what the roll out of the day is going to look like which kind of helps keep it fresh and engagement
high. >> I don't first >> yeah hopefully a quick one. Um thank you and thank you so much for all the work that you put into this. Um appreciate it. Um just a quick question actually feedback that I heard too from from
pilot teacher and student but um in the challenges around like there wasn't a lot of time for like indep independent choice reading. So how do we like address that or supplement that are we going to ask kids to like read more at home or how do you how do you address that?
>> Well I think reading at home is always great. Um I fully support that. Um but I think it's something one of the big things in our implementation rollout team is fitting that in to really um
make that a priority because it is important for that choice reading and to instill the love of reading independently about what they um enjoy reading about whether it's historical fiction or non-fiction or just fiction. um that is part of that win time um
whatever what I need um slot of time where it allows for kids to have a little bit more choice for what they need for learning. Maybe that's when we pull our small groups to do some interventions. Maybe that's when they're doing their independent reading time. Maybe it's even to do something math
related or what that looks like. Um currently that's when our kids in my class are doing their independent reading is during their win time. Um, and there's are days where our lesson maybe doesn't take the full hour depending on what that looks like and they still are able to have that independent reading time during that
arts and letters time. It just isn't always consistently during that one hour block, but there is about 20 to 30 minutes of win time that will be built into the schedule most likely next year. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you so much, >> Dr. Atinson. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, thank you for your
passion um, and what you do and you guys actually asked a lot of my questions. Check, check, check. Um, just a couple quick questions. Um, when when you're in the classroom and you're teaching the 90 minutes, how much of it is on the iPad versus um, none of it's on the iPad. >> None.
>> We don't have iPads in first grade. >> Okay, very good. I'm reading a book called Digital Delusion. It's very interesting. If you haven't heard of it, I highly recommend it. Um, yeah. I mean one of my concerns it you know transparency it's right in the presentation regarding that that independent reading time. So um as far
as parent resources do you feel that it has adequate these um resources have enough parent resources? I know that was one of the criticisms in the past of one of our adoptions that it didn't not read. >> It has a lot more options for both our morphology as well as arts and letters um and where
in the past um there wasn't always a communication piece that was provided with the curriculum. >> Okay. Thank you. And then just before we adopt this um from a financial standpoint, if we could get some um um transparency around the cost, how much funding we received, um does it align
with our budget, all that kind of stuff. Um I don't need it now. I'm just saying before we actually adopt it. I'd like to see that um as well. >> We could do it now, but it would be a half hour deal. >> Point of information for next meeting. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Um as long as you know, are you able to like post
the curriculum online so parents can review it ahead of time and that type of thing as well? I mean, >> um we had a viewing session uh for the at our schools for the curriculum that we were field testing. Um, we did put um some with our assessments, we did put
some of that in there for them to be able to look at the and compare and contrast the questions that were asked so they can like align it with whatever question they they maybe got right or wrong because the format is a little bit different with the online testing, but that would be the only online part on an
iPad. But yes, it's readily available for them to view. Um, oftentimes there's at times we have them uh have it sent home to kind of work on things. So then there is that communication piece just to kind of say this is something that we're working on. Please go ahead and take a chance to peek at it if you'd
like to or not. >> Yeah. Thank you. That's all I had. Thank you. >> Sure. And a big piece with the arts and letters too is that they do have actual books. Yes. Too. And so you know when we're doing and they might have one that they're sharing between two kids, but they are actually paging through the books find finding places. They're putting post-its. They're, you know,
their hands are on the books, too. >> Yeah, they know that really cool word annotating. Now >> they do, even the first. >> Thank you, >> director France. >> Um, first of all, um, been through multiple of these presentations at the teaching and learning committee and the
um, and the questions and answers that you guys were able to provide. So, I would just want to say I appreciate it. I'm really excited about this and uh loved the in-depth um discussions as well as um the analysis and the
continued uh definitions for uh you know for the non-teers on how morphology and the different phonics and and everything that you learned in your training and how this curriculum added up to that.
So, I just I really appreciate it and um obviously we talked a lot about the finances uh for this as well and I'm grateful that it lined up that the cheaper option uh became the better option uh unanimously from the teachers.
So, thank you very very much. >> Dr. Smith, did you have anything to add or are >> This sounds like a great plan and I'm excited to be a part of it. So, okay. Thank you. Appreciate everything. Thank you for staying. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Have a great night. >> Dr. Anderson, >> don't you just feel better about the world after that? >> Honestly, yes. >> I'm still looking that up on my Google device. First graders.
So, sincere thanks. Um, I really appreciate the engaged uh uh TAC committee and then this uh board um because um it's a sophisticated review and oversight. So I appreciate that. Um our hearts will be warmed in a different
way when we talk about math. you know and have had prior access to the uh change in the state that u took flight in 2022 around the change in math standards and what is that updated math? We've talked about it before. On the
left is what we used to think of as a comprehensive math program where we uh teach kids about fractions, place value, algebraic thinking, geometry, measurement, and data. under the updated standards. We do all of that and are intentionally working to build reasoning
skills explaining your thinking and then real world applications. That's kind of the simple chart um that explains the updated uh increased expectations, assessments, and rigor associated with math in Minnesota.
Like we talked about um uh before with the literacy trajectory, we've been working on this for a few years. Um in 2425, we had our exploration of uh math uh curricular materials, those
curriculum sets. Uh and this is the school year where we've been doing field tests and where we hope to have a decision on curriculum. And then you see we have a future trajectory in math. And um we can talk more about that if we need to. Another way to think about that
timeline is with these bullet points. So back in 23, our math team studied uh possible curricular materials. They were mindful of feedback from the community about how we can have a K12 vertically aligned math program that makes sense
for all kids. Uh and so they had that in mind when they did this re uh resource uh review. and uh they narrowed the resources uh during the last academic campaign around those three classes um where we're doing the work this year and
then there became consensus in the spring about what should we field test and again we're working towards that final decision and um I'll invite Gwen up uh again same level of kudos but this time for math and let's just be clear um
it can be a different experience working with elementary staff and secondary staff. We love our secondary staff, but they have a little different approach and it requires versatile, flexible facilitation. Guess who has that? Gwen
Molden. >> Only one slide this time, so it should be much faster. Um, since this was not put forth by MDE, we went through our own curriculum process of looking at the different resources that were out there
and available for high school math. And you can see this lists the different resources that the committee went through and investigated and some of the criteria that was used to eliminate and really just brought us to SAVIS then as that one resource that kind of fit the
bill for what we were looking for for that algebra 1, algebra 2 and geometry. Janine when she comes up we'll talk a little bit more about the pro process as well but similar to literacy just not dictated by the state.
And then we have Dr. Zambush with more data. All right. So, similar process for um this field test as well. Um the only difference is we included some student interviews. Um and thanks to our peer
coaches for for helping us with those. Um just as a reminder um there is um both pilot teachers both at the high school and at um the middle schools because there is um a group of students in 8th grade taking algebra 1. Um so we
uh went to the schools and conducted interviews with students at um all three of those buildings. uh students really felt like they had um a lot of good dedicated time in class to work on assignments and ask questions.
Um some students felt like the pacing was too fast. Um again, we've hear this a lot when we're um when we're talking about a new adoption that is maybe um reflective of updated standards. Um and
uh students said sometimes they zone out. I don't think any of us ever do that but um so uh students uh were uh you know gave us the honest honest take on it. Um students want to do well
generally on tests. So you know they they gave some feedback that they want more assessment preparation that is um a complicated kind of thing to balance um with and Janine can speak more to that um but students generally were positive.
They didn't say a whole lot, but um they um didn't have any major concerns really. Um we also conducted teacher focus groups on that January 19th with all of the um math teachers um teaching algebra 1 um and algebra 2 and geometry
at the middle school and high school. Um and um in general the teacher focus groups were very positive um and that uh teachers felt like it was an improvement over previous materials. Um one of the major things is um as we need to
understand math in context and real world application. Um the our previous resources were really outdated in that and so didn't resonate with students as much. But um these more um current real world applications really um are more
engaging for students and increase that higher level of thinking. Um there's some um work that maybe needs to be done in terms of um the connection between instruction and assessment. Um so that's something that um the team is already looking at um and will
definitely um continue to adjust and um really with the materials um in this situation there's probably more materials than can be covered. And so really again that art of teaching trying to figure out um what needs to happen
and how quickly to go into in certain um pacing situations and um really figuring out how to implement in a way that is consistent across because we have we want to give students the same experience in algebra 1 regardless of of
how they're receiving that. Um but also knowing that um teachers need to make adjustments in real world um in in real time. So, um, all of that is something that was discussed and is continued, um, we're continuing to discuss as we go
through. Um, the parent survey, um, we were given, uh, gave it to all of the, um, parents who were in these classes. We had 86 responses, um, which again, you know, when you cut it by number of of sections is pretty low. Um,
but the student experience from a parent perspective was um, quite mixed. Um, some students felt um or some families felt like their students were really um excelling, others were feeling like they were um stressed or really struggling.
