001It is 6:01 p.m. I'm going to call the meeting of the Grand Forks Public School Board to order on this uh Monday, February 23rd. The first order on our item one on our uh agenda is uh call to order and voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand if you are able. I pledge of allegiance 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. >> Just Dave is on the line for >> We have with us on the phone uh school board president Dave Burgerer. At this time, item 1A is the reading of our schoolboard meeting norms. Jay, >> thank you. >> One, be prepared. Two, be on time. Three, value and respect each other.
002Four, exercise thoughtful deliberation and conversation. Five, be professional at the board table and when visiting with the general public. Six, speak up when the norms are not being followed. And seven, advocate on behalf of students and keep the community in mind. Thank you. Item number two on the agenda is agenda is the approval of our agenda. Do we have a motion for approval? >> Bill moves. >> I'll second. >> There's a second. Motion and a second. >> Discussion. I would like to have under the consent agenda number five the research request hold. Okay. So we are looking at uh pulling number five under uh super uh 6A the consent agenda from the from the agenda. Jay >> is the request to completely pull it from the agenda or specifically take it out for discussion in
003lie of approving by consent. What's the intent? >> my request is to take it completely out and then to um work with the administration on it. So effectively to um postpone it at a later date. Okay. I So I think the procedural process >> we would need >> for that would be a motion to remove it and then it would be an item on the agenda that we would then have to motion to postpone. >> Is that correct? >> I think that's accurate. >> Thank you for that. Board member Flynn. I think you can just pull it for now as long as the board uh do a roll call vote, pull it from the agenda and then it will come back at a later time. >> Just have to make sure the language is stated
004as such rather than removing it from the consent agenda. >> Thank you. So the motion however from Bill was to approve the agenda with a second to remove item five. So they don't match. So we do need to >> you have to amend >> amend. I can amend mine too. >> Okay. So your your motion would be then to approve the agenda pulling item number five from the consent agenda. >> Yep. >> Okay. And what's does that Okay. >> And and removing it from because if we pull it out of the consent agenda then it's an agenda item. >> Yes. So then we would remove it from the entire No, we would just remove >> remove it completely. Okay. >> Is that your motion then, Bill? >> Okay. Second. Okay. Roll call vote, please. >>
005Manley, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Hodc, >> yes. >> Cleven, >> yes. >> Larson is absent. Palmino, >> yes. >> Flynn, >> yes. >> L is absent. Burger, >> yes. >> Um, seven, yes. Two absent. Motion passes. Motion passes. Moving on to item number three on our agenda. Celebrating success, the classified and certified employees of the second quarter. Dr. Brener, we're take that. >> And I think you're going to step away from uh your your chair for this. At tonight's meeting, we have Amanda Kman, who is going to be recognized as the classified employee of the second quarter. Uh I believe Mrs. Beni is here, associate principal at Centry Elementary School, and she'll provide a few remarks. And once that follows, then I'll introduce our certified employee of the quarter. Thank you, Mrs.
006Mackey. >> Thank you for having us here tonight. Century School is thrilled to recognize a truly exceptional member of our team. With over 15 years of dedicated service as a pair professional, Miss Amanda Coupeman brings patience, consistency, and proven strategies to her work every day, helping students to succeed both academically and behaviorally. She builds positive, trusting relationships with students by modeling calm communication, empathy, and mutual respect, helping to create a classroom culture where students feel safe and secure. Miss Coupman works closely with teachers and support staff to share insights, adjust plans, and maintain consistency so students receive the support they need in a respectful and structured environment. It has been shared that any teacher is lucky to have her in their classroom and students are pretty lucky too, especially at recess where her impressive throwing
007arm often makes a game of catch a highlight of the day. Century is honored to announce Miss Amanda Kman as our quarter 2 classified employee of the quarter. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next up, we have Brian Ringdoll, science teacher at Grand Fork Central High School, who is going to be introduced by Mike Wilbur, associate super, associate principal. I almost gave you a promotion there, Mike. Uh, at Central High School. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to be here. Um, so I get a chance to uh recognize our certified uh employee of the quarter, Mr. Brian Ringdoll. Um, in doing this, I I think back to uh an Nths ceremony that I got to take part in a number of years ago where Eric Ripley talked about an impactful teacher and what what
008an impact they have on people and compared it to the Super Bowl of all things. And I thought maybe it would be appropriate tonight to do the same thing because the Super Bowl just happened a few weeks ago and Mr. Ringall's an old uh Valley City State football player. Um, so in in going with this, um, you know, the Super Bowl is such a a momentous event in our country and there's so many people that watch. I think this year there was over 125 million people that took part in that event and then watched it. But what's really interesting is as the event comes to a close and the the spotlight tends to fade, um, so does the memory of the the game and the results. And just to maybe prove that, and hopefully you
009guys don't prove me wrong on this, we'll do a little interactive thing with you here. Um, how many of you guys can remember who won the Super Bowl back in 2024? Just a quick show of hands. Do any of you guys know with confidence who won the Super Bowl just two years ago? Okay. It was the Kansas City Chiefs. All right. How about in 2021? So now we're just going five years back. Who won the Super Bowl in 2021? >> The Vikings, wasn't it? >> Wishful thinking. It was actually the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. And just 10 years ago, 2016, who won the Super Bowl? Do you know? >> The Denver Broncos. And when I saw I thought how, right? No offense to anybody that's a big Denver Broncos fan, okay? But they did. And so
010when you look at that again, just in 10 years, all right, it's hard for us to remember who those people are. But if I asked you right now to write down who was the most impactful teacher you ever had in your life, I think every single one of you would be able to do that. And I think you'd also be able to write down what subject area they taught, what grade they were involved with, and I think you'd also be able to tell me maybe even specifically a specific lesson that they taught you. And so when you when you do those things and you look at those things, um I think that the people that have been in the business a long time and these impactful teachers that do these wonderful jobs, um I think
011this is something that they really understand that there's very few professions that provide that kind of opportunity where what you do on a daily basis can literally stay with another person for the rest of their life. Uh members of the board, I'd like to introduce you to one of these truly impactful teachers, my eighth grade earth science teacher, Mr. for Brian Ringdoll. Brian grew up in Oaks, North Dakota area, which is in the southeast corner of the state. His mother was a nurse and his father was a full-time teacher and a full-time farmer. Hard work and service have always been a part of his family's legacy. And I know Brian is very proud to carry that legacy forward. Brian has been an educator for 37 years and has spent 31 of those years teaching science
012in room 323 at Grand Fork Central High School. He's done this while making the daily commute from his home in Krookton, Minnesota, which is approximately 25 miles away from our school. In case you were wondering, and I certainly was when I was writing this, if we average around 180 school days each school year, and Brian's driving 50 mi roundtrip, he's driven, and this is conservatively, about 279,000 mi and spent 5,548 hours in a car to teach our GFC students. Brian's special gift is his ability to make his content relevant and engaging for all students on any given day. And I'm going to need your help with this. Can you pass one of these out on this side of the room and then pass this one out on that side of the room? Give that to
013Joe. Can you do that for me, please? >> I did. On any given day, if you walked into his class, you might see him or his students demonstrating seismic waves with a metal slinky, working on an electrical circuits to power a light bulb, building toothpick bridges that can hold over 30 plus pounds, or my personal favorite, which is actually circulating around with all of you right now, testing a three-story popsicle building's ability to withstand a 10.0 0 ring doll generated earthquake on his customuilt earthquake platform. And I got an action photo for all of you guys so you can see what that looks like. You can also find those on YouTube because kids post them sometimes because it's so entertaining to watch him break those structures. Brian loves to teach students about the weather and
014is affectionately known as GFC's very own meteorologist. He's also a fully licensed and insured contractor, so he can fix your fence, shingle your house, or even update your kitchen. It's been an absolute joy to watch how he creatively incorporates his contracting skills into his science labs. As the person who nominated him wrote, he uses his skills to connect lessons to real life applications, helping students see the importance of life and fostering curiosity that extends beyond the classroom. He is a dedicated and active member of our GFC faculty club, a regular volunteer on our GFC beautifification landscaping crew, and the most physically imposing Santa Claus you've ever seen for our intellectually disabled students every school year the week before the holiday break. Around 10 years ago, a group of younger GFC science teachers ran as a
015team in the Wild Hog Marathon. Their team name was simple, Ringall is my hero. and their lime green t-shirts had a close-up profile of Brian's face on them. At the time, I couldn't have thought of a more fitting tribute to a man who spent the better part of three decades impacting thousands of GFC students. But today's opportunity to recognize Brian to our broader school community definitely comes close. Members of the board, it is my distinct privilege to help in recognizing a GFC teacher, a GFC leader, and a GFC legend, your certified employee of the quarter, Mr. Brian Ringdoll. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to say just a couple of things. Uh Mike, thank you for the nice words and so forth. And and uh folks, uh this is my 35th year teaching in Grand
016Forks Public Schools. I started at Valley Middle School back in 1991. Um and I've had opportunities to leave. I just haven't left because it's a good place. I mean, uh, there's good students, good good staff. Um, and, uh, I just can't say enough good things about what's, uh, you know, happening in our building, uh, Grand Fork Central. Um, I walk up and down the hallways each day and I look in each classroom and I see some fantastic teaching. So, I was thinking to myself, hey, someone picked me out of all of these fantastic teachers. That that's a special honor. And it really is. So, I don't take this lightly. This is uh this is something I'm proud of and um thank you Grand Forks Public Schools for your time. Thank you both for that and
017for your time. Item four on the agenda is superintendent recommendations for discussion 4 A is our post February 9th 2026 budget reduction approval administrative due diligence and next steps. Dr. Brener. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh board members, in your package you have a memo for me and I'll go through it. So we have some historical uh uh language that's in front of our public uh and that's archived as well. So following the school board's approval of the $4.4 million budget reduction on February 9th, 2026, district administration immediately began the next phase of implementation. The purpose of this discussion item is to provide you with a high level overview of the extensive planning, coordination, and procedural work that has occurred since that date. While the list below is not all-incclusive, it reflects the depth of
018due diligence and the intentional collaborative efforts taking place across departments and grade levels to ensure that all actions are aligned with board direction, policy, and negotiated agreements. So, I'll just walk you through the dates if you have any questions specifically about, you know, the content of those meetings. I'd be uh happy from memory to uh provide some insight. So, on February 10th, the very morning after our last schoolboard meeting, uh we had a joint administrative meeting. So that would be all uh prek through 12 administrators uh directors, district leadership. Uh so that was a planning and coordinating meeting around the immediate steps uh following the board action from the previous night. Executive cabinet on February 10th uh continued uh it looks like beginning for you but continued our conversation around the reduction in forest process
019guided by uh school district attorney Rachel Bruner from Pearson Durk. On February 11th, uh there was a meeting with Ivona Chorovich, our ML coordinator, and there was planning and discussion regarding ML staffing sections and projected student numbers moving into the 2627 school year. February 12th, there's more work done around the reduction in force uh rubric review, uh some of the initial review and alignment to policy and negotiated agreement. Uh on February 13th, uh the K8, excuse me, K through8 music master planning discussion was held. Um and we discussed programmatic and scheduling implications uh tied to some of the budget reductions and realignment. Uh in other words, um what staff what staff members might pick up some uh some other duties as a result of that, but we wanted to make sure we had a framing
020group uh to have a conversation to bring in some more teachers, which I'll talk about in just a second. on February 16th at 11 o'clock in the morning till about 3:30 in the afternoon we had more conversation around the reduction in forest rubric and um again that was uh disc discussing the scoring integrity and procedural consistency and again we continue to get uh legal eyes on that uh to make sure that there is equity consistency and fairness uh in the process and in the way that rubric is used. February 17th, we had a another joint administrative meeting. Again, that's preK through 12 administrators, directors, district leadership in a meeting. Uh there was more systemwide planning and organization and implementation on the sequencing of the uh how the riff rubric would be used. Uh again, executive
021cabinet met that afternoon. Uh we also had attorney Rachel Bruner from Pearson Dirk uh zoom into that meeting or call into that meeting uh to provide any clarifying questions that we may have we that we may have had for her. And we did also on February 17th uh we met with our administrative cabinet that's about 13 or 14 uh uh district leaders uh from across the district uh to discuss more about the reduction of force rubric. Uh Jeff Slum and I met on February 18th at Red River High School uh to talk about all things K through2 music. And February 19th uh continued to work around the reduction in force rubric um and some of the operational steps and make sure that any sort of numerical metric that was being used uh was applied fairly
022uh across all all levels, all uh teaching levels. On February 19th, uh we added to that K through 12 master music schedule planning process. We brought in some of our music teachers from the elementary level, middle school level, uh to be part of that conversation. And Jeff Sabloom was a part of that uh conversation as well. And there's more work to be done uh coming up on March 4th, March March 3rd, March 4th. Uh there's a PLC involved. Um we got uh we'll have some subgroups breaking off from from this committee doing some work and then that entire group will come back together on March 19th. Um and then you can see on February 20th there was a special elementary administrative meeting that Mr. Baky led and February 20th uh Ivona Tadorovich ML coordinator uh
023continued the refinement around ML sections across the district and staffing projections and I believe Mr. Baky was involved in that conversation as well. So the this effort has centered on ensuring that there's accuracy and fairness and consistency with the reduction in force rubric uh in the process being used. Uh aligning staff and programming to actual student enrollment and instructional needs. Uh developing master schedules that preserve student opportunities to the greatest extent possible. And we're trying to get some of the scheduling done this spring uh before next school year starts. So um so there's more master planning K through K through 12. Uh and then providing clear procedural guidance to administrators responsible for implementing the rubric and maintaining full compliance with board policy and negotiated agreements. And then uh against sequ um sequencing decisions in a
024manner that's respectful, transparent, and timely. We know this is a uh an anxious time for many of our folks um who might fall into a program area or a category area um that we're looking at reducing or uh refining or eliminating in some cases. So this work represents hundreds of combined administrative hours and reflects a shared commitment to carrying out the board's decision with professionalism, integrity, and a continued focus on students and staff. And then finally on the last page, just moving forward, we'll continue uh to refine this work. We'll continue to meet with uh with groups and uh teachers who are involved um in some of the decisions that are forthcoming and communicate with stakeholders um every every step of the way. We'll uh attempt to do that a little more timely following board
025meetings u putting out some special communications uh the very next day after a school board meeting depending on what action is taken at this table. um bring uh additional updates to you at each of our subsequent board meetings and then continue to monitor the programmatic impacts and student needs throughout the process. So finally uh in this in this memo for for this item uh the days and weeks since February 9th, the last two weeks have underscored the magnitude of the board's decision and the responsibility that we carry in implementing it with care. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of our principles and our directors, cabinet level leaders who have approached this work with thoughtfulness, uh, collaboration, and an unwavering commitment to doing what's right for students while honoring our staff at the same time.
