001Hi, I'm Brad Sarin, superintendent of the Sun Prairie Area School District, joined by Dr. Kurt Mold to give a presentation to the board of education and our community about Act 95, which is guaranteed admission for the July 14th, board of education meeting. This Act 95 is an imperfect law that has come to school districts across the state of Wisconsin, all 420 school districts across the state of Wisconsin, uh to narrow uh students in ways that public schools were never intended to do. And so what I want to acknowledge is that when school districts come to a point where they have to make a diff difficult decision like this, the Sun Prairie Area School District uh does something unique in that it looks back to the seinal documents of the district to try to figure out
002what what best guides our decision-making in this process. And so this is this uh administrative team's best thinking at this time. We understand and accept the fact that other people disagree with that and respectfully disagree with that and we accept that feedback. We accept that criticism and at this point this is our best thinking. As flawed as it may be, this is our best thinking. And so the seminal documents that the administrative team went back to to try to make sure that we were doing the best that we could to make the decision in line with the seminal documents of the school district. First, our mission and vision of the Sun Prairie Area School District, our core values and commitments to the Sun Prairie Area School District, of course, the Board of Education's equity statement
003for the Sun Prairie Area School District, and then which I think is unique is a blend between the student results policies that the board expects the administrative team to develop uh strategies around in order to make progress toward uh achieving those, which have to do with two areas, both academics, but also the board has got a student result policy that specifically lays out student personal development outcomes which are those areas beyond academics. And so in fact in one of the areas that the board uh specifically monitors performance from uh the for the Sun Prairie Area School District and our uh and holds uh the administrative team including me accountable to make progress toward is being future focused and making sure that we are focused in long range goal setting for the education uh betterment of
004college career and life readiness for all of our students. And so this is our recommendation uh to the board of education and the community. And I am fortunate to have Dr. Kurt Mold to be able to uh delineate through some of our thinking of this decision. And so from here I'm going to hand it over to Kurt. Thanks Dr. Sarin. Our agenda for uh this presentation on your screen here is going to cover the history of Act 95. We're going to discuss our act 95 procedure that uh previously existed and we're recommending changes to. Uh we'll talk about the themes from the public hearing on March 10th and our follow-up conversations. We'll also discuss the action steps taken uh after that meeting in March. Uh we'll discuss the waiver language tiebreaking criteria including the rationale
005for our decision. uh and then we'll end with a review of our annual waiver process and the recommended changes to district procedure JR3. So to uh cover this for those who are new to this topic or uh would like a refresher uh act 95 was signed in February of uh 2024 and it required that the University of Wisconsin system establish a guaranteed admission program for certain Wisconsin high school students. The required uh high schools to rank by GPA only is the sole criteria. students in the top 5% or 10% of their high school class and uh school districts needed to adopt policy specifically related uh to the five and 10% ranking. Uh in July of 2024, uh further clarification was provided to school uh districts through the Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance. Uh and this came
006after uh we uh had already moved forward with our original JIR3 policy. Uh and uh that late guidance uh thankfully came from the Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance to uh provide clarity where uh clarity was lacking specifically uh in areas of GPA tiebreaking. uh and the guidance uh was that uh we were not allowed to submit more students than were eligible for the five and 10% even in the cases of TAI and that school districts must always round down at that time our policy included uh the inclusion of uh the greatest number of students who qualified for that opportunity and we had rounded up and so again uh additional guidance was provided after the passage of JIR3. At that time, uh we were told that we had a model policy uh for the state of Wisconsin
007that was uh shared widely. Uh that guidance then came out after the passage of that policy. And so uh there are ongoing unresolved questions. So for instance, what uh tiebreing can and should look like? Uh what are the procedures for rounding down? what do you do in a competencybased grading system? And then what is uh the status of duallyyen enrolled or early graduate systems? Uh those are still ongoing unresolved questions uh with within the system of Wisconsin Act 95. And so uh we found ourselves in uh the need to um uh you know revise our JIR3 uh policy. Um so we uh you know we had previously added the policy now we need to uh revise it which is what's coming uh forth uh today. Uh it was also based on unaltered class rank uh
008district policy IKD and our previous procedure which I had um uh named uh rounded up uh and was named a modest uh model policy and so uh previously all of our numbers matched the calculation. So in a hypothetical example, if 15 students were in the top 5%, 15 students qualified. That's not the case moving forward. We have a significantly greater number of students uh tied for the top 5% or 4.0 and we have students in at least one of our schools uh tied for the top 10%. Uh and so again adding to this conversation about you know new information uh in August of uh 2024 following the Wisconsin Administrator Alliance information uh the Department of Public Instruction released to school districts information about the um uh potential for a waiver to provide flexibility to districts
009and how districts rank the top five and 10% of students uh as they qualified for the guaranteed admission program. Uh and so we are also hopeful that that the time the information was released that additional guidance would have been provided uh in the fall through legislative action or the UW system. Uh we came to learn in winter of last year that uh we should not expect any legislative action uh to happen and that the UW system would provide no further guidance. And so we were left uh with our current policy with the new information from the UW system and how to implement this policy that was coming through the Wisconsin Administrator Alliance. And uh we also then had the waiver language to work with. And so uh in winter of last year, we began the