Um the pacing concern um ideas of you know feedback about things moving too quickly. Uh that also is related to again just the the rigor jump that we're talking about here. um some of the same assessment conversations um in terms of
the parent feedback and then um parents just um talking about differences um in terms of teaching styles and how some students you know kind of click better with other teachers some teacher style than others. Um for our committee um the
committee is really the departments at the middle school and the high school. Um similar process the fist of five um this was our data here for our um overall fist of five um vote. So we had
nobody in the twos in in one two or three. So everyone was at a four or a five. Um and then um we had a similar process where we presented this data to TAC and then they um gave feedback on um
what they felt like was the next steps in terms of um math. Do you want to talk about this? >> Okay. >> She's waiting for this moment >> which is impressive and and chime in. I
mean you were there for this. So um some of the feedback from the committee um uh pilot feedback shows students find SAV to be uh relevant and approachable. Uh teachers report higher ability to customize lessons and uh high degree of
confidence and Janine will speak to this that we're aligned to MDE requirements. Here's some quotes from TAC members. They like the modern, updated, and relevant to uh for kids to have access to that. They asked honest questions
like how will we reconcile the move from CPM to SAVIS uh without creating instructional holes that we're mindful of that because we got that feedback early from our valued TAC members and Janine and team have been thinking about and continued to make moves around that.
Pacing uh going too fast was a concern um and we have ways to mitigate that. Uh again, she can speak to that. And then um uh it's an exciting move and anytime you can get the TAC to say it's exciting about math late at night like tonight,
it's a good thing. Um so some of these things uh appeared in the ELA feedback too. Bridging gaps, parent partnerships, time management, all those things were a part of the TAC feedback. And so the recommendation um and then I'll invite Jannine to give
any extra context to this is that we recommend adopt SAVIS for those three math courses both the grade 8 in the high school uh for those reasons. It aligns to the standards. Uh it reflects the themes across teacher student and parent feedback like we just went over
and we have a coherent structure here that supports effective instruction in math. Remember, the rigor is way up and um this is a multi-year process to ramp up to that rigger. Uh and folks are working really hard uh and our math team is at the center of that. So, if you
approve this, we'll get working on implementation and roll out. Um and Janine, what would you add uh based on the experiences that you've had? Um, I would say overall our high school teachers really um are happy that the
SAVIS curriculum is able to um probably better blend having that math procedural rigor through all the way to some realworld application. Um whereas before in textbooks it's really kind of a
here's all your rigor and then here's a couple of real life situations. Um, this textbook has kind of that middle ground where you can get that conceptual understanding and it's it's kind of fluid throughout that process.
So, it's a lot it's a lot more helpful for students, I think, and teachers in the classroom. Do you have questions for me? board members, given the the time, I will ask us to stick to clarifying questions.
Maybe um just for since we've been here since 5:00, but if there's any clarifying questions on the things presented um please do I can go I can go from side to side otherwise if if there's no clarifying questions um
Dr. Do you have anything? No, I've heard great things. I just think that there might, you know, does this open up an opportunity to look at, you know, sixth and seventh grade because I've heard great things about the rigor and all that kind of stuff. Um, so yeah, I mean that's just something I think that we need to keep
in the back of our minds. So, >> Director, do we want to go down the role or Director Johnson, anything? Um mine uh kind of along the same lines as I asked before. Um any
um I know you had a fair amount um of parent feedback uh as far as instructional uh assistance for for parents. Is there do you feel there's an avid amount? Um did you get any questions? Um anything
like that? Um I would say at the high school level we really work towards um having our students be the people who can speak with their parents about what's happening. Um however when parents have
asked we were able to have resources available also um we had resources available just during the time that um we were talking about bringing the adoption forward the first time when Dan Byer and I were both here.
>> Um all of the information too is online so students are able to just say you know here here's my iPad. we can look through all of the information together if if desired at home. Um I have not heard any
complaints that have come up from that. So I think from what I understand and from what our department has said um parents are feeling supported or students at least are feeling supported by teachers so their parents feel supported. >> For sure. I appreciate it. Yeah. I guess
I should have clarified that's probably more for uh the middle school than um on the high school. >> Yeah, >> you know, high schoolers, you want them to >> although we do I mean we do that too, but >> thank you. >> Uh nothing for me. Thank you. Um I've
heard positive things. So thank you, >> director, >> director France. >> No, I love the uh word problems, the arranging the furniture and using the Pythagorean theorem to do so. I love that. So I have no questions and I'm
very happy we've come to this conclusion for the for this curriculum. >> Director Smith. >> Uh yes, thank you. Uh just one quick question. So in the we recommend adopting SAVIS for algebra 1, geometry, and algebra 2 at the middle and high school level. Exactly what grades? So is
that what are we talking here? So that's 9th through 11th depending on what classes a student is taking. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> In the middle it would be eight grade eight as well somewhere. >> Yep. Okay. Yes.
>> Gotcha. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I want to thank Janine if we could give her snaps. Remember we practiced this one time >> for hanging in there. It's a lot of extra things to manage. So we really appreciate it. And thanks board members for engaging. It's a long presentation,
but it's a it's an important decision to make and we feel really good about where we're at. So, thank you for your work. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, moving back uh up on the agenda to our proclamations. Um Director Johnson, would you be so
kind to speak or to read the first proclamation for National School Nurses? All right. National School Nurse Appreciation Week, May 4th through 8th, 2026. Whereas
students are our future and investing in their health today builds a stronger tomorrow. And whereas families deserve to know their children are safe, supported, and cared for at school. And whereas students increasingly arrive at
school with complex medical, physical, and mental health needs that require skilled nursing care. And whereas school nurses serve as leaders in school safety by developing and implementing emergency care response plans,
training staff in life-saving skills such as CPR and first aid, and ensuring schools are prepared to respond quickly and effectively to medical emergencies. And whereas they play a vital role in addressing both physical and mental
health needs, coordinating care, and connecting families, schools, and healthc care providers. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Prior Lake Savage Area Schools proudly recognizes Wednesday, May 6, 2026 as school nurse
day. We celebrate the dedication of our health services staff and thank them for their ongoing commitment to student well-being today. and every day. >> Thank you. Uh, next proclamation is uh, teacher appreciation week. Uh, Director
Smith, would you be so kind to read that one? >> Prior Lake Savage Area Schools proudly recognizes May 4th through 8th, 2026 as National Teacher Appreciation Week. Our teachers are vital to student success
and this week we honor their dedication and lasting impact. Whereas May 4th, 2026 is National Teacher Appreciation Day. Whereas teachers inspire, guide, and empower students every day. Whereas they serve as mentors, motivators, and
role models. Whereas their influence lasts a lifetime and strengthens our democracy. Therefore, the board of education expresses its deep gratitude to all Prior Lake Savage Area Schools teachers and officially declares May 4th through 8th, 2026 as teacher
appreciation week. >> Thank you. Next proclamation is school communicators week. Director Atinson, would you be so kind to read that one? >> My pleasure. Thank you. Brier Lake Savage Area Schools proudly recognizes May 4th through the 8th, 2026 as school
communicators appreciation week. Whereas na national commu school school communicators day is May 8th. Whereas clear transparent communication with students, families, staff and the community is essential. Whereas school communicators build trust
and support through effective outreach and engagement. Whereas they uphold high ethical standards and serve as strategic partners to district and school leaders. Whereas they amplify the district's mission, goals, and message to the broader community.
Therefore, the board of education extends its sincere appreciation to all Prior Lake Savage area school communicator professionals and declares May 4th through the 8th, 2026 as school communicators appreciation week. Thank you.
>> Thank you. On behalf of the board, we extend our deep appreciation to all the staff recognized in these proclamations. Dr. Thomas, do you have want to wrap them up? >> Sure. Yep. So tonight, um, through these proclamations, we recognize the dedicated individuals who educate,
support, and connect our school communities. Um, from our teachers who inspire and shape student learning to our school communicators who build trust and keep our community informed. Um, and our health services staff who care for the well-being of every student. Each
role plays a vital role in student success. um together they create an environment where students are supported, families are connected, and our schools thrive. So, thank you all for your fantastic leadership in our district on behalf of our students and families.