026And again, this item is presented for discussion and board member awareness. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions for Dr. Brener? Jay? >> Yeah. uh jotted down a couple uh you you referenced and I I'll paraphrase I think it's reasonably close. Teachers who are involved will be in discussions or involved in what? >> Well, as we as we get closer to between now and and March 23rd, which would be the board meeting where we would actually bring names forward. Um and when we get to that item on the agenda under action, you'll see that there are 16 FTEEs on that. You know, we're certainly optimistic that through attrition um and through some other movement that that number is going to be reduced significantly. That would be our hope. Um and so we want to make
027sure that in some of these meetings that we're having, for example, uh a meeting that's coming up with elementary music teachers, a PLC that is coming up in next next week. Um, while elementary teachers, while the elementary music teachers, while their professional educator's license says they're certified to teach band and orchestra, the reality is many of them probably have not taught band orchestra, but there might be some talent in that group who could help with and and that's what we want to discover in the process by bringing those people to the table and allowing them to have a voice in the process. That would be one example. >> Okay. So, they're involved in in a subject matter area that's subject to uh the 52 concepts or other the methods that are being investigated to make.
028Yes. >> All right. Thank you. >> Um and then you you mentioned something about communications occur the day after board meetings. >> What are those communications and who whom are the district communicating with? That communication will go out tomorrow. I'm working with uh our comm's person Melissa Baky. We have a draft already in place depending on how the board acts on the actionable items and then we'll just push that out to everybody. The the the small danger in doing that is the minute meetings aren't produced yet. Um but we can still talk about what the actionable items were by the board. So that's an internal communication within Grand Forks Public School, teachers, administrators, all sta all staff. >> All 1700 people on Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Other questions for Dr. Ber. >> Just
029a just a point of clarification. Thank you, board member Anderson. Um so this memo was posted on Thursday. Um and we had a reschedule of one of those meetings that was indicated in the memo. the one dated with ML coordinator Ivona Tadorovich on that Friday, February 20th actually ended up being rescheduled and so um that will happen later this week. So I just wanted point of clarifications for that and I apologize for that because I sent it to Dr. Brener and we had to reschedule it later in the day. So >> thank you. Other questions? Sherry, >> I appreciate seeing all of this um that is happening. What I'd like to know is are there agenda items that are put together prior to the meeting and are there minutes kept from these meetings? >> From
030the meetings that I've led, uh, yes, there is an agenda and there are meeting notes. Yes. From from the meetings that I've led. >> Additional questions? Amber? Um, I just have a few u mostly procedural questions. I'm trying to find which of my tabs are open here. Um, so I can see how there was hundreds of hours put in with all the work that was done from that meeting until now. So I appreciate the time um and effort in that. Um certainly there's more work and more conversations to be done and I think the board is aware that um there's there's more we need more time in a day to to have some of these conversations. Um, one of the things that I didn't see on this list, um, that I'm curious about is a
031lot of the, um, conversation centered around planning and coordination of next steps, the riffs, policy alignment, um, some scheduling things. Um, were there any conversations in these meetings that discussed um the concepts or additional solutions? Was there were there any meetings that were put together to look at are there any anything else we're hearing? Certainly, we've had public feedback. Certainly, we've had time to um meet with various individuals, but any any concept meetings? You know, we talked about um that things are still a little fluid. Um, some things are set in stone, but curious about that. >> As as far as the 52 concepts, um, none of the 52 have changed other than the nuance difference that you're going to see in one of the memos about the virtual academy and whether the board wants
032to continue with another year or disband that as a plant or a school uh, school campus. So um so we haven't said this one you know this concept is being pulled off this concept is being pulled off as a as a result of our conversations. We're keeping things intact. Uh you know the uh the the analogy or the metaphor that we've used is when you start pulling that one thread of the sweater then you pull the next one and the next one and pretty soon we've got to we've got to look elsewhere u you know to make up the difference. So we're planning around those 51 and a half concepts right now. >> Okay. But just to be clear, there was no meetings dedicated to finding additional revenue generators or additional savings based on feedback
033ideas from anyone else. >> Well, we're always looking at uh different opportunities for revenue, whether it's Medicaid uh billing more frequently, and that's probably something more in Mr. Baky's world and Alyssa Dietrich special education. um with with every position that becomes vacant, we're not automatically filling. We're reviewing all positions, whether they're uh pair professionals, whether they're certified uh special ed is one area that we'll need to continue to pursue to fill those as quickly as we can. Um but as administrative positions become available, we're scrutinizing those as well. >> Sure. Okay. Um, one of the meetings centered around um, the specific wording here is K8 music master planning discussion, programmatic and scheduling implications tied to approved reductions. Um, is there any feedback from that on what those implications are as a result of that meeting?
034>> I I can give you an example. Um, so we had our uh middle school some of our middle school musicians who were on the self-study committee last year. Uh, Rebecca McFarland, Tim Kabi, uh, Trina Connell. Um, and so an example was just looking at Tim Kabi's band schedule at Valley Middle School, for example. He teaches zero hour, then he has four and a half periods a day uh, teaching lessons. And so if we were to see a reduction, which has been a re recommended um on the on the realignment process, what would that mean for Tim schedule uh to teach in front of a a general music class, a sixth grade music class? So, we did talk about that. We haven't landed on anything final yet on who's going to do what. Those are
035continued conversations that we're going to have. >> Okay. Um, and then I have a question about the riff rubric. Is it appropriate to ask that now? Because it there's some stuff that's talked about here, but related to the riff rubric. I don't know. I too have some questions on that riff um piece that is there, but I was holding mine for the recommendation for board to determine that scope of reduction in force and I was wondering if that was the better place for it, but I'm prepared to take it >> now as well. Sure. >> I I I think the more appropriate place would be item um 6c >> Yep. to wait where where we have the rubric as part of the agenda item. >> Okay. Um I'm just looking at my notes here. Okay,
036I think that's it then for this section. >> Okay, other questions? Sure. >> I'm going to piggyback a little bit off of what I think um Amber may have been trying to get at. Uh I've heard from numerous community members and many uh teachers that are saying that they're that they have other solutions that they have been um working on creating solutions so that we will not be harming the opportunities for students or um I think I've read throughout this um overloading um teachers and and doing some things like that. I would like to hear from the administration how those teachers are able to if they're not involved with these, but there are teachers out there that are looking out for um their fellow colleagues and such. How do they get that information to the
037people that are making these decisions and where is it recorded or discussed or thought about? they could send their direct recommendations to the three of us or the four of us if they would if they would like. Um, and it's it's not that their voices or emails would go unheard. Um, some some of the concepts that have been shared with us uh have been something like, hey, if we if we reduce our our supply budget or our travel budget, you know, could that substitute for a halftime FTE for a year? it could, but probably not for the second year and probably not for the third year. So, while those are reasonable solutions to offer, uh they're not sustainable or long-term. That was that was just one example. >> Further questions for this item for Dr.
038Brener, >> our colleagues on the phone. >> Yeah, sorry. Colleagues on the phone. Dave on the phone. I just had one point of clarification. I heard you say, Dr. Brener, that any position that uh is unfilled is continually reviewed. Would you characterize, if you could, the conversations about uh the process for refilling uh an associate superintendent position? Is that related to these concepts? Is it unrelated? How how is that uh how does that intersect with this process? Is it is it on a parallel track? Did that come up in these discussions? Um if you could if you have anything to uh help illuminate that. >> Sure. Uh I I will share with you that that you know based on the five schoolboard retreats that would not be a recommendation. That would come from the principal
039group uh to have somebody to to not report to. Uh but nonetheless with the vacancy um we are going to be exploring as early as next week uh bringing some people to the table uh to talk about the deliverables that Dr. Glatch has been engaged in for the last several years and if there's a possibility that some people across the district across MSE could pick up some of those deliverables or not. Uh we want to work through a process and and see if that is achievable. Um whether that's a full-time scope reduction, a half-time scope reduction. Uh time will tell when we work through that. >> Dave, anything else? >> My questions were asked and answered at least for this section of the agenda. >> Are Jeff and Terry with us? Jeff on the phone
040yet? >> Jeff is still on the phone. He's on. >> Okay. Jeff, anything from you on the phone? >> Uh no questions. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Okay. Anything else in the room? Other questions for Dr. Brener? Okay. Seeing none, this was an item for discussion. We will move on to item 4B, virtual high school board discussion and direction. Dr. Brener. >> All right. This next one is mine as well for discussion. And I'm trying to get closer to the microphone here. If that helps in the back of the room, maybe that helps a little. Thank you very much for that. Um, again, as a continuation of the $4.4 million budget realignment process, this memo is intended to frame a discussion at tonight's meeting regarding the future of the virtual high school. Uh,
041this was one of the 52 concepts uh presented to the board um and also approved by principles, associate principles, directors, and district leadership um to remain as one of the 52 concepts. However, uh you know, having said that, the virtual high school does carry a unique nuance compared to the other concepts because it is a school that's identified the department by the department of public instruction. It's a plant uh that the school board did approve. And so, as such, any consideration relative to continuing or discontinuing the virtual high school um would be uh something that the board would need to act upon. And we typically don't act upon uh serious matters uh in the course of one evening but a matter of uh over two evenings. The the first evening for discussion, the second evening
042for action. So in front of you is a conversation about uh whether you want to discontinue the virtual high school after its first year of operation or the second option is to continue the program into the 2627 school year to determine whether enrollment growth allows the model to become self- sustaining. Right now the uh the cost on the budget reduction sheet was uh $70,000 to run that for 25 26 students. Uh Dr. Glach did share recently that there's a little more interest uh in enrolling for next year. U probably not interest yet to close that gap between uh 70,000 and zero, but nonetheless there is some interest there. So I would just defer to board members uh and Mr. Chair to have that conversation. >> Thank you. items, uh, questions, comments. Jay, >> well, just
043a comment and a reiteration. This came up at, I think, the last two of our board retreat meetings. And I think on both those personally, I was very clear we should keep this for another year. I think any policy needs more than a year to to judge its efficacy, and I put this right at that level. I I do think we should keep it. Um, my personal thoughts again, hopefully it's no surprise to anybody in the room. Thank you. >> Thank you. Other questions, Bill? >> Yeah, I would agree with Jay that we continue it just for the 26th 27th school year and re-evaluate it at the end of that year to see if it could become self- sustaining. And for the kids that are taking it, we may have to be providing something extra
044for those kids if they can't fit into our our current structure. So I I think this is an opportunity to take another one-year look at it and see how it would go. >> Thank you. Others, Amber, >> I think people know where I stand on this. I've been pretty vocal about this program. I think the rationale of it being a recently added program doesn't um match sort of the uh um how we've done this process that there's really no other rationale other than it's been recently added and it has a dollar figure attached to it. Um I also think that um kudos to Dr. Galatch. We've had a long conversation about this program and getting it started. um she supported the need for it and the board was on board. We started having these conversations
045three years ago after a lot of conversation and I just would think that it would set the precedence for future um conversations where we add a new program, add a new curriculum and then we're getting rid of it one year without any other supporting data that it's not working, it's inefficient, etc. Um, with that being said, I think if as per our discussion, with lack of a straw vote, um, to use Jay's terms, um, I think that it is not appropriate, um, regardless of what decision we make here, if we are largely supportive of this not going through as a reduction or staying, I think it's it's inapprop appropriate for us to have these as part of the concepts that are being asked to reduce enforce without an official vote to um eliminate this school.