010process of reviewing those policies and procedures. Um, as you know, we brought those forward on March 10th of 2025 and uh there was um quite a few voices in the room uh that evening and uh there were voices that submitted uh comments and writing. There were folks that came uh to speak to the board meeting and there were several follow-up conversations with students and staff following that meeting. And I want to capture some of those themes here. Um we knew that there were concerns related to the act being implemented without forewarning. Uh meaning that uh this act incentivized certain ways of uh being related to GPA and um incentivized GPA. Uh and this happened well after students had made decisions about um courses or anything that would have been considered later on in the in
011any potential waiver language. uh we heard that uh there were concerns related to uh courses and the perceived uh value of courses within our system. So we heard about AP courses holding value um college courses and access to college courses. We of course uh heard from uh students that were in our STEM program. Uh we heard from students interested in youth apprenticeship uh students who were in fine arts and students that were interested or were taking uhmies. We also heard from students that evening about well-being and life balance in the impact of study halls on uh any potential waiver language. Uh we also heard from students and staff uh regarding participation in the fine arts and the potential for making uh tough decisions between uh enrolling and engaging in fine arts uh and CTE classes
012um over uh you know classes that uh may have greater perceived weight or less perceived weight. Uh and then we also of course heard about uh concerns about the role of student voice in input uh into the tiebreaking criteria. And so uh we are aware of and have heard those themes from the public hearing and follow-up conversations. Um and uh are committed to uh you know this is an annual process. We'll talk about that a little later. uh but uh continue to engage with our um student and caregiver community uh about the tiebreaking criteria moving forward. And so that led to uh action steps uh moving forward. Uh there was continued collaboration between TLE directors and uh site leaders, continued collaboration with legal counsel that led to the creation of uh opt out option as
013a part of our process. Um you know we floated many different ideas to uh legal counsel um some of which included uh you know random selection or a lottery type process. We were told by the department of public instruction that that would absolutely not be considered as an acceptable waiver. Um so that was just uh one of the ideas that we floated to legal counsel to work with um uh representatives from the department of public instruction. Uh we had follow-up conversations with students. Uh we engaged in information gathering with UW admissions. Uh on June 10th, uh grades were available uh to all students. Uh and uh students with a 4.0 O were uh identified and on June 11th through July 7th uh we took the final list of um GPA and uh personal phone calls
014were made by student counselors to students uh with a 4.0 for possible opt out. Um and we know that uh you know anecdotally from some of our students uh that they were not intending to attend WMadison and were happy to uh remove themselves from the list of 4.0 students which then uh we were hoping we were going to get enough students to opt out uh to not engage in a tiebreak or at least reduce the need for a tiebreak um which would have reduced the need for a waiver. We still find ourselves in the situation where we are in need of uh tiebreaking uh because we have even after the optouts more students who qualify uh for each of these tiebreaking categories at the five and the 10% than are eligible uh from the UW
015system uh guidance. And so currently still in progress is uh the July 14th board meeting uh where a waiver would be considered for approval. Uh we still need to submit that waiver to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction for uh their final approval. We are confident that the waiver that we're bringing forward uh which has been approved um exactly as it stands in districts like Verona previously uh that uh this waiver uh will pass muster uh with the department of public instruction because it has been previously approved in the exact same form in other districts throughout the state. Uh and then immediately following the approval of the waiver, we obviously need to communicate uh the tiebreaking criteria and how it was applied and uh communicate that to the students that were uh impacted one way
016or the other in their standing. So here's how the process actually played out within current numbers. So, uh, we have 340 students at East High School, 334 students, uh, at West High School. Uh, and there's a real small number of students, um, at Prairie Phoenix Academy that in the presentation of that number, uh, would probably identify their grade. And so, um, not publicly reporting the number of students at Prairie Phoenix Academy. Uh all told, there are 24 students that qualify for the top 10%. Uh there is um uh I'm sorry, there's uh yeah, there's 24 students that were tied with a 4.0 uh which uh would qualify them for the top 5%. There's only 17 allowable uh by the UW system guidance at the 5% and an additional 17 allowable at the 10%. We had
017two opt outs uh at the 5% and so that means that we had 22 students at East High School tied with a 4.0 and a tie break would be required at E High School. There are 12 additional students that round out the total number of 34. Uh there would be no tie break required at the number 34 spot for the qualification of the top 10%. At West High School, it works out a little bit differently. There are 27 total students tied with a 4.0. There are only 16 allowable uh at the 5% and 10% allow and 17 at the 10% allowable by the UW admission uh criteria. We had two opt outs at the 4.0 level which means we still have 25 students tied with a 4.0 and a tie break would be required. We