>> Thank you. Uh we'll now move on into oversight of operations. Uh beginning with a preliminary budget update. This is report only. Uh no board action is requested. And I will invite Dr. writer or director. I keep you you keep getting
an up honorary doctor. Dr. Writer, please present. Okay. We will start with this document. Um thank you this evening for this time to review with you our um
board workshop, the preliminary budget. Once again, this is in a little different format, but we wanted to share this with everyone so that let's see here. This should be bigger that can come down. There we go. All right. So, in the past few months,
we have looked at slides that show you by buckets the various different categories. Um, what you're going to see here is a different format, more aligned with a similar type format used in the past two years that you would see around
this time of the budget cycle so that you could see a little bit more detailed list or a list that you could then maybe um I've put together with a historical so we can keep it rolling from year to year and kind of keep it all together in similar type format. So the elementary
bucket for example, the only thing that has changed from the last time is previously you heard me talk about the um e position that was going to then be later replaced with title. We have other needs in title. So we are actually just removing that from our reduction list
and maintaining that position. Um then we have so what that changed is the is the contingency portion. On all of these sections, you will see that there is a yellow highlight for the total reductions and a green highlight um for the savings contingency for the
district choice. Uh let's see, moving on down on this screen. Let me see if I can do that. This one. There we go. All right. So, in the middle section, taking a look at that. Um,
we are it's more of in a list form. Nothing really has shifted there on the middle section from the slides before. So, I'll keep moving. And then we have our high school and um I think that's all pretty similar to what we've seen
before. No other adjustments. We have our athletics and activities. I do know that this is an area that he continues to look for because he is looking to try and increase stipen amounts. Um, and to do that would be possibly a need for some more funds in
his budget. And then the district-wide services that you see here below, there's a little bit more detail here than maybe what you've seen before. The other thing I'll note is I didn't modify it exactly, but you remember last time we talked about the transportation RFP savings was um
150,000. We've now learned after another conversation with our transportation negotiations that that's more probably right around 170. So this is a conservative number and um but a safe one it sounds like.
So I think that that is the bulk of what I needed to discuss. Um there is another page here of the revenue which was also on that last on the bucket slide for the districtwide. um we did not modify anything here.
So that's all I needed to say with regard to this summary. It was basically restating it in a format that was similar to past and something that um we hope to just kind of maintain as we move forward as well. Okay.
>> Any any clarifications needed? >> One quick question on the um the last page. Sorry. The reduction of aid 40 less kindergarten students is that you reducing based on the current enrollment. >> Yes. The 40 students less. >> Yeah.
>> And that is um the reduced enrollment number as a result of that is what was used for the levy conversation earlier too. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Okay. Moving on to >> I have one more thing on this topic. Um
>> I'm just going to tag on uh really quickly uh at the end here of director Ryder from a staffing standpoint uh from an update just as we spoke a few weeks ago in how the there's the influx with staffing and it's very you know um cyclical um just wanted to update that
um because of whether our current staff have taken maybe either internal opportunities or external opportunities or retirements or resignations that have just happened within the last two weeks and they're going to continue to happen um over the next several months. Uh we are already in a process of where we are
going to have to hire um where we're going to have to, you know, offer some of those people their jobs back or bring them back in in some capacities and things like that. So, just wanted to make you guys aware of that. Just wanted to, you know, bring that as a staffing update that this is this is very normal. It's very typical what happens in any
school district. You you unfortunately have to jump through the hoops that contractual or, you know, legislation requires you to jump through those hoops, unfortunately. and then you have an opportunity to typically bring some of those folks back. So, we're going to be going through that process over the next, you know, several weeks.
>> I just have a question about that. >> When you bring those positions back to the back to the board, is it possible to indicate I know you typically do like this is a resignation or this is a replacement? I mean, is there a a way to be able to bring transparency to it, you know? >> Yeah. So, I mean, some of the like
you'll, you know, like for example, I mean, we'll be hiring some elementary teachers back. So, I I mean, for the most part, any any elementary teacher you see come on the consent agenda is probably going to be you know some because of bringing something like that back whether like I said a current elementary teacher might have taken
advantage of another internal opportunity now it opens up a classroom opening and so we have that opportunity to bring back at the you know uh some other areas um yeah I mean I can you know in my admin report or something maybe I could try to draw attention to it that way >> yeah thank you I know there's a lot of
shifting of positions going on in the district I've heard about so thank you Okay, carrying on. We have next the historical list of budget adjustments. So, taking the list like I just had shown you for the current 2627 year, we
also then did the similar um process for the 2526 and the 2425. And what this spreadsheet is showing is a a bit of information in summary form. So, you're going to see on the each of the year rows, you're going to see an admin
column and a student column. This was categorizing these reductions in those years um to identify whether they were more like in front of kids which we would consider than the student or those positions or reductions that were more
outside of that um face to face right. So if it were not face to face we were considering that then the admin. So you can see then for um those totals in each of the years you'll see a total of those reductions and then you'll see right below it the projected expenses
or final expenditures in past years. This is um using the the graph or the excuse me the delineation below admin for that purpose of the total expenditures we are looking at the program series. So like when you see your financial reports from us on a
monthly basis, you have it broken down by admin, district support, you know, those kinds. So that's what those um series refer to and they start with 000 and go on down the line. Anyway, that's we're considering those um program series that are districtwide uh district
support and then you have your student support like your transportation and things of that nature. Um, your 800s are going to be your operations and your 900s are more of the fiscal stuff. Whereas your 200 series is your elementary instruction, your 300 is
secondary instruction, your 400 is your special ed, your 500 is any community education type, and 600 would be those student support services. Um, so that's where you're like technology, instructional technology falls and that kind of thing. So using those categories
is how we then divvied up the projected expenditures going across on each of the years you will see that the total sum of those reductions then what percentage of the total expenditures was that is the summary column.
The next column two columns over are admin and student again and you'll see what percentage of those reductions um of the total reductions. So you could those will add up to 100% all the time. And then um the second row of numbers in
each year you will see under the admin and student section to the right of the summary column that we now have more of a a weighted like a percent within the category. So what percentage of reductions is the admin if you take the
admin reductions less or divided by the projected expenditures or final expenditures under the admin column. So you can see that as you compare the the past years um we have a little bit more in the admin column in 25 2627 compared
to 2526. Um and then we have comparing to 2425 there is a significant more amount there identified as administrative than there is um in the student in that particular year.
Hoping to just kind of give some summary of like how do we compare to the past year's reductions and what does that look like? Um trying to be consistent about how we approached that in summary form. Um interested to hear if you appreciate that or if you would like to
see it differently in the future. >> No, I just think uh I have a question. So when we see the budget come through, we should be able to see the administration line be reduced by 1.5 million is what you're saying. >> No, the administration line that you see is made up of those items that you see
below. So between the zeros, the 100s, the 700s, 800s, and 900 program series. Yes. >> The UARS. Those are the URAs program series. >> But I think what's confusing when we use the word administration, >> it's not in that administration line within our budget.