046So, I'm not going to ask for it now, but I would ask before we consider a motion of any sort um that we talk about potentially removing those items when we get to that section related to the virtual high school. Okay, thank you. Other cherry, >> I concur basically with what um Jay and Amber have said. However, I do think that we need to um clean up if we can the um because there's confusion as far as I'm concerned about that we are going to discuss this tonight and then yet if you go to the me memo for um board to determine scope of reduction in force there is that virtual high school teacher.5 on there. So, um, does that mean that the other 0.5 which is in this document, which is this, that's $70,000,
047is that what we're looking at saving, if we cut that teacher, would we be keeping the other person that's not a certified teacher, as I understand, for 35,000 or, you know, I'm just splitting hairs there and such. So that's the part that I think is um that I'm going to be asking is that we are um better detailed more clear on exactly the number of people that are involved in this um that we are supporting two positions um or are we just supporting one position um would be that certified teacher that.5 um because it brings to my mind that possibly um that person can do this position by themselves and not with this other person that is doing it. And so that would then help us to reduce the budget more or again that we
048can look at realigning those dollars to someplace else because I'm also concerned about the ratio of students that are with you know two people or considered one full-time. So I'm just looking more for clarity with what the administrative team is seeking within this. >> Dr. Brener. >> Yeah. Might have to defer to Dr. Galatch on that one since you've had oversight. Thank you, Dr. Glatch. >> Dr. Glatch. >> Sure. If the the question is around the current staffing levels, is that correct? So currently serving the 27 students um second semester at the virtual high school is one half time um equivalency. So that's the 0.5 that's recommended in the reduction and force scope right now. There is also a six-fist contract which would be considered a point 2 for a special educator who's on overload
049who is helping students who are served on IEPS in that environment. And then we have our online manager who does all of the state reports, enrolls the students, make sure that they're on track for graduation or towards graduation, um monitors the grades, communicates with families as the kind of the administrative part of that. and that's also um an additional stipen that comes with it. So those three part-time positions add up to $70,000, but the scope of the riff is just the 0.5 because the other two are on contract overloads. Does that help clarify? >> Yes. But again, what isn't clear then is when we look at this document and it says 0.5 under certified and.5 under classified. if this document would have said 2 or 3 something for us to understand. So again, I'm just
050trying to put all the pieces of the puzzle together. And when I see this information and then this information, this information, and this, I'm troubled. I just want to make sure that when we decide to vote on this virtual high school that we understand the extent of the um teacher or staff members that are involved and the cost. Thank you. >> Thank you on the phone. Dave for Jeff. Anything from you? I I have two. Uh without of course breaching any confidentiality about the weight list or potential growth of of this virtual high school, could you characterize generally whether there may be students attending this virtual high school from outside our district? In other words, additional per pupil payments that we wouldn't capture otherwise. So that's question one. And then maybe the second piece if
051this does come back or when this does come back for action if we could see some of the metrics and timeline and schedule if we are going to continue this for another academic year at what point are we re-evaluating just so that we have a sense of when the decision would be made if it's exactly a year from now if it's sooner. uh some some way for us to put a mechanism in place so we can re-evaluate this if if that is the direction the board takes. >> Dr. Clatch. >> Yes. And I'll respond in reverse order. I I think the timing of a calendar year from now would make sense to re-evaluate Mr. Burgerer because we would be in time to complete registration processes and get kids enrolled in classes or not. Um and
052it also would align with our open enrollment timelines from outside districts. So, um, around this time, if not a month sooner, I it would be my recommendation for evaluation so that we can complete that process. Um, to answer your question a little more broadly, the the virtual high school does serve um, two students currently who would be considered outside of our district um, in the sense that they're of home school or neighboring district. And the rest of them are Grand Forks Public School students. Some of those students we would be serving differently as um, as Mr. Palmino kind of intimated earlier because they are homebound because of of high net medical needs or receiving medical cares outside of our community temporarily. Um some of those students are in various situations where um they have conditions
053that kind of disallow them to attend school on campus. And so I'm answering this a little more broadly because when you talk about student enrollment that we would otherwise capture in full-time FTEES on our campuses, it's really it's really quite hard to predict. It's hard to predict because um it's hard to know if those students of a certain age would continue with enrolling in public high school at this time in life if we didn't have this option available to you or to them. So it's a little bit um hard to determine quite honestly going into next year. I can tell you that there are three open enrollment applications that specifically requested um enrollment in the virtual high school and open enrollment are students explicitly outside of Grand Park's public schools. And so um that is
054part of the dynamic moving forward to next year that I think uh Dr. Brener alluded to earlier that could help offset some of the remaining $70,000 with brand new dollars to our district. >> Thank you. Any follow-ups, Dave? >> I think I lost him on the phone. >> Okay, Jeff. Is Jeff there? >> Jeff is there. Jeff. >> Jeff, any questions from you on the phone? >> Uh, no questions, but I guess I'm just in agreement with some of the others here that we should continue on uh with this program for the next school year. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Any other questions or items in the room. Okay. Hearing none, I will move on to um item five, which is our public comment period. Uh we are about to enter our public comment
055period. The purpose of the open meetings law in North Dakota Sentry Code is to provide members of the public with access to the meetings of a governing board or a public entity allowing them to observe and monitor. By state law, every regular meeting of the board must include an opportunity for an individual to provide public comment. The law requires that an individual providing public comment at a meeting provide to the governing body in writing their name and address. Public comments must be pertinent to the district and may not interfere with the orderly conduct of the meeting. May not be defamatory, abusive, harassing or unlawful. May not include confidential or exempt in exempt information and may not be directed at personnel. Each individual is allotted up to three minutes to speak and no individual may speak
056on the same topic more than once. At this time, I have uh 16, if I counted correctly, public comment cards filled out. Um, as we have done throughout this process, I'm going to group these comments into themes so that we can gather feedback and information about each concept one at a time. Please consider um uh sorry uh I also have a list of those who have spoken on on uh public comments on these topics at our special meetings special meeting on January 12th and or our regular meetings January 20th and February 9th. With that, I will take speakers who have not spoken in the past first and then I will go on to others who have spoken um in the past. I have seven who have spoken prior, two who have not spoken prior and
057don't have a clear um topic identified on their uh blue card. and uh seven new blue cards uh indicating they would like to speak about music in specific. With that, I don't know if we have any other public comment cards. That's what I have at this time. That's what I've received. So, okay. With that, again, uh the ask is that you would come to the podium uh and speak for three minutes um or or less. Um, and when you get to the podium, state your name. Um, and and go from there. We will start with and I'll I'll do this as similar to how we've done it in the past. I will uh uh give our first speaker and then who is on deck at this point in time. Uh we will start with uh
058Sydney Peterson. Sorry if I mispronounced name. That's where we will start. And then on deck will be Mirren Burbank. >> Hi, I'm >> Can you pause one second and turn on the mic there? There's a little yellow. There we go. Perfect. >> Hi. Yeah, I'm SA Peterson. Um, music makes up a core part of my life. I'm the president and concert master of the Red River Orchestra and a member of the concert choir, Magicals, and the Velvetones. I'm also a senior auditioning for college as a violin performance major. As such, I could stand here telling you about how the music department is truly my home or that my teachers have been a crucial part of my decision to pursue music as a career. However, in reality, the majority of GFPS music program graduates are not
059going into the professional field of music. This fact does not detract from the value of our music programs. It actually adds to it. It's not a coincidence that in the past two years, six national merit finalists have come out of the Red River music department. It's not also not a coincidence that recent music students have gone on to Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Northwestern, Rice, Carlton, or led incredibly successful college careers. K through2 music education does not just train musicians. It trains people to collaborate, present, listen, and receive constructive criticism. It teaches students the process of learning a skill and the resilience that comes with it. I can confidently speak in front of you today because I performed in at least 30 concerts over the past four years. Music may not be a part of STEM, but
060it teaches critical lessons necessary for students to succeed in whatever profession they choose. It's not extra and it's not expendable. And in relative in a relatively rural community, students need as many opportunities for success as we can get. All of us understand that the money has to come from somewhere, but does it really have to be so concentrated in the music department? We've been repeatedly target for the targeted for these cuts, and the proposal is disproportionate. 2% of the district's teachers are bearing 40% of the FDA cuts. Please reconsider the scope of these cuts. We have a brilliant, thriving music program in Grand Forks. Don't take that away from us. Thank you. Thank you. I will just remind I'll remind the public I'll remind the public that this is a meeting of the board in
061the public. This is not a public meeting. So I would ask that you allow speakers to speak their three minutes and then we move on to the next speaker so that we can give the opportunity to get through all 16 this evening and give time to everyone. Thank you. Mirren Burbank. Um, my name is Mirren Burbank and I'm an 11th grade student at Red River High School. I would like to express my deepest disappointment when it comes to the proposal. Not only do I fear that it was a lapse in judgment, but I also preach the negative connotations as well as the benefits to music for all students and people in general. I am involved with both choir and band and I am also involved in theater remaining in three high school choirs currently at
062Red River. As for the fine arts, I am on the speech and debate team enrolled in French and having been in all of these for the past three years. All of my brothers, all three younger, one of which is here tonight, are involved heavily with these as well as are both of my parents. It is not um a simple fact to realize that I am heavily invested in the cause that I care about it. I am not only an avid realizer of music that I am involved in, but also that of my friends, my teachers. These people that I come into contact with in my daily life will be negatively affected by this proposal. For example, I know that several individuals who are involved in both band and orchestra and have been since both were
063offered since fifth and fourth grade. By reducing enrollment to both of fifth grade, you reduce the chance of kids being able to pick up both instruments and enjoy both for the fear that they will not succeed at both. I know several students who are enrolled in harmony at the high school level who have said the class has been a huge motivation for their pursuing of music in college and by removing this opportunity reduce the amount of music major enrolles at a collegiate level. So, not only does this budget harm students, but equally teachers. We are offered a plethora of music opportunities in the Grand Fork School District, which I'm eternally grateful for, but by reducing these opportunities, you make it increasingly difficult for music students to grow and change and develop their skills with new