018also at West High School have a need to tie break at the number 33 spot. And so this tiebreaking criteria does not apply only to students at the 4.0 or top 5%. It also applies to students at the uh 10% and students who have really excellent GPA uh but would fall outside of the number 33 spot. And so, uh, we also have to apply this criteria to the 10% at West High School. At Prairie Phoenix Academy, we have, uh, one student qualifying for the top 5%. We have one student allowable by the rounding criteria. And so there's no need to break ties. We have two students qualifying at the 10%. We had no optouts. And then we uh of course have uh no need to tie break at the 10% at Prairie Phoenix Academy. And
019so uh this is just a breakdown in numbers of how uh this would actually uh play out uh with uh tiebreaking and um uh opting out and the need for uh the waiver criteria. All right. So moving forward, uh the recommendation stands as uh determining the 5% in Top 5%, excuse me, and top 10% of the high school uh at East, West, and Prairie Phoenixmmies, uh as being number one, the number of high school credits earned by the end of six semesters, followed by the number of high school advanced placement courses, dual credit courses that are listed in the current course guide for high school credit and/or university or college credits earned through ECCP or start college now at the end of six semesters. If the need for a third tie break uh is in
020place, then we would move to looking at the ACT score on the junior year spring state assessment as the tiebreaking criteria. So again this is a conversation around uh you know the rationale and our best thinking as Dr. Sarin mentioned at the very beginning I want to you know provide some uh rationale and then talk a little bit about um you know coming to this determination. Uh, one, we wanted to acknowledge the overall students course load and name that it minimizes risks to students who cannot access the most rigorous courses due to scheduling conflicts that are beyond their control. An example of that is a course request not running, two courses scheduled at the same time or schedule conflicts because there's a competition of interest. So, you know, an example of that that's very real
021and came in the uh form of staff voice in the written comment in the March 10th meeting is remaining in a music class or an orchestra class versus taking an additional AP course. These are uh real choices that students uh have been asked to made make um acknowledgement of strength of schedule uh as the number um two criteria with AP and success in highly rigorous courses. We wanted to make sure that we were uh including in there uh the acknowledgement of strength of courses then of of course acknowledgement of performance on college entrance exams. Um and so uh the outcome of that conversation previously was the inclusion of class rank in uh district procedure IKD uh and that this would be a notation additional notation on their transcript of top 5% and top 10%. And
022so this is the rationale for JIR3. Uh and um just naming that um you know previously discussed and approved was uh the you know addition of uh this language to district procedure IKD. All right. So uh let's continue to dive uh into this with the rationale and uh diving a little bit more deeply into uh some of the questions as to why uh you know we came up with uh the criteria that we did and why we are continuing to propose that uh we move forward with the criteria that had uh been initially brought forward. Um, one, we wanted to make sure that our seinal documents, our uh, commitment to our district mission and vision, our equity statements, our core values and beliefs and uh, you know, SR2 and SR3 uh, were the driving factors
023in the decisions that we uh, are making uh, and the decisions that uh, we're making are rooted in uh, seinal uh, artifacts that uh, included board voice in the development, so SR2 and SR3 specifically, uh, and more broadly community voice in the development of our equity statement and district strategic planning documents, mission and vision. And so, you know, we understand that the role of uh our work was to find the waiver that most closely aligned with our value and equity statements, knowing that any waiver would create the perception that some things are going to be valued over others, including weighing the ethics of a policy regarding access to an incentive that's asking us to apply uh previous decisions um that students had made prior to this incentive being known to them. Uh in other words,
024you know, kids had made choices about the courses that they had taken their freshman and sophomore year before this incentive was known to them. And we are applying uh a rule based in legislation over which school districts had no input on. And and the application of that rule um has consequences that are being applied to students who are unaware that this rule was being conceived of or thought of. And so decisions that they had made um without knowing that that uh incentive was going to be uh available to them. um those decisions uh we didn't want that to unfairly uh impact previous decisions that have been made um for you know previously by those students. Uh there's no way to create tiebreaking criteria that does not benefit one group of students and their selected course
025pathway over another group of students. Um you know we work really hard to provide a multitude of expanding opportunities to our students. Um, and it's vital that our board and our community understand that the principles of decisionmaking that we are applying to our students also apply to students who attend our virtual schools full-time. We were told by um the Jefferson and Eastern Dayne uh group or Jedi virtual school where we have many many students attending full-time that those students will not receive separate transcripts from Jedi and that those virtual students have to be rolled into our resident districts. And so we knew this going into this. We knew this uh when we brought our proposal forward in March and that continues to play out now where in the inclusion of students in that class rank
026and number uh are students that are moving forward uh and have been rolled from virtual school into their resident high schools for the purposes of class rank. the limitations and the um barriers to uh taking certain course pathways in a virtual school setting are not the same as they are for students that attend their courses at East and West High School. And so it's important to know that uh any type of waiver language that we're applying or uh any of the rationale for JIR3 has to also apply to students that are full-time attendees of our virtual school programming. All waiver language also needs to apply to students at Prairie Phoenix Academy as well. And so uh any any type of waiver that we have moving forward uh impacts qualifying students in any of these programs.