>> No, it is not. Nope. This is a different purpose. This is not in front of kids. This is not like face to face. >> I understand. But language words matter. And so like I think it would be helpful if we use the words of what those UFARS codes are like administration and district services support or whatever
they are. So that because when you go back and you tie this back to the budget and you it's really becomes important in the historical piece of it and you look go year over year over year was there a change in administration? There was a year there that there was
but some years there weren't. And so I just think I think the word administration in you know the >> header >> it it matters because when there's there's different definitions for administration because last month or a month ago we were talking about deans administration but we know they're
classified as teachers. >> So non- studentent >> as is suggested. >> No I mean I think it's I think we use what's listed in our budget to be honest with you to be the most I mean I don't know. I'm I'm categorizing the group though, so I'm not quite sure like the whole column is made up of a number of
them. You know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. No, I understand. I mean I mean I I added up the administration what I would think is not student facing. I came up with 949. So like I just think words matter, you know, it's not truly administrative because it's not in that
administration bucket. If that helps. >> I guess I had a similar question. And I think just around like what you know because I felt like I tied back to the 25 26 spreadsheet we had and I couldn't come up with the same number and I you like maybe we're including like the pool
and you know the transportation all all the things that we cut and so it maybe I don't know what I guess my question was like what are we trying to show by separating this because I think like a pool for example I would classify as like a student thing right a program or whatever that
we took you know that we had to reduce so I don't know I guess what are are we trying to achieve by splitting it out this way >> reductions that were a person in front of a student that is now no longer >> right >> versus other types. So like when you're
saying admin that's because it's not all person right it's not just people >> right no it's a category for everything that is non student face tof face >> right >> yep >> I think it's just a little confusing right I don't for me I couldn't tie back so that's why
>> what we're trying to con I'm sorry what we were trying to convey here is some of the conversations that we've been having of um cuts proximal to to classroom >> right >> um as well as the propensity of classroom reductions um compared to
those non- studentent like direct student classroom uh reductions. So that so again it's just trying we're just trying to elevate a level of clarity and understanding as folks are trying to make meaning of the reductions not just here but for our broader community of
what actually is happening in front of a classroom or a student in a classroom versus cuts that are um proximal outside kind of further away from that classroom and to what degree are we able to find uh balance and keeping them more shifted away from that which is what we're
trying to demonstrate here versus what's actually the direct, you know, impact to a to a student sitting in a class. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, that makes sense, right? I was just trying to I couldn't tie back to the numbers from the list of cuts that we had. So, maybe it's more like classroom versus non-classroom. I
don't know. >> Yeah, that's what director Ryder just shared. Director, yeah, director Mason, one thing I had asked for, if you go back to the previous slide, if you could just highlight in green, these are administration, it should add to up to 1.5 million and these are in yellow and these are student, then I think it would
help me as a board member to understand and our community to understand how do you what what are you classifying as administration versus students? because I say this year it's pretty close but as you go back into like 24 25 I only came
up with 610 administrative cuts and we listed 2.1 million and so I just I think that's helpful particular don't go back for the previous but for this year I think we could easily go back and say these are what we're calling administration and these are what we're
calling student >> chair Bian I think the best thing to do is if individual board members are doing their own calculations and coming up with different numbers that maybe they just need to sit down with director Ryder um because I these are clear from the
perspective of what we've been using but if people are doing their own calculations I don't know if anything of that is worthy of discussing here >> I'm more than happy to I was just trying to go back sheet of cuts but and so for
our community right like I think it is worth public discussion around our community can understand what what they mean, right? What you mean by admin versus student. So, >> well, and I think it ties back to the budget because if you go back and say we made two $2 million worth of cuts in
administration in 2425, that's not reflected in the administrative line. >> And so, I think we I'm just trying to add clarification because you can see the numbers in the budget. You guys do a great We do a phenomenal dis job with our budget with the am the amitus as
ASMBO or whatever it's called budget book. I mean there's one page in there particular. It's 24 and you can literally follow the line and you don't see the $2 million in administrative cuts. >> And so that's why I think when you use the word administration
it gets confusing to our community as what are you really referring to as administration? And then we even have a page in our budget book that says administration and that's right here. And I can tell you we didn't cut any of these positions and they're all called administration
and they're you know they're administration. And so I just think that that word is confusing when we use that word. >> The word is used in different ways depending upon where it's being reported. STARS has a different meaning for it than eupars has a different meaning than what
>> right. So I think the clearer we can be at communicating that like if you could just go back onto that this previous spreadsheet and just highlight >> what's administration what's students then there there is then it's cleared and transparent to our community and there's no questions that need to be asked by having private conversations
with board members then our community is well aware I >> I'm fine by the way I really like this report you asked for feedback um you took the total cuts and you broke it up into the percentage spend >> of where it showed up and I think that
is an incredible addition uh also to help understand where the cuts went from as where they were student facing or not. Obviously, um they're all going to be bulked up together because we talked about full-time equivalent. How much some people are actually split up
according to what percentage of full-time equivalent they are in certain roles and that cannot be conveyed in a financial statement um other than the actual you know total number of staff. And so I I do appreciate this and I
think it's very helpful when you see that percentage spend broke up between uh the percentage that student facing and the percentage that is considered by us not by the state but by us and consistently by us as administration.
>> I I go no go ahead. >> I appreciate this. Um I'm not a huge fan of the word admin either. I would just say other. >> Yep. or non student >> non student anything else and then
>> you know maybe maybe student is green and the other one's yellow something else right and then highlight them at the bottom because >> then it just points to it um what the euars codes you're you're going to it just >> yep >> brings pops the eye to it and then
>> we can go right to it that's just >> I think it's I think it would be helpful for for anyone news. We get to, you know, you you get the pleasure of looking at this stuff every single day. We >> we might not look at it every day. We
look at it, you know, as often as we, you know, necessarily need to. Um that would I think might just be a little bit helpful. So, I appreciate and I appreciate this the sheet. It really does. I think it I think it's helpful. So, thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you for um asking for
feedback as well. Uh does anybody have any clarifications? >> Just one quick thing. >> Sure. Um yeah so thank you for putting this together. Um I just I just want to clarify. So the the historical percentages uh the slide that you have up right now. >> Yes.
>> Um that is one thing where we are trying to show what is student facing versus what is non- studententf facing. And that's why you're using the UAR's codes down here in the bottom left. Right. Correct. When we talk about the previous
slides where we break down the buckets, >> yes, >> you're not doing that there. Correct. >> Go to that level of discernment. >> So, what director Atinson is asking for to go through and highlight what's administrative and what's what's
non- studentent versus what's student like that's not possible for this because this is something different. >> This would be in summary form of that. I use the same list. >> Okay. But I've now created where I'm I'm accumulating the multiple years. So it's all in the same same list. Um and I have
a column that says right now admin will say something different. And then the student. >> Okay. >> And so this was an easy thing for me to do once I'd gone through and and gather that information. And if we just keep utilizing that same format as we move forward, we'll we'll keep that history and build upon it.
>> Absolutely. >> Okay. And honestly, you could just go add the UFAR's code and it would help to educate our public too on which UAR codes go to which >> jobs. You know what I mean? Then they would see that a dean is classified as a teacher or whatever. You know what I mean? So I think that actually would be helpful.
>> Okay. Be consistent. >> Um >> our next piece speaking of consistency of UVAR reporting which in in in how we're coding things. This is this was kind of a through some one-on-one conversations with some board members um
kind of an enlightening exercise for us to understand um how we can shape narratives differently for our community um particularly when they are referencing different reports that are accessible to the general public. So
I'll have director Ryder walk through um just some of our discoveries. Uh >> yes. >> Okay. So, let's um take a look at this this um with this information that you're looking at. This is a page out of our
annual comprehensive financial report. And you can find that on our report page 113114 or if you're looking at the PDF document um it's page 170 of 176. This is in the statistical section of our financial
statements and the stat uh excuse me the statistical reports are not necessarily audited. Okay. They're pulled together for purposes of submitting our application for the um certificate of excellence award and it requires you you
maintain 10 years of data in these various different types of um reports that they want to see kind of comparative between districts, right? Unfortunately, what they don't do is they don't tell you exactly how every district has to record each of the
categories. So, as we dug into this, it's like, well, why is why does this look different? Why do we look higher than others? On the left hand side of this sheet, you will see our information as is printed in the report. on the right hand side within the box you will
see a district of a similar size on the left hand side and our information is on the right hand side and it has been uh we went down line for line so on the principles for example the types of principles they're including because we
happen to have one principal who is actually an assistant principal um so that's the difference where we went from 10 to nine instead right well where did that principal go it dropped down below below under the category which is the um administrative assistance which the
other district you'll see in red only used assistant principles and assistant superintendent. We included um directors assistant directors as well in our category. Um the line above that we had directors
listed. They did not include any directors in this area of the report. Where did they include it? Their directors are down below under the other non-instructional staff. So, if we realign ours to match theirs, our directors are no longer reported up
on top there. They are now below under the other non-instructional staff. The um the other six people that were under our administrative assistance, which that term is also misleading. It means assistance to administrators,
not the admin assistance we think of oftentimes when we talk because that's what we call our group, but instead assistant directors, assistant superintendent. You see what I'm saying? So, um, regardless then the the 12 that
we had listed are only six when you include only the assistant principles and assistant superintendent. the supervisory coordinator. We have more included there with the coordinators and such than that which the other district had. So we apples to
apples compared those and the rest of our 15.8 compared to four dropped down into the other non-instructional staff. Okay. Now while that's happening other non-instructional staff did not really increase that much, right? So why is
that? because they included the deans under their counselors and deans. Our deans were included above in the other non-instructional staff. So of that those numbers dropped down into that row. Uh teachers on special assignment, we did not call them out
separately. We had them in the other non-instructional staff. The other district has them on a separate line by itself. So we pulled ours down there. Okay. Um, so I can account for every um, we had 11 of the deans that moved down.