064teachers in new settings. I know some of you here are involved with music yourselves. And I don't mean to insinuate, but I would like to voice my frustration in a constructive way that gets my message out there. I am aware that there is a need for action. This is no surprise. However, I and many others believe that the cuts music will be receiving will be substantially disproportionate compared to that of other activities and extracurriculars. And I do not completely disregard music and that it will have a place in this action. But I do urge reconsideration. And I am additionally aware that you are all simply people trying to do your jobs and execute what you believe to be the best course of action. And I am certainly not up here to attack any of your
065character. You are in a very difficult position. but to make suggestions. It is also us as the people against the problem and that is my main tenant and I encourage you all to reconsider both your stance or consider your vote on the matter and I thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker will be next speaker will be Nile Reedhammer followed by Mohamad Alahanzo. Sorry if I'm again mispronouncing Nile please. Is it on? Okay. My name is Nile Reedhammer and I am a senior at Red River High School. Two years ago, I spoke here against music cuts on behalf of the student director of the Red River High School Concert Choir. This year, I stand before you as the student director, myself, speaking not only for myself and our
066choir, but for the students who will come after us. I understand difficult financial decisions must be made but according to the recommendation for board to determine scope of reduction in force the current proposal includes cutting 6.5 music teacher positions across elementary middle and high school more than 40% of the 16 certified staff reductions and the highest amount of cuts in the reduction other positions being cut are far fewer the next largest cut being two positions from the sixth to eighth grade interventions classes I find it hard to believe that such a huge amount of the music department being removed is necessary and there isn't a way to find the money saved from these reductions somewhere else that isn't so much of the music department. Cutting this deeply into a program increases class sizes, worsens students
067experiences, delays when students can begin orchestra and reduces opportunities for advanced high school musicians. I also speak as an older brother. I have younger siblings, one in middle school and other soon to enter elementary. I worry about whether they'll start orchestra at the same age I did, at the same opportunities in choir, perform, grow as musicians, and experience the same sense of belonging that shaped me into who I am today. Music is what gave me the confidence to stand here today. And I want every student to have that same opportunity. Music is not extra. It is not a luxury. It is core. It teaches discipline and leadership and gives many students a reason to come to school. I asked the board to review these cuts and consider spreading reductions more evenly across programs so music
068is not disproportionately impacted. Once programs shrink, rebuilding them is far harder than preserving them. Thank you. >> Thank you, Muhammad, please. And next, following Muhammad will be Jacob Kerwald on deck. Jacob Jac Jacob. >> Good evening, board members. I would first like to thank you all here for your time today and also your willingness to hear us out. My name is Muhammad Algazo. I'm a junior at Red River and music has been a part of my life since the seventh grade. And as I stand here in front of you today, I am reminded of my freshman year where I among many of the students here today stood before you preaching the same message. Don't target our music program. I would first like to preface as you have seen from the speeches today that none of
069us are here to argue that we don't need these cuts because we do. And none of us are here to argue that music shouldn't be cut from at all. But to see over 40% of the proposed eliminations of FTEEs come from this program. This program that gives most if not all the students here our identity, we can't in our right mind stand by without giving you our opinions. I first started my music journey in the Virginia school system before I moved here in the ninth grade. And I can't stress enough how much better GF GFPS handles music education. From lessons to multiple conductors, it's only what has been invested into this program for years that makes it as special as it is. And the sheer amount of work our conductors and teacher put teachers put
070in that allows us students to grow into the young musicians we are today. and these proposed eliminations will ruin that. Let's look at this from a practical perspective from the high school. Last year, before Mr. Zimmerman was brought as one of the teachers, it was a struggle to fit every student within our already pretty large band program that is projected to grow, each with their own lives and schedules to get lessons with just Mr. Disher. Just to put that in perspective, we gone from having four required lessons my freshman year to maybe two, if that, for each student. And this year, when thankfully Mr. Zimmerman was brought on. That gave us the needed leeway for students to get these lessons. Any cuts to music positions across the district will stretch conductors thin and not make
071sure that every students get their lessons. And in a program that is already very busy, we can't have that if we want it to continue to thrive. And it should be the district's goal to continue to allow ev to to allow this very studentf facing and student interactive program to thrive. So please, I urge you board members not to leave music alone, but to maybe reconsider having so much of this of these proposed eliminations be from our music program and have it be more proportionate. Targeting one program is not the way to fix this budget crisis. Thank you. Thank you. Jacob followed by Andrew Forester. Jacob followed by Andrew Forester. >> Is this good volume? >> Yep. Thank you. Just as other students here today, I'm here to talk about the music program. But that's
072what I want to draw attention to. The other students students would not be here for a math class or for an English class. Students are here because this is the students class. I got into music at the first age that was offered to me. First through choir in elementary school, then onto orchestra and band from elementary school. Cutting those areas would impact people like me who want to achieve. People like them who have found a community, who have found a group, who have found an education in music. I could tell you all about how the Department of Education finds that music is one of the most efficient programs, how it improves attendance, delinquency, and SAT scores. I could tell you how almost every single person involved in music loves the program. But I'm here to
073tell you about the people, the people behind the music program who have made it what it is today. Muhammad who went before me showed that Red River and Central have vibrant music programs. But it's not just that. At the middle school level, mandatory music education helps students build emotional stability, helps them build opinions and ideas that translate to English and sciences later on. At the elementary school, the essential skills taught by music and enhanced by band and orchestra help students develop into better people, helps them build an understanding, and perhaps most importantly, it builds a love of music. Members, in your commitment during the budget realignment process, on your public website, you say, quote, "This progress is grounded in our district values, focused on students, and aligned with our strategic plans." I want you to
074look every single member of the audience in the eyes and tell me that this is aligned with student values. I want you to look every single member of the audience in those eyes and tells them tell us that this helps enrich the world. I want you to tell us that the music program who has said has 2% of the certified teachers take 40% of the cuts when quite clearly the students want that 40% more than anything else. If there's one thing you take from today, students use chat GPT on math and English all the time. It's no secret. But not a single one of those people or anybody uses Chat GPT on music because they aren't in it for the credits. They aren't in it just to look good. They are in music because they
075love music. And at the end of the day, when you look at those people, music is the program they want to be in. So make sure that you help the students. Make sure that you preserve our music program. Thank you, Andrew. And Andrew Forester, followed by Theodore Sanberg, I believe. Theodore be on deck. Andrew, go ahead. Hi, my name is Andrew Forester. I'm a senior at Red River High School, and like many of my peers tonight, I am very involved at in music at Red River. Uh, and some of the cuts suggested would severely impact a department that I and many others love. I plan to speak specifically about the number of proposed music teacher positions being cut. It's proposed that 6.5 of the 16 position cuts should go to the music department. My question
076is why should we allocate almost half of the total cuts to to a department that makes up 1 to 2% of our entire teaching staff? A department that affects thousands of students day-to-day lives and has significantly impacted my own and many others personal ac and academical lives. Secondly, if you as a member are skeptical or don't like certain proposed cuts, I urge you to ask questions and speak up. I'm certain there are further possibilities waiting to be explored. What is proposed does not have to be the final solution, and you have the power to vote on the specific cuts individually, and I encourage you to use it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Theodore Sanberg. Next up will be Taia Barrick. Ta ta. Theodore. Good evening. My name is Jack Samberg. I am a senior at
077Red River High School. I play violin. I sing in choir and I play piano. I'm here tonight opposing the proposed cuts to teachers in music education. If you and I think most of you go to church, I if you are of Christian faith, I implore you to hear these words. In the book of 2 Samuel, David plays his instruments and dances to worship the Lord. In the book of Luke, a choir of angels sings God's praise in front of the shepherds. Multiple of Paul's letters in the New Testament speak of singing songs of love and praise. In fact, most of the book of Psalms in itself is almost entirely composed of singing. God values music. He values singing. What good does it to deny you does it do to deny that to fourth grade choir?
078You have sons and daughters that have or have done music in some capacity. Why would you take away your own children's love for music? Did Christ not say that it would be better, and I quote this in Matthew 16:8, that it would be better to throw yourself into the sea than cause one of these little ones to stumble? You are all elected a members of this community. Are you not to represent us? Are you not to represent to the citizens to serve us? I understand that a budget is necessary to move forward. I understand that this is a hard decision that you have hopefully deliberated quite a bit of time on each of these cuts. But I ask you in this moment to act like Christ. Christ himself. Was Christ himself not a teacher? In
079the Bible, what in the Bible? Who was wrong? the teacher Christ or the Pharisees who couldn't fathom healing the sick or feeding the poor who truly helped. I do I respectfully don't remember this board asking any members of the board asking what the students or the teachers thought maybe could have been cut. What I do remember were cuts proposed by the administration. Out of 16 proposed teacher positions for elimination, 6.5 of those positions are music related. a staggering number that clearly shows an agenda of administration that views music which God himself loves and cher cherishes as nothing more than a vanity. Please, I implore you, listen to the community as Christ would have. Listen to what the people would have to say. All the students here are smart, capable, and you would be wise not
080to downplay their intellect and ability. It is my belief that all of them will go far will go incredibly far in life because of the teaching of music. Music is not optional in this community. It is not a vanity. God doesn't think so. I don't think so. We don't think so. Before you vote, please ask yourself, are you acting in the will of Christ or are you acting in the will of the Pharisees? Who truly should be the voice of the cuts? Who wins from cutting more teachers? Who is the only player in this whole silly game who never actually teaches? Who would rather cut teachers than asks what truly doesn't need to be here? who stands on a ground of money and who stands on the ground of the rock of ages. Who is
081the one in here who is never harmed from these cuts? That is my time. God bless you all. Thank you. Ta Ta or TA followed by Jonathan Mayo. Hello members of the Grand Forks Public School Board. My name is TA Bareric and I am a sophomore at the University of North Dakota. Now, it is important to note that I am not from the Grand Forks area. I actually come from Minot, North Dakota. However, from Minot, I heard time and time again how wonderful the music students were in this area. And how do I know that? I stood as a middle schooler and a high schooler at Needro High School praying, hoping that I could have the same opportunities that Grand Forks Middle School and high school students had because I come from a school that
082followed through with the cuts that you proposed today. I stand before you as an adult that was once a middle schooler and a high schooler that abandoned her dream of music because I no longer had the opportunities that I once had previously. I no longer had the opportunities that the previous students from my classes had. I cannot stand up here and provide the statistics that the rest of the people before me and the people that after me will speak have for you and you have the documents in front of you that show the exact percentages of the amounts of money that you want to cut from the music departments. I remember traveling from my tiny band to a concert on this side of the state, which I was never able to go to, and looking