027In addition uh we've tried to do our best to capture the strategic focus especially in SR3 and the inclusion and the expansion of the definition of college and career ready to include state skills co-op employability skills youth leadership youth apprenticeship. The details of all of these programs were included earlier this year in the secondary schools update and the district's commitment through the referendum expenditures with the expansion of STEM programming. Said another way, our collective goal has always been to incentivize pathways of personal interest to continue to promote and expand uh programs over which students exercise agency. and it's aligned to our strategic goals of having academic and career planning that focuses on college, career, and life readiness and that the skills required for each are as similar as possible. And so, some of that is
028just an explanation of the continued rationale uh for our um our decision to bring forward the criteria as presented tonight. Uh I also want to note that this is an annual review. And so while we're talking specifically about a waiver uh that is going to impact uh you know this previous year's junior class specifically, we have to have this conversation on an annual basis as long as we continue to need to break ties. And so uh we are going to bring forward in fall of 2025 a representative group of students, parents and caregivers and staff uh to be convened to provide additional input on the tiebreaking criteria for the graduating class of 2027 or next year's junior class. Um and I do want to put this out there. We understand that no matter what waiver
029language we bring forward, there are going to uh be benefits to some students and a perceived loss of benefits to other students. And that's very real and we want to name it moving forward. It's also important to note that uh beyond this conversation of JIR3 and beyond the conversation about the waiver uh we do intend to include transcript language or language on the transcript that will indicate that a student uh qualified for the top 5% distinction but through the process of tiebreaking criteria it was ultimately determined that there was final placement in the top 10 and we would list the tiebreaking criteria as proposed than Jir3. So if a student uh loses in another way uh out on the top 5% based on the tiebreaking criteria, we would include a note on their transcript that
030says that uh they would have qualified except for this tiebreaking uh criteria. Um in other ways acknowledging the exemplary uh academic work uh and um uh uh you know great accolade that a student should receive uh being in the top 5% had it not been for uh the um tiebreaking criteria. And similarly, we're planning to add to students who would have qualified for the top 10% and then because of the tiebreaking criteria fell outside the top 10% that the students performance earned a top 10% distinction. Though following the tiebreaking criteria ultimately determined final placement outside the top 10%. So, we wanted to provide to admissions offices uh and those who actually look at transcripts at the University of Wisconsin system an indication that had it not been for uh the need for tiebreaking criteria that
031the University of Wisconsin system is requiring us to engage in, uh this student would have qualified for the top uh 5% or top 10%. Okay. So uh bringing forward what we're actually recommending uh the recommendation here uh stands as uh students uh will um qualify for the top 5% and top 10% uh at East West and Prairie Phoenix Academy for the purposes of Wisconsin guaranteed uh admission uh program uh based on the criteria listed in the order of preference. One, the number of high school credits. Two, the number of high school advanced placement courses and or dual credit courses listed in uh the high school course guide for high school credit and/or college university credits earned through early college credit program or start college now at the end of six semesters. And then the final
032third criteria, the American college test or ACT score on the junior year spring state assessment. And so that is the recommendation being brought forward. Uh there are links to uh a bunch of additional questions uh and FAQs from the UW admissions office. We've included again Wisconsin administrators alliance uh letter on act 95 guidance. Uh and then uh the DPI's uh bi-weekly made uh mailing that included information about the tiebreaking criteria. Uh thank you for uh listening along and uh look forward to the conversation at the board table on July 14th. [Music]