We had the TOSAs 16.2 that moved down. And then, um, the rest of the Denver is reflective of our slight changes there in the special education. And so we just apples to apples those as well. As you take a look at this
particular sheet, you'll notice that our totals at the bottom, we reported 645.6 six and this one's showing 645.5. It's a rounding issue. Um so that is otherwise right there and then the um the total for the other
district is what they had reported on their paper on their printed sheet excuse me. So as you take a comparison of all these in these categories that are listed um our total administrative staff, total support service staff, total special
education teachers and classroom teachers. Um this district happens to be just almost a thousand less than us in student count. Um we have um however a a um a different lower
figure in total FTEES. Now also keep in mind this stars report as stated on our financial report statist statistical table um only talks about licensed positions because that's what STARS is about in this particular regard. It's a portion of the STARS report. For
example, my position isn't listed as um I mean I don't have a teacher's license, but I'm listed in here because it requires a four-year degree. So, if you have a position that is not requiring a teacher's license, yet it requires a
four-year degree, you're on this sheet somewhere. That make sense? So, just wanted to kind of, you know, as we went through this, it was a little surprising to realize um just how, you
know, they're the same positions, but how we call them, like we might call them coordinator, they instead call them some other name, supervisors or whatever the case might be, and they have them in a different um lower category than what we did. In total, we're talking about the same people, same types of
positions. It's just that um subtle differences and and you see that the um how that can look. >> Thank you. >> And I would just add um and I appreciate our team working with uh neighboring
districts team to get a better understanding of the variability and how they um how people report in to the stars system and how they categorize. But it also affirmed I think some other things that we've known and that is um
the leanness of our system. Um you know being in a district with a thousand more students with 50 or so less staff in in general that are on you know that are being coded here. It it speaks to that um component of our ability to educate
our ability to educate students at a far lesser rate um per student um compared to the state average. And we're not saying this to brag, but it just it just speaks to our staff's ability to do some amazing work um every single day um
given the leanness across a variety of of of uh staff categories. So um and again the the conversations that we've had here at the table you know as well I I thought this would be a good exercise for us to just see this how it um plays
out how we've coded things to align you know apples to apples so that we can do a better comparison of how do we how do we stack up as we have these broader conversations around programmatic investments you know um upcoming you
know potentially this fall. So, chair, I turn it back to you. >> Thank you. Um, are we good to go? Does anybody have any clarifying questions? >> Um, I have a couple, >> Dr. Mason. >> Yeah. Um, I appreciate this. It's
helpful. Um, do I know we have recoded stuff over time. Do you know if there's like any initiative like MD or whatever to align, you know, like across districts to have more consistency in these? >> Uh, not that I'm aware of. Yeah. >> And and and basically
every department within MDE will be requesting almost the same data, but they'll want it in a different format, >> right? >> Um based upon that department's needs um with whatever. So, so unfortunately, no. I don't believe uh Director Mason such an initiative exists.
>> Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think we've talked about this many times. my mind always went to like trying to look at year-over-year like where have the changes been made for various reasons you know did we did we have you know more people in you know this role versus this role and did we make investments
here um so I think you know comparing to another district is really helpful I think you know comparing year-over-year is super helpful too um I had taken a lot of time actually from director Cthorne's like experts of the the um the full headcount um and compared those
years. So, that's super helpful um to understand the changes. And I I think that's, you know, as we're planning like a five-year forecast to understand like a fiveyear staffing plan that aligns with that, it's helpful, right? Or, you know, did we make investments in deans,
but then maybe, you know, we reduce somewhere else and that kind of offset. So I you know it's I'm happy to go through like what I found but um >> but you're you're speaking I mean but that's exactly the process that's happening right you know I know
>> the the the mental desire is to find this onetoone correlation but it's a series of dominoes to kind of pull this thing or a series of puzzle pieces >> um that it's it's not going to ever be a onetoone correlation because as you literally the example you just stated is
true fact that that happened. So, >> so, so yeah, we we thought this might be of of benefit um as we continued the conversations around staffing um just getting greater clarity >> and like I think a lot of >> the teachers that we h like everything
that was coded as teachers, right? There were like deans, counselors, social psychology, like all of them are coded as teachers, right? And so understanding that difference is is super helpful. So, um, anyway, there's a lot I could go into and I won't for the sake of time. It's >> late.
>> Yeah. And I just, um, I just want to add, so I think it's, first of all, I appreciate this. I think it's very difficult to compare us to any other district. I think our community goes to this report and they look at the historical data and understanding that is important. Um, I think it's challenging even to compare us to that
other district because they don't have programs like UC comp where QMP is they're going to be coded as teachers as licensed FTE as teachers, right? But the but they're not really student I mean they're not really student facing, right? They're in a professional
development. >> On the stars, they wouldn't be coded as teachers because you're only coded as a teacher if you have a class roster assigned to you. >> Is that true on the stars report? >> That's the stars requirement. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. So, they would where would they be then? >> Well, they would be up under your other
non-instructional. >> Yeah. >> I think q comp is kind of statutory with the pieces, right? We get funded for that. So, >> we get every I think every public school district >> that is not true. There is actually a waiting list for Q comp. So, no
teachers though. >> What's that? >> But they wouldn't be going back to your original question. it would not be >> I guess my overall um my overall takeaway is that I think it's very hard to compare us to a different district and people really look at our own district and so looking
at that stars report and understanding why has the administration doubled you know in the last 10 years and then when we use the word administration when we're having these other conversations that's where it gets confusing because we're saying look at the last three years we made all these administrative
cuts but then we're not seeing seeing it on the reports. And so that's that's where I'll be honest with you. I mean, that's where it's coming from in our community. Um, so that's like I said, that's it's it's helpful, I think, when we use the right words. >> The star support has been explained even
by director Frederickson and then also by Director Herman and your predecessors um multiple times. We know there's not a onetoone with that and it's been confusing across districts. Uh but the bottom line is is that what was reported is we had 49.2 administrative assistance
and obviously we don't we didn't experience a 37% increase in administration either. So that's that's pretty clear from the numbers. We also found that it's like we went back in email history to find out why did we change the recording of what's included
in that category >> and um we tracked it back to the auditors when asked the question verbatim exactly what do you want us to show in this comparative report and they you know they said to include all those
positions that are non-licensed but have a four-year degree required under that um administrative assistance row, right? Um different auditor, different auditing firm >> than the like size district we compared
to. So that's interpretation too there, right? Um but we we have the you know, >> we we asked the question because we wanted to make sure we were doing the comparison appropriately. And as you do have staff over, you know, turnover,
>> you we have to find a way to try and keep that story with it. And um often times, I'll be honest, when you're putting together the financials, you're you're doing it to get this completed. And we're not always thinking about the
compariveness of it, right? And that's something that we're kind of >> understanding. We need to keep maybe some better notes on exactly what changed from one year to the next or what exactly what positions. Sometimes it's a matter of us um shifting our
organization structure where we're calling it now a different title, right? >> And that means something different for HR reasons and there's a reason behind all that >> but yet now where do we categorize it and is it different? Right. >> Right. Well, yeah. And I appreciate that. And I think the hard part is is
like we know that there was a big chunk of investments made in 23 and you see that right on the report. So to say the report's not accurate or the report doesn't state our financials, you know, I mean that's where it's like there's known things that we did in our district
and you can see it reflected on here. So >> but you can see it reflected differently somewhere else too. Like I can find anything and tell a different story. Um I >> I mean if we look at the the budget book that was referenced um you know from
2122 administrative 53.2 54.6 6 55.3 55.5 52 like it stays flat. So I can find anything too to justify what these what
these uh numbers actually tell. But there is a lot of complicated stuff going on behind the scenes here. Is are these numbers accurate from the stars report that's on this website in their district financials? Yes, of course they are. They wouldn't be on our website if
they weren't. Mhm. >> Does it tell the full and complete story? No. And I think that's where we're getting caught up is is thinking that this is gospel, but then everything else that's around is just noise and it's not. Like every piece of data, just
like we talked about with the um with the survey, like every piece is a is a little piece of data and all of it tells kind of a different story. And I do think it's important and I do think it is helpful to compare us to an a second or a similar district because if we talk
about again what do they code as administrative and what do we code as I might have looked at the same district. I'm not I'm not lying. Um but it's 50.8 for us and then 22 in administrative for them. So total support staff 83.1 for us
136.5 for them. There's no rhyme or reason behind it, but the numbers when you take all of that, they're carrying 53.4 more FTE than us and they're a smaller district. Like that is that's
what's complicated here is that there's just there's so much data here that I find it incredibly difficult to look at one piece of data and say, "Well, that tells the whole story. Um, with that being said, I think that,
you know, uh, we will, if there's no other clarifying questions, we can move on to the next, uh, item in our agenda, which I believe is the kindergarten enrollment update. >> This will be quick. This is a typical report you have been seeing, and so I
just added the last two weeks in here. Um, we're still slow. I will point out that what did take place between April 10th and April 17th, you'll notice that the column for as of
um changed from 341 to 428. And I first saw that I'm like, "Oh, wait, great." Nope. Because the next column over is our open enroll column. So these are open enrollments where we had put out the placements to families and as they are returning their responses of
acceptance that is then shifting those students back into then the first column instead of being held in the open enrolled column. So, um, looking to see that the combination, the total enrolled, um, can start to increase at a more rapid pace, but that's going to
require our, um, our resident families, which are the ones we haven't heard yet from, um, to make sure that they get their enrollments in. Board members have anything any clarifying questions on on that? All right. Hearing none, we will move on.