083at the Grand Fork students and wishing that I could be like them, wishing that I could sing, that I could play like them. And I was never able to because I didn't have the opportunities that this district had. It's important that we keep these opportunities intact. Not only do they foster a community for people that feel isolated, they can save the lives of these same children. I found my community in the little bit of music that I had and it has helped me make great friends here. I encourage you to vote the right way. You have heard us time and time again. If you are truly listening, you know the way to go. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Jonathan Mayo, please. Jonathan Mayo, followed by Whitney Barry. Good evening board members and
084administrators. My name is Jonathan Mayo. I come to you today as a concerned and frustrated parent, teacher, and PLC coordinator for the Grand Forks Elementary music teachers. I'm here to discuss the continued concern of transparency as it pertains to the budget realignment process. At the beginning of this process back in the fall, elementary music teachers were pulled into meetings with their building level admin to discuss possible cuts to our programming, including fourth and fifth grade chorus and afterchool grade level programs, all of which fall under Kota. We went straight to work advocating for the importance of our programs and their worth to Grand Fork students. When the budget was finalized and the 4.4 4 million reduction approved. Elementary music teachers began conversations in planning on how to be flexible during the day and in our
085schedules for our students and keep our programs going. These conversations only just began several weeks ago and are going to continue to make sure our students benefit from these experiences. Elementary music teachers will be asked in the future what they are willing and able to teach apart from general music. We are flexible and we are specialists in our field and we will continue to try to give time and opportunities that we feel comfortable and skilled in teaching to our students. It's what we do. In the past few days, the riff process and rubric have been made public. 6.5 FTE will be voted on by the board tonight to cut from music. All of music. As far as I am aware, this process includes all K12 music teachers in Grand Forks. Positions, not programs, will be
086cut based on the rubric provided by the RIFF committee. All teachers will be scored according to the categories on this rubric. Let me be clear. After talking with many of my elementary music colleagues and re-evaluating the meetings that I have attended as the coordinator of the elementary music PLC, we were not aware that our jobs, our positions, and our livelihoods may also be on the line. We knew our roles might look different in the upcoming years and we were ready and are still ready to provide amazing teaching students teaching to students who need music in our district. However, this is a drastic change in communication from cutting kota chorus and grade level programs that we first heard back in the fall. Being in my position, I have had many conversations with administration throughout this budget
087realignment process. And I understand as many of us have said tonight, this is hard tough work that no one wants to do. But the lack of transparency transparency has been brought up several times and today feels like another slap in the face, especially to elementary teachers who are working hard in the current school year and planning ahead to provide opportunities for our students in years to come. Personally, I started teaching in this district four years ago. I love my students and all of my colleagues at Kelly Elementary. This year though, I have found it hard to advocate for Grand Forks Public Schools being an amazing school district. I grow more weary every day as a teacher and a father of two with one daughter who I know is going to be an outstanding musician about
088the music opportunities that they will be offered in our district. I would ask tonight that the board to reconsider voting on all cuts in one motion and to reconsider the disproportionate cuts to music staff. Thank you, Whitney Barry. Following Following Whitney Barry will be Steve Carrier. >> Good evening. Um, pardon my voice. I'm getting over a cold. Um, at the last board meeting, um, there was a very interesting exchange that I noted between board member Flynn and assistant or associate superintendent Galach. Um, just to remind you of the conversation, um, Amber Flynn asked why the idea of closing or consolidating schools was listed as a zero dollar item on the 52 concepts list even though in the board retreat it was ranked second by the board in a force choice exercise. Um, that got me
089thinking and I looked it up and looked up the slide deck from the retreat and it did indeed show that that concept rose to the in the top three for all three of the groups involved. Um, in m in response to that, Miss Kalach said, "Our community has spoken loudly about don't shut down our neighborhood schools. We know that. We've been down that road before. So, is there a way to look at other efficiencies without doing that?" Now, don't get me wrong, most of you know that I am not in favor of closing neighborhood schools either. But this was really interesting to me as it revealed both that the board's input wasn't being reflected in the budget realignment process and the administration was taking um community voices into account in some cases but not in
090others. One of the board norms that you read at the beginning of every meeting is to advocate on behalf of students and keep the community in mind. Additionally, the guiding principles of the alignment process state that community voices will be carefully considered and the way the public should participate is by doing this, by attending and speaking at meetings. Um, as we go through this, it sounds really great, but it's clear that it's only lip service. Um, if the district wanted input, real input, they'd hold a public forum or town hall or schedule board retreats that aren't in the middle of the workday. They might also include te teachers, parents, community members in the discussions. So it looks to me like the process is being driven by admin with little if any consultation with or regard
091for the teachers who actually work with the students. Meeting after meeting in this process as well as the past two times, people have come out like they are today in large numbers to support the arts in general and music in particular. You've heard from students, parents, community members, um all kinds of people that music is a valued and treasured asset of Grand Forks Public Schools. And in fact, it's the thing that's so excellent that it's unusual for a district and a city of this size. And yet, despite um or actually I should say recently, I've been working to organize advocacy through Grand Fork Citizens for the Arts. Um as further proof, we we uh put out an online petition, which I sent you signatures from today. In less than 48 hours, 350 local verified signatures
092of people that want music off of these cuts. So despite community push pack, we still see 6.5 U music positions on the chopping block. And as Jonathan just said, in addition, now the understanding is that not only the areas that were originally on the 52 concept, but it's now all K12 music teachers that are at at risk of using losing their jobs. Before I came here, I received a call from a music teacher friend of mine in tears because they thought they were safe and now they were worried about having a job. So, I just want to make you aware of the completely unnecessary psychological trauma you're inflicting on these absolute wonderful professionals for no reason. I ask you to reconsider these cuts. Take music off the list. It does not deserve to be cut.
093It's the thing that you should be reinforcing. Thank you. >> Thank you. Steve Carrier. Steve Carrier. Followed by Joshua Fiser. I'm just going to take a couple minutes. I want to take a totally different tangent with you um on this topic. Um if the motion passes tonight, which I'm kind of afraid it will, um I would like to ask that after the 7 months and thousands of hours we've been hearing about why you need another 3 weeks to work through the rubric and you've been working this past week through the rubric. Surely you have generated some ideas as you work through these 52 concepts and now the specific request for riffs. Waiting until March 23rd to inform people is in my opinion inconsiderate at best. If legally, as I understand it, you cannot say anything
094until March 1st, then the next Monday, which is a week from today, March 2nd, should be the day that people are informed. And even that could be too late. is right now good teachers, teachers that you should be going and doing everything in your power to keep are dusting off their resumes actively looking because they have no choice with all this uncertainty if they want to be working next year and they don't know what's happening. Um, initially the scope of this riff, you've heard this tonight too a little bit, was mainly middle school and high school positions. last Friday with the me with the note we got the scope of the riff went um from that to all K12 music staff because quote any staff member holding appropriate certification within an identified impacted content and/or
095program area may be considered within the scope of the reduction. So now the entire music staff can stress together, wonder and wait what will happen. Speaking of waiting, when will the remaining staff, when this is all said and done, get time to make changes necessary to prepare to teach the newly realigned and efficient music program? The proposed changes are not simple tweaks to the program. They are major changes that will take time to figure out. Out of respect for the staff that you are cutting and those that are going to be left behind to pick up the pieces, I would please ask that you move this timeline forward and not wait till March 23rd or April 15th or later and give staff that you are letting go a chance to find a good job again
096and the remaining staff chance to prepare for next year. Thanks. >> Thank you Joshua Fiser followed by Logan Hartsy Fish. Mr. Fischer, followed by Logan Hartsy. Sorry y'all. I'm just getting myself prepared here. Oh, here we go. Um, first of all, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak tonight. Um, I come here today as a proud graduate of Belmont Elementary School where I was first inspired to pick up an alto saxophone and as a graduate of South Middle School where I had the opportunity to try out a little bigger instrument, um, the baritone saxophone, more commonly known as the Barry Sachs. Um, it's an instrument I fell in love with, an instrument that I continued to play through high school at Grand Fork Central and in college at North Dakota State University. And
097it's an instrument that I only had the opportunity to play because of the Grand Forks public school system. And I could go on and on about, you know, how the the world class, literally, I believe this, the worldass uh music programs provided by GFPS are what got me out of bed in the morning, you know, through many of those difficult years. Um, but I know it's not going to make a difference on how y'all vote. I know y'all already made up your minds, right? Um, I know that nothing any of us say is going to change your mind. Um, I also understand that cuts need to be made. I get that. I'm not stupid. Okay. Um, I'd just like to know why it's always music on the chopping block. Why is it always music that
098gets targeted for the biggest cuts? Because you can say, "Oh, don't worry about it. Yeah, we're still Yeah, we're going to have orchestra. We're just pushing it back a year." You know, "Oh, we're still going to have lessons. there's just going to be, you know, two or three students instead of a one-on-one session with the teacher, right? But again, we're not stupid. We're not naive. Okay. Chip away a little here, chip away a little there until there is no jazz band, right? Couple cuts later, there's no orchestra, no pep band, no chamber choir. Few more cuts later, there's no baritone saxophone. Okay? So that's that's what we're looking at here. Ultimately, um that's where we end up when we think of music as an extracurricular instead of as essential, which is what it is. The
099music program is essential. So I'm going to end with this. I want to be very clear. My words at the last meeting weren't meant to be defamatory, abusive, harassing, or unlawful. My words were meant to be informative. Okay. I will be recruiting candidates to run for the school board who who do value music, who do value the arts, and I look forward to replacing members of this board who clearly don't understand how essential and vital these programs are. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Logan Hartsy, followed by Nishka Kempenic. Hello members of the school board, Superintendent Dr. Brener, and members of the community. I am Logan Hartzy, a junior at Red River High School and an extremely involved musician. Before I get into the action of my disapproval, I would like to thank you all for
100being here. I understand that it is very difficult to be in the position in which you all sit here and I'd like to note that I respect many of you personally. What I would like to say is I Oh yeah. What I would like to say is I as well as a large amount of the community do not respect the proposed cuts of 6.5 FTE music positions. Cutting such an influential amount of music is such a harm to the community. The music program in Grand Forks in the Grand Forks district has been awarded the best communities for music education award, meaning that we are in the top 100 music communities in the entire nation. We have such a strong community of teachers that put so much time and effort into the work that they do.
101They spend hours outside of regular school hours conducting and rehearsing with groups to make performances a positive experience for the community. They spend their summers putting together shows. Meanwhile, most teachers choose to take their time off. They they choose to do this for their love of their study. This brings me to my disappointment in the rubric that has been made that is made to determine what music FTEES are cut. I am truly disappointed in the usage of this rubric. The rubric does not accurately represent reflect teaching abilities. The school board is basing who to keep off off of a few simple numbers that do not truly determine the worth of a quality EV education. This rubric will only be applicable to positions on the chopping block. From a student perspective, it seems disrespectful that this
102rubric would not be applied to all employees in the district. The teachers in which I and many around me have seen do incredible work in inside and outside of the classroom, including extracurriculars, may be unfairly cut. Meanwhile, there are absolutely no administrative cuts and only 1.5 of the 16 FTE reductions do not include the phrase teacher within it. The FTE cuts being made nearly all directly impact students, which is contradictory to the purpose of this school board. Not only is there no administrative cuts, but it's worthy to note that many elementary schools have different amounts of assistant administrative positions, some even being absent of assistant administrators. From a student perspective, I do not believe that the difference in these administrative positions make much of a difference. as you can see in the elementary schooling education
103if any and should be balanced out in some way before even considering the cuts of positions that directly impact students. I hope that my peers and the public opinion can help you to vote no upon the ideas proposed today. Thank you for your time. Thank you Nishka Kempich. Nishka Kempenich and follow that will be followed by Eli Stevenson. Hello everyone. My name is Nisa Kempenik. I am a senior at Red River High School. I have previously previously spoken at board meetings, so I feel I've expressed many of my opinions on these cuts. I will try my best not to reiterate those thoughts and instead ask you to make different choices when it comes to cutting teachers. I do understand I do realize that what I'm about to say and ask is what others have been
104saying. So, I apologize for that. But I feel the need to speak up and stand here and speak up for what I believe in and for all of you to realize how many of us feel passionate about this. I understand that you guys aren't getting rid of these educators for fun or out of spite, but because you need to. Otherwise, the schools won't be able to pay other teachers properly or other effects. However, something I and others notice is that out of all the teacher positions you are cutting, around 40% of those teachers are music teachers. I won't tell you guys to take budgeting away from sports or anything like that, but I urge you to look into different possibilities and try to make it a more equal spread rather than taking away a large
105portion from a music program that commonly struggles. Music education is not an extra. It is a vital it is vital in brain development. When students engage in music, they activate nearly every major part of the brain. The auditory cortex, which is sound, the temporal lobe interprets tone and pitch. The cerebral manages rhythm and coordination. and the hippocampus which is the areas tied to emotion and memory are activated. There's a reason for the existence of music therapy. Music supports language development, auditory processing and even memory. That's how powerfully music is wired into the brain. Cutting music teachers doesn't just affect the adults but affects the students. It limits students access to major cognitive brain development available in our schools. For many students, school is the only place they will ever have access to music education. Removing
106these opportunities could reduce brain development and pathways for engagement in early years. Something I believe that the Grand Forks Public Schools does well with and is often recognized for is their music programs. Many awards have been given to teachers in recognition of the effort and dedication they have put into improving their students abilities. Again, I urge you all to discuss about how you can reduce the amount of music teachers being cut. Try to lower it from being 40% of the teachers to being cut to 20% or less. Thank you. Thank you. Eli Stevenson which and Eli will be followed by Vidant Sta Stava. Hello everyone. I will not introduce myself again as this is my third time speaking to you all on this subject this year alone. Not to mention two years ago when we
107were going through the same thing. Standing here right now, I am missing two college rehearsals trying to defend the very programs that allowed me to participate in them. Two years ago, I stood in front of the school board and advocated for our music programs side by side with many other passionate members of the community. Two years ago, our advocacy worked. That showed where your priorities were. The community and students showed up again to tell you what mattered to us, and you listened. Prove to us that you can do it again. The large crowd of people that have shown up here to this meeting and past meetings did not even begin to show the amount of people this affects. I would like to share some testimonies of just a few of many students who were impacted
108by music in GFPS. The following are direct quotes from current and former students at Central High School. GFPS music programs have made me feel like I belong. No other program has made me feel so included and acknowledged like the music programs have. Danny, a junior. The music programs at GFPS really helped me to be open-minded and step out and do things that I don't really think didn't even really think I could do. It also helped me meet new people and learn more about myself along the way. Daisy, a senior. Music brought balance to my life. It was my time to relax, reflect, and breathe. and it improved my overall work ethic and concentration. Aiden, a a graduate. Many me many sorry music means a lot to me because of the create creativity and social bonds
109it fosters. It takes work yet is so fulfilling and gratifying. And even though music will not be a part of my career, I cannot imagine my life without it. Sapphire, a graduate. I honestly don't know where I'd be without my band director in this music program. When everything felt overwhelming, this room, this family, and the steady yet chaotic guidance of my director, who always believed in me gave me a reason to keep showing up and believing in myself. I wouldn't be the person I am today without the lessons, patience, and heart they poured into me every single day. Ella, a senior, music and GFPS gave me somewhere to go. It gave me a reason to be involved with my school and helped me to de to develop into the person I am. Being queer, I
110get anxious about going into new places or getting involved as I'm not sure how everyone will react. However, in music and theater, I'm always welcomed with open arms, a central graduate. The music and performing arts programs have bettered my life in every possible way. They led me to a career in education to ensure future generations have the same access and support that I did with the arts. Norah, a central graduate. I've always had a hard time fitting in at school, but because of music and theater, I feel like I've finally found a place where I belong at school. Hannah, a sophomore. As I said, those were just a few examples. I am running out of ways to say what we have all been saying for years. So, I will leave you with this. You all
111have one final chance to listen to the community that you are meant to serve. And I hope you make the right decision tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you. We don't. We don't. Sorry. My name is Vdon Travast and I'm a junior at Red River High School. I'm here to urge you to vote no and reconsider the concept proposed tonight. It is disheartening to see music be singled out in this way in a town with such a large music community. 40% of the FD FTE cuts are in music, which is substantially higher than any other area on the list. Our frustration doesn't come from the cuts themselves, as we understand that they are necessary, but rather from the fact that the majority of these cuts come from music. 10 out of the 12 items on the
112list contain the word teacher in their title. This implies that these positions are studentf facing positions. Resources are scarce in this district and it makes sense to preserve as many studentf facing positions and opportunities as possible. The district acknowledges this in its rationale for the 52 concepts saying that certain support staff positions do not impact direct student do not directly impact student services. The the district acknowledges that cuts can be made in these areas without impacting student facing positions. This decision, sorry. The district acknowledges that cuts can be made in these areas without directly impacting the student experience, but chooses instead to cut from student facing positions. This decision runs contrary to the district's core beliefs as outlined in pages 5 through 7 in the district's strategic plan. The district says in the strategic plan
113that equitable access to a guaranteed and viable curriculum delivered through effective and rigorous instruction and supported by appropriate resources is essential for high levels of learning for all students. Cutting teachers does not provide access to guaranteed and viable curriculum. It does not deliver effective and rigorous instruction supported by appropriate resources. The strategic plan suggests that it should be the core mission of the district to preserve the student experience. While I acknowledge that non- studententf facing positions are in place to imp implement the strategic plan, I believe that the district given our financial situation does not have the financial luxury to support these positions at the expense of the student experience. I believe that the arts are a big part of the diverse and meaningful experiences that the district promises to provide in the vision statement.
114Voting yes on on cuts of th such magnitude will limit these experiences for both present and future students. I find it heartbreaking that people in the district are willing to sacrifice the student experience uh rather than protect it in times like these. I implore you to vote no and revise this concept. I hope you use your creativity to find more equitable solutions. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Moving on, we'll move on to item number six on our agenda. Superintendent recommendations for action. Item 6A is our consent agenda. Is there a motion to approve? >> Bill makes a motion to approve. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Jay seconds. Roll call vote, please. >> I want to reiterate item five is not on the agenda. >> Correct. >> Thank you. Um,
115board member Lun is absent. Palmino, >> yes. >> Flynn, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Cleven, >> yes. >> Manley, >> yes. >> Um, Larson is absent. Hodc, >> yes. >> Burger, >> yes. had seven yay and two absent. The motion passes. >> Motion passes. Item 6B is a general fund financial statement. Turn it back to you, Brandon. >> Thank you. Um, Vice President Burger or Burger Anderson, members of the board. I just want to present to you quickly here the the um financial statement. This is an awkward position. For the first seven months of the fiscal year of 26 or 25 to 26, general fund revenues accounted for 66.879 million with the expenditures coming to 64.58 million. So that's revenues over expenditures of 2 almost $3 million over those first seven months. The
116report's made up of two different reports. The first the variance report is the actual against the budget. We just show the revenues 11% of those local sources have come in to date. those will now start to come in um now that property taxes are being received at the county and turned over to us. State sources have largely come in. Those come um heavier in the fall and then throughout the spring a little bit. So that's 70 almost 4% in. And then federal sources at 16.6 and those as I note in just a little bit are going to come in also a little heavier on expenditures. Most of these numbers are right about halfway through that year with salaries being almost 48% of budgeted. Fringe benefits almost 48% of budgeted and then all other expenses almost
11747% of budget. So there's a lot of detail there in that first report. Happy to answer any questions, but the comparison is just where I'd like to keep my comments um tonight. This is where you can compare at this point this year with the last fiscal year at the same point in time. so you can get a little bit better understanding of where we're going. Two numbers on the revenue side I'd show is the local sources. So property taxes um it shows that we're about a million dollars less from the year prior. A part of that is um with the primary um resident credit that's been um issued from the state is there's actually um we see we saw this last year and we see it in the numbers here where the payments aren't coming
118in to the county, they're coming through the state. They'll pay us a payment in March. So you'll we'll see that um local property tax line jump in March and I so I would expect we're still in line with that. I just wanted to address it because it looks like we are not. Similarly on the federal um sources it looks like we're lagging because we are. That's 2.6 million back from where we would have been at last year. And that's a function of of timing for the most part. I've noted in the notes that we in February alone we've already received or will shortly receive here $2.2 million. It's a matter of when those reimbursements are are requested. We always have to spend the money first and then we have to request. So just wanted to
119um those are the things that popped out to me on that comparison report. So I definitely wanted to show uh and explain that through the last three pages which are graphical that'll affect then the graphical representation of the general fund revenues received to date. They're they're they they're trailing from the past uh two years. expenditures are right where they have been tracking and then it does affect the net balance when you're trailing on those revenues. So you see that as the green bar is depicted as well. So um largely I would say I'd expect those things to jump back up. Um but certainly still watching a number of uh things that I've noted before. So happy to answer any questions there. Otherwise the um administrative recommendation would be to approve the general fund financial statement
120for the period of July 125 through January 31st, 2026. questions for Brandon. >> Amber, >> I have two. I apologize for not emailing these ahead of time. Um, I noticed that Encore fee is 30% of the budgeted revenue that we've received. Is there a reason um like if we project kind of full capacity at each school, why that dollar figure isn't higher? Um, sorry. You're looking at the financial report like the actual versus budgeted and we're about 30%. >> Encore fees is 30% of what we've budgeted in terms of what we received. >> Yeah. No, I'd have to take a closer look just to and I will get back to you on that. >> That'd be great. Thank you. And then um I'm certainly not opposed to this, but I uh know that the city
121um because I watch them every day is dumping large amounts of snow on the school district land out on Cottonwood and 62nd. So I'm just curious if we uh are reimbursed for renting our land or if we have an agreement with them to wash that out some somewhere. >> Yeah. No, fair question. Um we do have an agreement with them because um they're willing to mow that property in the summertime. So we let them store the snow there in the winter time. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions for Brand and Sherry. >> Um on that uh page that comparison report, could you explain a little bit further for me where variances related to retiring grants and timing? Do we have grants that are going to retire that will also impact positions? >> No, those
122have been budgeted for. So that that effect is not taking place here. What I mean by that commentary is the com is the var or sorry excuse me the comparison report as I said will state just how much federal dollars have been received through January of this year as compared to the same seven-month period in the year prior. So those are straight dollar amounts. If we had grants go away, like even our title funding was reduced by 8%. Well, then that aggregate or straight number of dollar amount will just naturally be lessened. So there's just fewer dollars to be pulled in by that point in the year. So that also means there would be fewer expenditures incurred in that same period. And then the second part of my commentary about timing issues is a matter
123of when we have gotten the paperwork ready, submitted the request, gotten the approval. There was a federal shutdown for a while that did delay some things too, but when they approve it and then send us that money in. So that's the timing component. Um my other question is regarding um where we say the primary resident credit and you um say a large associated payment is expected in March and then the next one when you say the reimbursement from the feds we're talking about that those are expected in the months in the future months to come in. Are you using the word expected because there's a possibility that they won't come in? Are we possibly looking at that to be downfall instead? >> No, I appreciate the question. No, the expectation would be full in that