What's that? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Director Ryder. Next up on the agenda is the annual wellness report review. This is report only. No board action is requested and director of child
nutrition services Emily Malone. Thank you, Emily, for being with us at 10:36 p.m. You are welcome. Thank you all for staying awake for my riveting report here. If I can just bite it. Um, all right.
So, I have to mention today is the first day of child nutrition appreciation week. So, I want to mention that because we celebrate our team this week. I appreciated your proclamation a couple weeks ago and I know my staff did as well. Uh my staff shows up very early in
the morning like in a couple of hours to work hard for our students every day because they know that uh hungry kids can't learn. So, thank you for appreciating them. Um, again, this is just my local wellness policy yearly update. I have to do one every year. Um,
a local school wellness policy that's at LSWP is required by law. It's um required to include nutrition promotion, nutrition education, physical activity, and other school-based activities. Um, in that policy, our policy is 533. Um,
it also requires all of these things, including that last bullet, which is why I'm up here today. I have to do this every month or every year, excuse me, just to say that we've updated our local wellness policy each year. Um, it's located on the child nutrition
section of our web page under that wellness tab. Um, we do a trienal assessment and our last one was in March of 2024. Our last uh the last time that it came up in the um policy committee was in December of 2023 and I believe it comes up again the next year. So, we
just had a couple of tweaks that we'll be doing for that. And um that is about it. So, you guys have any questions? I'm here. >> Board members, any questions for Director Malone? >> Sounds like none.
>> Thank you. Thank you so much. We maybe should have switched push you up, too. Thank you, Director Malone. >> You're welcome. I'm going to try and get out of here. All right. Next up on the agenda is uh the superintendent search discussion
from study session. Just a recap um for the for anyone listening this late or or um on the replay. Uh we we had a special meeting this evening at at 5:00 to discuss
um options in replacing our superintendent. Um and uh we had MSBA uh um Barb Dorne uh give us options and process uh um walked us through how what
we what we should decide on as a board first. And uh the first uh thing we reached a unanimous consensus on was if we uh do this process on our own um or
if we use a search firm and it was a unanimous decision that the board decided to use a search firm. The next question um that we were trying to seek consensus on was whether or not to seek an interim superintendent or or a full
search. And that uh that decision was more of a split. Um it was four four board members that were leaning toward the interim, three um wanting to start full search with the ability to pivot to an interim if needed. And so, um, I
think I think for the sake of the board, just the all the information received tonight, I think we'll, uh, um, revisit our next steps, um, and at a future agenda item. So, that's the recap from
our special meeting. Um, >> Director Bullion. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. I have a question. I've been thinking about this, you know, thinking about what we talked about earlier. Uh >> um and I'm just wondering um if is it possible if you could find out from MSBA
is because I think part of this whole search is how do we come together right as a board we we do not want this superintendent search to be a 4-3 vote right we it it's it's that simple we as a board have to come together work together and find the perfect candidate for our district and so is it possible
to post the position on our website and just see what type of interest we at and then you know take a look at their applications work with Mitler Cawthorne and then at that point if we don't get a decent pool of candidates because of the
timing or whatever then we continue with the interim search and that way it's like a both end like we're not going forth with the full superintendent search but we're sort of saying you know we're kind of doing both basically right it's a compromise >> and and I agree with you director
Atinson um in my conversation with Barb Dornan on Friday as well as some of the information that she presented tonight. Um there is it really comes down to us deciding how how to move forward and I
am happy to um you know have another conversation with her to really spell out what it looks like because what needs to happen is for the board to make a decision on how we're doing it. MSBA
um can like it is a free it's free for them to hire you know help us hire an interim it's it would there's no cost to that but the board does the work and we would have to really figure out what does that look like what meetings are in
place and and I am happy to uh find out more clarification on what that that process would look like in in conjunction with our staff staff um to really spell that out for our district. And I can commit to um finding out more
information and bringing that to our meeting next Monday. I think or before if possible, I think um you know, I I can commit to to getting more information on what that process looks like because we can say, "Oh, you know,
um this is what we want to do." But it does we have to figure out what does that look like? what does that look like as a as a board? What does that look like in conjunction with our and I'm not clear on that either because I haven't gone through this myself before. And so,
you know, we we listen to her just give such a plethora of of information and I think she did a great job with that. >> Um and her answer is, you know, we can do it however we want to. It really is
um understanding what the costs are. um what what does that entail for the board? Um so I I'd be happy to to compile that. >> So you'll be getting the information and sharing like the cost. >> I'll I'll try to and see the challenge
with that. I think it's it it's important for the board to understand the the challenge is I can gather information and each of you may have well what about if we do this and that's where the that's
where the challenges can come because we all can have great ideas on okay well what what about this and what about that and my compilation of information might not address those those questions. So when um you know before Barb left us
online tonight, you know, it was our the two questions um do we want to do it on our own or do we want to use someone to help us? And we we it was unanimous that we want to use someone and I agree with that. Um and then the the second question was the
interim and the full search. Um, so I think that the what I would propose is that the information that I seek more is giving us more information on what that looks like because that's
where we had three board members that was maybe preferring a full search and four board members that were thinking more doing an interim search. So, um, I can gather information and and bring it, you know, give it to the board and we
can work together to try to figure out. >> And I think my question is is can we post it for people to apply and not do the full search? Does that make sense? >> We absolutely can. >> Okay. Y we absolutely can. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. We do need to kind of talk about what you want in the post because we also need salary ranges and a few other things. So that's a little bit more involved. It's not like we could just post something >> that is something that they can help us with. Even Barb said that she would absolutely it wouldn't be just us,
>> right? There would be >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> And Okay. So hopefully that >> I just think one of the things that we need to consider and need to remember is that your last day is June 30th or >> that's what I'll be proposing for next Monday.
>> Okay. But it's not you're proposing it because the contract obviously says that >> a mutual separation, >> right? Mutual separation. So there's no 90 days or anything like that. There's it's when you're >> I mean that's that's a that's a clause, but the I'll be tendering um a revision
to my contract to um end June 30th of 2020. Okay. >> Six. And uh you will it'll be on consent like any other resignation or retirement. >> Right. Okay. Just want to clarify that we're on a short time frame. Any
other comments around that? We will move on to our final agenda topic tonight, which is policy. Uh I do want to uh thank uh Director Johnson for sending out the policy committee uh notes that
he he sent the board. Um uh we can have director Kern take us one by one if there's any if there's anything um >> you know just to kind of take us
highlight and if any board member has anything I mean just with the sake of time we've been here for almost we're going on six hours people and so if if you can direct us >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Yep. You bet. Let's uh way to end the
night and talk about policy. It's let's rock it. It's just how we all want to end our night, isn't it? Um so I'm going to just start really quickly and uh both Director Atkinson and Director Johnson have access to we one of the things that the policy committee did this year is we
created uh what's called we called it the district policy tracker. Um and they have access to it. They're more than welcome to share that with you. I think it'll be a great thing for you guys to see and it will maybe help um you know so when we summarize these things you can kind of then dive into it on your
own time if you want. But one of the things uh being new to the policy committee and having new members and people when we started looking at some of these policies, one of the things that kept coming up is well why did the previous committee make that recommendation or why did they decide this or why did they decide that and I
quickly realized that um I didn't have that contextual data to be able to share with the committee and the only contextual data I had um is leaving And so I'm going to embarrass two people
tonight. One probably for the last time and one for the first time. Um so I can go on record as being the first person to embarrass her. But once again, um this as Martha's last meeting, uh she's just even in my short period of time here, she's been valuable to me when it
comes to this kind of policy stuff. So I I truly want to thank her one more time um for the help that she's given me when it comes to that. But I also want to introduce for the first time uh Danny Klest who is going to be taking Martha's role. And I want to thank Danny. Um I
will let Danny at some point in time if you any of you want to talk to her, ask her about I I do not want to, you know, publicly say how long she's been with the district. She might not appreciate that. Um but the nice part about Danny coming into Martha's role is once again her absolutely wealth of knowledge that
is with this district. Um those kinds of things are invaluable especially to somebody in my role who is new but also who needs help sometimes um in understanding what the history of something might have happened with this district. So I can't thank Danny enough for being willing to apply for that role
and and and accepting the challenge um of her wanting to come into that role. So Danny, welcome and uh thank you very much for stepping into the role. And Martha, once again, thank you for everything you've done for this district. Um so the policy tracker what it is is it's just a way for um us to
help as a policy committee to then when you know uh 30 years from now when we're not around um hopefully they can look back and see some context contextual uh references of why the policy committee made some of the suggestions that they made. And so that's what that's what it
is. And once again, Director Atkinson and Johnson have access to it and they're more than welcome to share the link and you guys can all kind of see it and those kinds of things. But let's jump in. Um the first one we'll just kind of go in order here that uh that they're listed um I believe should uh be 102.