124federal grants are allocated at the start of the year. They say here's the amount um you've been given and then we will spend accordingly and we'll re get reimbursed through that. So there's those have been uh appropriated for us. So there's no expectation they wouldn't come in. In fact, for the $2.2 $2 million. Those have already been received in February, but they wouldn't show on this report because it's through January 31st. >> And then also, we've been hearing through med news media about the um state saying, "Don't be looking for any money um to public education and elsewhere because of the oil cuts and everything that's going on with our economy." How are we um predicting? How are we forecasting? How are we trying to look at the budget um with that in mind for
125next year's budget? >> Yeah. No, I thank you for the question. I think it's it's advocacy and that will continue. Um as of right now, you know, I don't know exactly what that means. I've heard the same type of rumors. Um I don't know what that equates to in a percentage increase for the per pupil, which is what mostly what we talk about. Um, but we'll we'll continue to advocate and pay attention so we can incorporate it. >> Thank you for that answer, Brandon. But we can continue to be advocates, but we're going to need to look at further cuts then down the road or further um trying to find different revenues to come in and such. So, it's more about that um being fluid and being prepared to whatever we can um because it's
126sounding very negative at the federal level, state level, and our city level as well. So, I'm just asking that um that's a conversation that we don't wait to have to advocate for, but that we are on it and looking at it and saying, "Okay, here's where we can cut. Here's where we can increase revenue and do some things like that." because I think we really have to be prepared. >> Agreed. Thank you. Any other questions in the room from anyone in the room? Seeing none, we'll go to the phone. Uh we'll start with Jeff. Jeff, any questions from you? >> No questions. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Dave. Any questions from you? >> Dr. Hodc stole my question, so I'm good. >> Thank you. Other questions for Brandon? Seeing none, the administrative recommendation
127is to approve the general fund financial statement for the period of July 1st, 2025 through January 31st of 2026. >> Motion by Jay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Amber seconds. Roll call vote, please. Sorry. First and second. Jay made the motion and Amber seconded. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Um, Hodc, >> yes. >> Cleven, >> yes. >> Manley, >> yes. >> Larson is absent. Flynn, >> yes. >> Lun is absent. Anderson, >> yes. >> Pomino, >> yes. >> Burger, >> yes. >> Seven, yes. Two absent. Motion carries. Item 6 C on our agenda is the recommendation for board to determine scope of a reduction in force. Dr. Brener. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe on the heels of uh Dr. Hodak's question or u uh advocacy uh government affairs committee will meet Thursday
128of this week at noon and that gives us an opportunity to interface with our legislators who do attend our meeting by Zoom. So, we'll see what kind of attendance we have. Um, so you have a memo in front of you. Um, at the February 9th, 2026 school board meeting, we discussed the budget realignment and the board approved a $4.4 million budget reduction in order to responsibly position the district for the 2627 school year. Included in that discussion was a reduction of personnel. Uh, administration uh has continued to work on that aspect. And when I say administration, I'm talking about everybody here at MSEC, principles, associate principles, directors, etc. Um, and we're prepared to make the recommendation as to the scope of the reduction in force for our certified staff based on the needs uh of
129the district. Um, we are recommending the board move forward with the reduction of a total of 16 FTEES um with the nuance difference of the 0.5 of the virtual high school that I'll talk about in a couple of minutes here. uh and and the certified positions are as follows. Uh K12 music teacher uh positions to be reduced 6.5 FTEES. uh 6 through8 interventions special topics teacher uh two FTEES K12 physical education teacher 1.5 FTE K12 multilingual learner teacher 1.5 FTE secondary MTSS coordinator 1 FTEE elementary enrichment teacher 1 FTEE 9 through 12 school within a school teacher 6 FTE K12 instructional coach 5 FTE I'll skip over the virtual high school CTE information technology teacher.5 FTEE 9 through 12 graphic design teacher 2 FTEE 9 through2 German teacher 2 FTEE so again specifically pointing out
130this this list does include the 0.5 virtual high school teacher at the March 9th 2026 school board meeting the board may be taking action on whether or not to continue with a virtual high school depending on that vote we may need to amend this scope at that meeting uh The alternative would be to uh if there is a motion made tonight, it would be to remove that from the motion and go to a 15.5 total FTE. So this uh on the second page, this doesn't include the total number of positions the district is going to be reducing. Uh we started out with 25 FTEEs. We've had attrition um so through resignations and retirements in other areas uh that we don't plan to fill. uh the list of 16 is the number of additional positions we
131need to reduce as of today's date that have not already been eliminated through attrition. And I just want to share uh with the board that there could be some more attrition, there could be resignations coming in, there could be retirements coming in uh that would affect the the 16 FTE scope. Uh so that would change in the future uh should that number be reduced and we would communicate that uh with with board members as well. So, uh, you can see there's a sample motion for you. Uh, legal, uh, attorney Rachel Bruner has assisted us with this process. She specializes in employment law, uh, and has been working with districts across the state on this very topic that we're dealing with, uh, this evening. So, you see the motion in front of you. I would recommend
132that the motion be made uh, with verbatim unless there is something you would like to word in that motion. Also, um, even prior to you doing that, I want you to know, uh, that you already do know, you have the rubric in front of you in the packet. If there are any specific questions about the rubric, uh, HR Director Griffin Gillespie is with us this evening. He's been in close contact with Attorney Bruner um on any adjustments um that were made. Uh, and there was a recent change made. We had indicated early that we wouldn't touch this during uh while teachers are under contract, but we were finding that there were some inequities in the rubric that would have unfairly treated teachers teacher to teacher. Uh so uh attorney Bruner said it would be better
133to clean that up now than to try to defend it later and we all agreed with that. We want to make it as clean of a process as possible uh for the people who are involved. So again, Mr. Gillespie is with us this evening. So I would defer back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Questions for Dr. Brener. Amber. >> Um, I certainly recognize that a board member can make a motion at any time, but I would ask that we maybe just hold off on making a motion until the chair calls for that time because I think there's some large concerns that I have with this memo in general in terms of maybe some discrepancies or big questions. I feel like if we're rushed into the motion process without discussing first, I just want
134to make sure that there's some clarity um as it relates to what was described. So, I don't necessarily have to go first. I'm just uh asking my colleagues on the board to allow us to have some discussion on this memo before moving forward with maybe discussion on what we motion on. Yeah, I would ask that we ask questions of and get get your questions addressed that we have um and then get a motion from there. >> J. >> Okay. Um so to start um I I think uh as we discussed earlier any motion that we would make would um for sure uh want to remove the virtual high school positions connected to that off the list. And so I think um to start whether uh we however that motion ends up I think those should
135be off the list um because I think it was uh pretty agreed upon of the majority at least 1 2 3 four five of us took a straw poll that um we would we would want that program to move forward to the next year. Um the other question I have is um a majority of these are pretty easy to understand. Um the K through 12 6.5 FTE. Um that one's a little bit harder for me to uh conceptualize in terms of where those are going to come from. Um, I certainly know that it says K through 12. Um, but I'm curious about the administration's perspective on are there some targeted to high school, are there some targeted at middle school, are there some targeted to elementary? So, kind of that breakdown. I know that there's
136been talk about potentially moving some teachers around and things like that, but curious about that. >> Yeah, I can clarify that right away. Um, Director Flynn, so 2.0 O FTEES um were from the orchestra starting it in grade 5 at the elementary level. 2.5 FTEES were from the middle level around um asking remaining staff to take on the general music teachings and then the remaining FTE were at the high school level because of low enrollment classes and then working towards that 3.5 you've heard that discussed here before the concept of of being in front of groups of kids 3.5 sections in a five period day and 1.5 for lessons. >> Okay. So the middle school um that would be more targeted to general music practitioners. >> That's where within the master schedule the FTE is
137captured. >> Okay. But it's not like a band like band will still be in middle school. >> We will still have band, we'll still have orchestra, we will still have choir. We will still have general music. That's correct. >> Correct. But there will just be uh are we asking those individuals to pick up more work in relation to us potentially uh reducing enforce to ban teachers. We are asking we are um reducing the amount of periods that they would have for the individual and group lessons and putting more time in their teaching load with larger groups of kids through general music class. >> Okay. And that uh potentially matches the model that was discussed at the secondary self-study for high school. >> It gets us closer to that high school model. That is correct. >>
138Okay. the and I want I want to clarify because you've heard this before the middle level uh there was a middle level task force that was asked to take a look at the middle level FTEES similar to the process that was undergone at the high school level they did not have a chance to complete their work um so I want to give that some some credence um at the same time the administrators looked at the enrollments and their master schedules and things of that nature and came up with the recommendation that's in front of you today >> so there's four middle schools so Could would could one reason that it's really a 0.5 reduction at each middle school? >> Great question. So, Twining is exempt from this equation because Twining already has be um a
139model that has their music educator teaching multiple disciplines. So, really it is one FTE out of Strader Middle School, one FTE out of South Middle School, and a 0.5 out of Valley Middle School. The reason Valley is different is because this current year students are only receiving instead of a semester of general music in grade six, they have a quarter of general music because their other quarter is for advancement via individual determination classes which is part of their comprehensive school improvement efforts and so Valley has a a different different nuance to it. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Um my other question is related to um the rubric. Um although I know that our policy states that we can create an exhibit that doesn't need to be adopted by the board, I have concerns as
140to how this rubric aligns with our current policy related to reduction in force policy DKA. Um, I don't see any minutes or a report from the policy committee, which I would have hoped would have been involved even if a special meeting occurred to include them in a conversation about creating this exhibit. Um, I've been on the policy committee before where we have seen exhibits or additional items that come through and and it's it's a for your information. Um, but I I want to read through this policy and ask questions. Um, so it states, "The board shall have the sole right to determine the necessity for and scope of reduction in force for reasons including but not limited to lack of funds, uncertainty of funds, declining enrollment, or other reasons necessity that justify a reduction in
141staff at the board's discretion. Teaching staff on leave for any purpose remained subject to the district's reduction in force policy. The superintendent or administrative design shall recommend teachers for reduction in force in accordance with the following criteria. attrition, including retirements and resignations. When attrition is not sufficient to alleviate the necessity for reduction in force, the board shall retain teachers with the greatest adaptability to meet present and future distinct staffing staffing and educational needs, both curricular and extracurricular. When teachers within the same area of lentures are deemed to be of equal adaptability, the board shall retain the teacher with superior academic and professional preparation beyond minimum lenture requirements in the teaching field. When teachers are deemed to be equal adaptability and have equal academic and professional preparation within their teaching fields, the board shall retain the
142teacher who has taught in the district for the greater period of time. These are not and or these are numbered 1 2 3 4. If a reduction in force is necessary, only teachers directly impacted, those example, those employed under a title program will be considered for reduction in force based on the criteria for reduction in force. Above our policy has not been changed to reflect the use of an exhibit rubric. It says reduction in force criteria above which means we are making decisions based on those four criteria. The district is required to maintain written documentation of a reduction in force analysis. A reduction in force shall be only be initiated in a non-discriminatory manner in accordance with state and federal law. The district may not use a a reduction in force as a substitute for
143disciplinary measures. Any teachers whose non-renewed under the provisions of this policy may request and shall be given consideration um uh for teaching vacancies which said teachers must qualify for and which will occur within 12 months after the acceptance. It shall be the sole responsibility of said teacher to provide the district with a current address. any teachers offered reemployment hereafter and fails to accept within 15 days blah blah blah blah blah. This then says that uh it it follows the amendments of when this was amended. But at no time does it say say in this policy that we should follow that we will make decisions as an administration or a board in accordance to the reduction enforce rubric which was added by administration without going through policy. So, I'm just trying to figure out if we're
144adding this rubric that we're looking at. Walk me through how we're not using the policy, but we're making decisions based on that new rubric that's been >> Let me take the first swing at it. >> Make a comment here because I'm really looking for the same thing that Amber is looking for. um because I haven't been on this board that long, I'd also like to know um the policy development with the involvement with teachers and is this policy in negotiated agreement because if that's apparently it's not from what I've seen. So then I echo the same concerns that Amber's echoing or saying about the rubric. >> Okay, Dr. Briner. >> Thank you. Uh, board member Flynn, when you when you were reading through the the policy, um, the exhibit goes with the policy. So, this
145this was adopted through the North Dakota School Boards Association previously. I'm not talking about this year. Uh, the exhibit has been with the policy. And as you were kind of walking through the uh, you know, the adaptability piece, uh, the preparation, the seniority, those th that's columnized in the in the rubric. So, there there is consistency there. We are using the rubric the way the policy is written. >> The the policy that's on the website says that it was amended 219206 and the exhibit is not the previous exhibit that was with this policy. >> The exhibit Yes. The exhibit was amended. >> Yeah. and and that was >> so what I'm saying is there are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 categories on the exhibit rubric. The policy states that we
146will make decisions on reduction and force based upon the above criteria which only lists four examples. So to me that contradicts what criteria we're using. It's it's if we want to add an exhibit, the policy allows us to add an exhibit, but the wording in the policy says that we're making decisions based on the above criteria, which is in contradiction to the exhibit. >> Well, that that's not my interpretation. Respectfully, the that the reduction in force does match the the policy. So, uh, DKA hyphen E does go with DKA. So, Griffin, I don't know if you want to speak any further to the the minor adjustment that was made uh to provide more equity between and among names on the list. >> Thank you. Yeah, I I would agree with Dr. Brener. I think those