And what I will do is I will just kind of basically go through what's on our on our policy tracker so you can kind of see some of the things we did and then you can follow along within the actual uh document if you want. But first of all, uh, we just removed the definition. Um, and when you're on the policy
tracker, you'll see we've categorized it. Is this a clerical in nature kind of thing? Are we trying to align to MSBA? Is it a policy committee recommendation? Is it to follow statute? We've kind of outlined why we're making those changes. Once again, to have some historical context. Um, so we removed the
definition. The committee felt we just don't need it. So we felt that was a clerical kind of a nature decision. Uh, we've added language to number 2 A, B, and E. um to match MSBA um as well as we delay deleted language from 2D once again to match MSBA. We added the legal
references and cross references. This was just a policy policy committee recommendation to do that and also the policy committee wanted to make a note um uh that the lettering structure in this policy doesn't match that of MSBA and the committee recommended to leave the structure the way we have it as it just reads better and doesn't need
necessarily to match MSBA in this case. So, those are the recommendations coming from the policy committee in regards to policy 102. >> Board member feedback. Um, the only question that I had was the crossing out of unlawfully because we mentioned the statutes down there,
including the Minnesota Human Rights Act. So I assume we're not going to try to come up with our own definitions and we're going to use the statutes as as far as the definition of discrimination and the definition of each one of the um
each one of the um lists in a of on the basis of um just to clarify because we're going to follow the law and that was our threshold. Yes, that is accurate. And one of the nice things is, you know, by having an
attorney on the policy committee, he basically kind of reiterated that that you're by by you're not unlawfully doing doing anything, you know, and so that was actually I think one of his recommendations is that we just don't necessarily need that need that word in
there. And so I think the committee accepted that recommendation. >> Okay. As long as we have the statutes referenced below, then I think that satisfies it anyways. Okay, >> under 103. >> Okay, here we go. 103. Um, we just made
some grammatical changes uh to match some MSBA language. We just felt once again that was clerical in nature, nothing uh very significant. And then we just added the the policy committee recommended to add the legal references and cross references at the bottom.
That was the one from 103. We'll just let you keep going unless the board member speaks up. We'll just >> absolutely love it. Here we go. All right. >> Okay. 301 then uh once again uh we added language in 2A. We added the last sentence to be more in line with our strategic plan.
This was a recommendation from the policy committee. Uh we restructured the sentence in 2B. We just rewarded the sentence to make it read better. We just felt that was a clerical in nature recommendation. Uh we restructured 2E. We deleted the old sentence and rewarded it to use words such as collaboration
etc or etc. That's a policy committee recommendation. And then uh the legal reference linkage the committee, this is just a note that they wanted uh to be aware for future that there is a cross reference in Minnesota statute 123b.143 and 123b.147.
The committee didn't feel it was necessary to add a legal referencing sections for these as they are spelled out in other policies. If they're spelled out in other policies and we ever have to change the policy, should we reference those other policies in here just so you know what you're
referencing? In other words, you don't get them out of sync. >> Yeah, we just once again we just kind of looked at that's why we just made I guess the note in the document here. We just so then that way we just didn't feel that it was necessary since they were referenced in the other policies. But that we just
wanted future people to know why we didn't put it into the legal references. All right. 302 superintendent. We added number three just to we added the title of general responsibilities once again just to match the MSBA um structure. We
removed language in 3B. We removed assistant superintendent um as statute aligns to uh the superintendent as the one uh for that. And so we and once again our district doesn't necessarily have that. So we just removed uh the assistant superintendent. And then the policy committee made the recommendation
to add legal references and the cross references at the bottom. >> And we are doing that for all of them, right? Legal references and cross references now for the >> except for where like once again in some of these we just not we noted if we
didn't and why the reasons we're recommending not doing it in in some but yes I mean for the most ones this year we have gone in and added legal references and cross references to the ones um for for the most part this year. 303 uh we just capitalized the titles um
just to stick with the same structure that we've have in our other policy. So we felt that was clerical in nature and then once again just to recommend to add the legal references and cross references at the bottom. >> Yes. >> Sorry I didn't speak up too quick. 302.
>> Okay. We will go in and bold that. Yes. All right. Uh 304 superintendent contract duties and evaluations. Um all we did on this one was just added the legal references and cross references at
the bottom by a policy. And then just a note from the committee. They just wanted to make a note that we did not add the MSB letter C into our policy around using their contract format if we wanted to. the committee felt that we have a template for our own contract and is and it always allows us the option to
use the MSB one as well. So that's why we just did not uh decide to implement letter C from the MSB policy into 304. Okay. 306 is the administrator code of ethics. Um just in the first paragraph
number two we just made some sentence changes to make it read better and classified that as clerical in nature. 2 A through K. Um, MSBA made a lot of changes in 2025 to their A through K and the committee felt that we could adopt these changes into our policy as they seem to align to the previous letters
just in different order. Um, that once again that was some of the biggest themes that came out of this year from the policy committee is not necessarily having to match everything that MSBA says or does, but if we do have similar language, can we get it in the same order as theirs? So that way when you're
reading theirs and reading ours, it's just an easy sidebyside read. So that's kind of what we're doing with A through K here. Not necessarily changing, but just trying to kind of I guess align a little bit more with with that. So >> So the language change was the MSBA.
>> Yes. >> Okay. And then what about the the legal references for the 3512 5200 code of ethics um for uh for school uh administrators and then also Minnesota rules part 35125200
for the code of e the other code of ethics specifically for school administrators as well >> should be legal references >> those are the legal references >> I think MSBA has legal dropped on them too okay >> that's probably something we did not discuss Yes. Um I can Yeah, I can
>> we can add those and then um you'll have them on there for the second reading then. >> Okay. >> One small grammatical section to a the first word and can we strike the N? >> I did. I don't know if you can see it. It is there is a there is a Yeah, there
is a very small line through you might have the PDF. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, there is no line through it. So yeah, actually on the actual draft the the version it it does have a line through it. It but it is very very hard to see. So I apologize for that. But yes, it I did catch that after when I
was going through them again to say yes and does not grammatically is not correct. So it does say now it will say a school administrator's professional behavior. So, >> from a formatting standpoint, under B, you start off every single one of them with a school administrator and at the
top you have the school administrator colon. You could actually just shorten those up and just start with a capital M for must on each one of them. >> Um, that would make it a little bit easier to read and a little bit more >> say that again. >> Um, you repeat a school administrator
for every single letter >> and then you have the the colon after the school administrator. So you're you got a lot of redundancy in there. You could actually just shorten each one of those sentences up and just start with M for must after. >> Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay, just take out
>> or >> or or >> or um to these ends, the administrator must subscribe to the following standards of professional conduct colon >> and then shorten >> and then you can keep and then get rid
of the school administrator colon and just keep keep the bullets the way they are. And once again, I do believe that is how our current policy reads. And the only reason I believe we did >> um once again, it was just more to align with how it kind of reads on on MSBA.
So, um and yes, I think that's why that was added kind of in there. So, um or we divided ours into B and that's why we struck out B as you can see because once again to just um have the flow. But I can definitely go in and we can if everybody wants then yes I can um make
the suggestion to just get rid of a school administrator and all of those and start it with a capital M for for must if that's if that makes the most sense. >> Less is more >> maybe except with J. >> Oh no I guess I could then just with J.
I'll just start with capital N there or I I mean a capital I. So okay. So I'll add the legal references and then delete all of that. I better that's a lot for this memory at 11 o'clock at night. I better write that down. >> Uhhuh. Just uh one more quick thing. So if we're kind of shifting things around
here, it says that last sentence. So if if we're kind of redoing it to these ends, the administrator must subscribe to the following standard. Do you just want it to say to these standards, a school administrator must subscribe to and then and then you can
>> to these ends. The administrator must subscribe to the following standards of professional conduct. >> Right? Cuz if we're getting maybe I'm not following along, but that's okay cuz it's >> Yeah. So how it should read if you accept all the changes that last sentence would read to these ends, the administrator must subscribe to the
following standards of professional conduct. Period. >> Okay. >> So we would be striking the standards and striking are as follows. >> Yes. Okay. >> So that's how the the final sentence will read once you accept all the changes. Does that line up?
>> That's on here. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, we're going to add the legal references and then I'm going to strike uh a school administrator on each one. Okay. All right. Perfect. That's 306. All right. Um
806, which is crisis management policy. So, this is a yearly reviewed uh policy. >> I think I'm sorry. Yep. You're right cuz I have it on top of the tracker, not at the bottom. All right, so 506. Here we go. >> Uh we added uh policy 506.2 in the cross
reference uh clerical nature. And then just a note on this one. Um the committee is recommending little changes this year as this is a yearly review policy. Uh they would like principal input on the procedures that are in this policy and then this then have this be one of the first policies we start
looking at next year based on the feedback. And that was kind of this was a policy we started. This was our very first meeting and we just kept coming back to the fact that there are procedures within this policy. And so some of the committee members felt that it would be valuable to get our
principles input on if this if some of those procedures are something that is handled in a school hand or school uh student handbook. Um and do we really then need them in in policy? you know, because once again, you really try to limit or have no procedures in in in
your policy. So, that's kind of where we're at. We knew we were kind of coming up against, you know, a timeline. Uh, and so once again, that was kind of the policy committee's recommendation is that they would like to get some principal feedback um, you know, throughout, you know, the remainder of this year into the summer and then maybe
have this be one of the first ones that we look at next year based on the feedback we get from our principles. >> Wonderful. It's interesting that you say that because we also have one for the student handbook in particular that there's a lot of duplication on those student ones and if we could kind of
condense them down so there's less duplication and therefore less review and less oversight. You can kind of go to one and you have all you can eat there so to speak. >> And I do believe that was some of the feedback from some of the principles even on our committee is that sometimes it's hard to follow um
>> where everything is at. So, so that was the recommendation in 506. All right. So, now going to is it 621.1 the next one? Yeah. >> Okay. So, they're out of my All right. So, this one um was one that was added
late to our list just simply um because of the fact that um with the statute uh regarding weighted grading systems um is that uh if you kind of weight one area, you kind of have to weight them all. And
so how our policy read uh it was brought to our attention that based on some information that was sent to families about how we were going to start uh doing things within the district that we were kind of out of statute. And so um both uh Dr. Anderson and uh Principal
Bezac came to our policy committee um meeting and kind of went through with the policy committee about how they would like to see the weighted gradient system work. Um and that was a recommendation to just wait um our AP classes and so what you're seeing in
there based on their recommendation and we had some pretty good conversation in the meeting around that that I think there was a lot of questions and a lot of uh very good insight from you know people who remember these kinds of things when they were going to school and stuff and so yes it was some you know great conversation and so based on
the recommendation from you know Dr. Anderson and uh Principal Bizik. Uh we just uh are striking the language to remove the language around waiting all year long concurrent enrollment courses to align with the statute to where it would then just be waiting our AP
classes which is what the information my understanding is from that was the information that was then sent out um in regards to to families and then we would be adding the legal references um around that as well. >> Okay. So, I've got a couple of concerns
about this. Um, as I've emailed, um, one, the weighted grading policy was the domain of teaching and learning. It has been since I've known teach or DACA before that. Um and um while I have no problem maintaining uh compliance with
the updated statute, um this was an a very um long and probably the most well-intended um district curriculum meeting um that was supposed to be that we had decided
on was supposed to be put in place, staged in place 3 to four years later and we already started communicating to parents even before Dr. Thomas came on board. Um, so the decision by that team was actually to fade out like most other
districts have. I think there's only four in the metro now that keep a true waiting grading weighted grading system. Lakeville's fading their phasing theirs out. Um, so we had a long discussion about what was supposed to be and what wasn't supposed to be. Um now that may
change based upon new committee members but this has been traditionally the domain of the teaching and learning because of the grading. Um, so, um, so I, you know, obviously we're not going to change anything going into next year that wouldn't be even be prudent, but I
do would like to have that policy put back into TAC and fully discussed and also talked about the influence from the counselors because there's I I mean I do a lot of college admin work and they all
unweight them and it really confuses students and the parents and then it also artificially inflates the GPA and then the scholarship committee or the college comes back and says no you don't qualify and then they yell at the school counselors and go why didn't you tell us
so um we need to do something to educate and have a thorough discussion about what we plan to do and how how it should go go forward >> yeah and I think um doc like I said do when Dr. when do uh principal beac came to talk I mean he had a and uh I don't
know if you I saw I saw director Atkinson thumbing through some of her paper he had a he had a chart that lists all the school districts around us that >> this to you all >> yeah that what they're what they're doing um who's who matches us who's doing what we're doing who does no
weighted grading and then who does full uh weighted and to kind of show what all the districts around us are doing. So he spoke to that as well as he also kind of spoke to what you're talking about in regards to and I think a lot of the people on the committee just either based on their own children's experience or based on their own personal
experience um were saying that for example just kind of what you're talking about whether it's applying for colleges or scholarships all of those colleges now they all have their own systems so where they'll put in every single class that a student is taking >> and then they spit out a number
>> within their own internal within their own internal system. So the weighted grade is the weighted grade, you know, I mean, but colleges aren't necessarily um taking a if a student gets a 4.4 and then this other one only gets a 4.0. They're just
putting in all the classes into their system and then their own internal system spits out a number and then that's how they're making sure that they're comparing students equally uh based on the classes that they're taking. So, he did I thought he did a great job of kind of explaining all of that and how that works. Um, but seeing
as how this is a 600, I mean, it would be up again for next year. And once again, uh, when this one came up the first time, um, I did, you know, both Dr. Anderson and I did have some conversations around it. And I think that's kind of where then kind of Lind to, you know, could you guys come to our
policy committee meeting and kind of speak to this? And that's then when Principal Bezac started putting the presentation together and stuff. So, it would be up for review again next year and we definitely could, you know, have the teaching and learning committee, you know, take a run at it before it comes to a policy committee again next year.
Um, but just for us to match because we can't have the concurrent enrollment piece in our policy, that's that's why we felt it was necessary to bring it this year to make sure that, you know, we just say that we're only waiting AP for right now. >> Right. Well, actually in the last years it only went through teaching and
learning and then straight to the board just because this was in the domain of TNL or DECAC as it used to be called >> and and the confusing part was was that it um was that again um there were par I
mean it was this was before the actual right before the the committee got started we had over gosh I want to we had a zoom meeting with people extra on there and there was over a hundred parents weighing in on that one and they and so there's a little bit of confusion
cuz people actually thought we were getting rid of the weighted weighted grading um completely because that's what the committee decided but given changes and all that kind of stuff what they did is they decided to do it now this year
>> I'm sorry like all the policies but that wasn't but that but that what happened was is that's I think you heard the confusion with minaps Yeah. >> Yeah. Because that was what was on there. So, if we could make sure that we don't lose visibility into this, that
would be great because it is a huge source of confusion. >> Yeah. And like I said, I mean, I I just think that all these policies are board policies. So, of course, we'll yield, you know, I will yield to the will of the board in regards to these policies. And so, um, but once again, this is the
recommendation of the committee is what you have in front of you for that policy. >> Sorry. And I I I just want to add too like the fact is is that we were not waiting PSO grades to begin with. Like we as a district do have never waited PSO. So the real issue was the fact that
we were waiting MINC caps and then we weren't some CIS, some not CS. There's no consistency there. And so it was really just to bring our district to be aligned with Minnesota statute which says >> if you're going to I mean I can read the
statute right here. You can all read it. It basically says you can only you do one or the other. Yeah. And so, um, I I actually think if this does come back to the pol the teaching and learning committee, I'd like to know statutoily, could we add honors classes back to be
weighted? Because I don't think when I read the statute because honors are like AP, I don't because honors aren't considered concurrent. I think you could actually add honors courses to be >> discussion that we'll have, you know, moving forward >> because I think that's where there was a lot of hype from parents about taking
away the waiting from the honors classes as well. So that was a decision that was put into place almost immediately after the original teaching and learning for >> for legitimate reasons. Um but um yeah, so I have no problem being compliant
with statute and I'm I agree with the statute. So, I'm glad the change was made, but just make sure we don't lose sight of this cuz it's probably something we need to bring up in the beginning of the year before kids register for classes. We don't want that happening again.
>> Well, but you know, it was actually reviewed last year, this policy, you have on the bottom of the policy, it says 2024, right? It was actually reviewed right after the statute. >> We reviewed before. Yeah. So we as a district should have brought it up right
after the statute was changed. Y >> along with the 80 things and that's how it got missed. >> Yeah. No, I understand. >> Yep. Yep. >> Just from a timing standpoint. So >> last one being 806. Once again, this is a yearly review in our crisis crisis
manage uh management policy. Um so just in some language, we deleted schoolboard to match um MSBA there. We added the legal reference. We added statute 121A.24 24 which came from um both um uh our emergency management coordinator as
well as our health coordinator to add that polic or that statute in there. Um and then the policy committee just made a note or recommendation decided that um in 2025 to keep our policy more broad than than MSBA as we reference our
crisis management plan and we don't publish our emergency pro procedures in policy. So that was just a note that the committee wanted for historical references on why ours might not match um exactly the round MSBAs. That is the policies.
>> Thank you board members. Are we good? >> Yeah, we're good. >> All right. Well, thank you everyone for your all your work, your contributions, and the long evening. With no further business before the board, this meeting is adjourned.