147are all bucketed under there. Under adaptability would be number one. Under academic and professional preparation, that's number two. And then seniority is on there three. So it's it's not listed 1, two, three, only three things, but each of those buckets flows into one of those categories. And this is very typical to what other school districts across the state use and have rubrics that have um adopted some version of the the schoolboard association. So when we um when we looked at it knowing that we would have to really decipher what professional development or professional contributions meant um and looking at committee work, we uh felt like we needed to put some um limitations in there to really make it even across the board as far as the points that you could get. Um because if you
148look at the first column, it's the list the areas in which a teacher is highly qualified to teach, which really is the most important part of the adaptability. Um and the way that's commonly um commonly interpreted across the state by schools and school districts as like math, elementary education. So if you only get two points for that, but you did 10 different committees over five years, you could get 10 points for committee work. So we tried to really even it out so it would be more equitable across the board for all teachers. So those were the minor changes that we made per the recommendation of Rachel Brunner. >> I see what you're saying about how those concepts can be within one broad statement like professional certifications are then broken into you know three categories. I
149think my concern here is that the wording in the policy is confusing when it doesn't when it says above and it doesn't include something like in accordance with the attached exhibit or you know it it will like here's the categories that have existed and that there was no policy meeting which is a precedence that we've set for other exhibits that have been adjusted. that that committee hasn't been called to then just say here's what we're thinking, here's what we've done. Um, and that it was just updated on the board website when we can't see the previous exhibit, how things have changed. So, I it's just a little wonky based on how other exhibits and policy attachments have changed. Okay, >> Sherry, do you have something? >> And if anybody thinks that Amber and I have
150talked about this, we haven't. But as chair of the policy committee, that is down here on mine as to why we were not notified or discussed with um the changes that were happening here as well. But I also have um some other points that I'd like to bring up about this rubric. Um I would prefer to see that that um those areas are defined underneath each of those four that are in policy because if you look at the the first one and trust me I've seen these policies all over schools. I've done all of the law part on it as well too. When they say list all areas in which the teacher is highly qualified to teach educational standards and practice board anyone can go to it. It'll say, you know, and I'm sorry he's
151out there in the audience, but I'm going to use him. Bernie Hodak is an elementary teacher lifelong. And in it, it says that he is qualified to teach elementary music. I'm here to tell you there's no way he could teach elementary music. So, I am concerned about how we are taking educational standards practice board wording to fit into ours. When I look at does the specialty credential meet present and future district staffing needs that's part of that prediction that forecasting out looking out there that I don't see us doing so that I don't know how we could appropriately judge someone on that as well. When has the teacher participated in extracurricular assignments in the last 5 years? I I know that that's there as well too. But I bring up if the teacher has not
152had the offer or the opportunity to participate in some of those, they might have want to be coaching basketball, but they can't get in because somebody has been that basketball as well too. So I believe those areas um and have they participated in professional contributions or committees in the last 5 years? again, what opportunity is afforded to them and do they have the leave and so forth that would match that? I would want to see that answered in our district. And last but not least, and this might seem kind of picky, but it is. Um, you you say that um that years of service will not count outside of the district. Correct? Am I correct on that one? >> Yes. >> Okay. Why then do we give um credit for service outside of the district
153and pay them for that credit in a contract? That is too I mean that's huge contradiction. We're valuing it for a pay that's hurting the district then because we're paying them more money, but we don't value it at the time of there being a rift policy. Those are my comments at this point. >> Any further questions for Dr. Brener Jay. >> So without without this more detailed rubric, the exhibit, we would have a a very generic policy that has three considerations. Adaptability, academic and professional preparation, and seniority. So the granularity of the rubric should be helpful to the process. That's how I would conclude. notwithstanding the the process of policy to adaptation that have been voiced. That's how I see this rubric uh should be beneficial to the process. It's not necessarily a question uh
154but feel free to comment. >> No, board member Cleven, I would agree with that 100%. and the amount of time that um administrators have spent on this rubric to make sure and ensure that there is equity between and among how we're making decisions, this is much more helpful than looking at three different paragraphs in the policy. So, um if there's a desire for the policy committee to be pulled together so we can share the previous the previous and post the the adjustment was minor uh based on attorney Bruner. Uh we still have time to do that. I know there was a concern from uh one of our public speakers tonight that March 23rd is uh getting way too late. Initially, we were going to bring this back on March 9th. But to do the kind
155of work that all of us need to do to make sure that we're getting the right names on the grid is going to take some time. Uh to turn that around and have that ready by March 4th, which would be a week from this Thursday, uh was extremely tight. And so we wanted to have more thoughtful uh time involved in that. >> Other questions? Sherry, >> I appreciate that timeline. I discussed that last time. Um my final comments on this um determining the scope of reduction in force. Uh K12 music teacher um 6.5. From everything that I've looked at from all of my notes going back and so forth, um I was always looking at 4.5. So, and I understand where we started to say that those other um uh positions come in play because
156of the high school and the sections and and such there, but I also um strongly disagree with us doing this as a whole. So, and I've said that, but I'm going to again get it on record for that. Um I believe that we should be looking at these differently. I'm just very concerned that that I mean I'm concerned yes we have to reduce this budget and I understand that but we have not looked at all the areas um because I am very concerned about not having looked at administration positions. I'm uh concerned about the ratio of administrators to that and I know everybody's saying well you're just opening it all up again. I'll go back to the 6.5. From what I was understanding throughout all this process, it was at 4.5 and that five was
157definitely including those at those high school levels. So, the two in the middle school, the two in the elementary. And my other got to finish my last question and get that one asked is, will fifth grade orchestra be offered next year? Yes. Fifth grade orchestra. Yes. And fifth grade band. Yes. >> So, fourth graders that didn't take it will probably be taking it. Is that what you're planning on? Because fourth graders have already had it. >> So, the fourth graders who take it now, they'll still be enrolled next year. And then our new students would be fifth grade students, new orchestra students. >> Dr. Galach, did you have something for >> Yeah, I just wanted to give the um the board and the audience just a little bit of information. One of the persons who
158came to the microphone asked about um and and expressed surprise and apologize for that about the um the approach that is looking at the program like persons who serve under the program. All that is dictated by century code and um sentry code reads and spells out this entire process from the timelines to um the policy language that you that you just read has a direct tie to how it is spelled out in in um century code so that we stay within certain guidelines. But that's that's why all of the names of those who are qualified are put into that pot, not just the positions. Um so for example the 1.5 FTEES and um physical education are attached to the one of the next agenda items is recommending the reduction of overall graduation credits but the
159K12 physical education department is going to be taken under consideration. So it is all is all drawn out that way. Um points well uh articulated and taken on the rubric um criticism but one of the things I wanted to circle back with Dr. codec as well. When you talk about opportunity for committee work, years of his service and that sort of thing, that's precisely the reason that the rubric was modified to the degree that it was, those slight changes were made to balance all of that so that we ended up with the most flexible classroom teaching workforce possible. So those other indicators because of either lack of opportunity or perhaps there are teachers who did those things years ago but not in the last five years, they did their time. all of that was better
160balanced in the end instead of allowing credit for all those extra things to outweigh the classroom um instructional piece. So I I just wanted to put that forth for consideration as well. And then finally in that same policy that you read um uh Director Flynn, it talks about the district must maintain a a physical copy uh the district is required to maintain written documentation of the reduction in force analysis. That's exactly what the rubric is designed to provide so that it's not a biased instrument that it's based on the objective um data in front of us. >> Uh the other note there was a question relative to um why we would look at the district level of teaching within the within uh the time frame of being in the district rather than their full totality
161within the district within the uh their teaching career. the again as uh member Flynn uh read the policy it says in the policy shall retain the teacher who has taught in the district for the greater period of the time. So again following the policy the rubric aligns with that. So to answer your question that is why the rubric states that >> I'm just pointing out what contradicts in this district there's not that consistency. >> Thank you. Any questions? I was Amber >> just as a followup I that's exactly why I think that a deviation from our general process of updating even an exhibit moving away from bringing that to policy committee to have some of these questions to allow that committee to do their work or ask questions even if it's just forformational purposes we
162could have taken that as a consent agenda item to say they've done the work we trust that committee to do that work now we're having these questions in public when it seems very like there's a lot of stuff that we're talking about. And so when we deviate from our general processes, I think that creates more cause for pause and questioning of why things were made, decisions were made. >> Thank you. Questions on the phone? Um Jeff, do you have any questions? >> No questions here. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dave. Any questions? I have two follow-ups. I'll ask them one at a time because they're so different from one another. We heard a lot tonight about how this 6.5 total FTE in music is a greater percentage than we expected in the reduction in force.
163Can you remind us how many total certified positions we're talking about and maybe even break it down to how many have already been in a sense accounted for because of attrition or retirement? Uh even to go so far as in conversation is it possible that the rift number ends up being lower than this? You know, as we as we looked at the concepts, it was not a surprise to me to see that the total we're considering adds up to 6.5. Uh it does appear on paper, yes, if you do the math, 6.5 out of 16 is a very large number. Is there more that we should consider? And I'm happy to have anyone answer that and then reserve my second question for later. >> Dr. Briner. >> Uh J board member Burgerer, to answer your
164question, the the first number was 25 FTEES. Um so it would have been 6.5 of 25. Still a large percent. I'm not hiding that reality. >> Brandon, something to add to that? >> Yeah, just just to offer a couple of things on the numbers. I mean, there there's probably a number of different ways to measure this. We've talked about 4.4. We've talked about almost $5 million when you add in the revenue. there are some of these uh items on the list which can be not counted by FTE count but would be dollar amount and so I think there's a lot of different ways that are all correct that you could represent um just how much of the reduction can be contributed to music and so I I think that's a great point when in the
165beginning of things there's certified there's also classified so even at that FTE count music would represent about 11 10 11% of the overall FTE just to define that one. When you get to the certified bucket, yes, gets to be greater. That's where 27% began to be represented at the microphone. And I think when you look at this reduction in force component, 6.5 of 16 is where it gets to that 40%. So again, I think all those numbers are correct. But just to kind of keep that uh in mind in the the lowest version of that number, if you just took the dollar impact as an estimate for all those items associated with music against all of the broad efforts that have been discussed, it would be like 10%. So it it can range quite a
166bit all accurate. >> Dave, did you have a followup? >> Thank you. Yeah. So well well I my one a that I don't think got answered yet is are we expecting that as we get into March we would still be at 16 FTEEs in the reduction in force or might that number go down is it too early to tell >> Dr. Brener, >> that that number could go down, board member Burgerer. Um, and we're we're certainly hopeful that that number will go down just through attrition. So, I've shared with our entire administrative group that, you know, if the if the reduction in force got down to five, uh, that would uh that would be much better than 16. >> Mr. Gillespie, I believe, has something to add also. >> Yep. And that this kind of
167goes back to why we pushed it out to March 23rd as well, just to give some more time for some res resignation and retirement. We actually have a resignation that will come to the next school board meeting. That will be one of the items that is coming off this list. So a Swiss teacher has resigned. So that one will be off the list as well. So we anticipate by the March 23rd that we can get that number lower, too. So, >> it's a point of order. A Swiss teacher. What did you say? >> School within a school. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Dave, did you have a a second question also? >> I I do. Thank you, Chair Anderson. Uh we've heard the question a couple of times tonight and have not
168had robust conversation around this idea of uh in a sense passing this scope of reduction in force all at once versus bullet by bullet. Curious if somebody can speak to how much of that is in board policy so as not to initiate a reduction in force that is discriminatory. How much of it has to do with state and federal law? How much of it is district and I I say dis our school district's attorney's advice. We don't have a district attorney, but our school district has an attorney. So wondering about what the guard rails are for how this moves forward. If someone can speak to that. >> Someone want to take that one? >> Griffin. >> Yeah. the the guidance from Rachel and I think it just stems to the RIFF process is is at
169a schoolboard meeting Dr. Brener has to bring the scope of the the reduction to the school board meeting. Um and that would outline all the FTEES. I don't know that we had any conversation about voting on each one of those individually. I think the practice has been anywhere else Rachel has done it is the the scope is the full FTE because once that's on there we that's the the scope that we have and the scope that we have to to work with um as as identified. >> Okay Dave any followup to that? >> No thank you. >> Thank you. Other questions? J, >> but there's nothing that would prohibit us by century code or policy from going through these line item by line item. There's the practice Mr. Gillespie references versus what's permissible and possible.
170Like I think there's a difference there, but if if we can't do that, I I think we just need to hear that from a policy and sentry code basis. >> Yeah, I'm not going to say you can't do that. So, I think it's up to the board how you want to take these. >> Thank you. Other questions? Amber, >> I personally would have liked to have Miss Bruner here or on the phone um if those are her recommendations or a memo from her to answer some of these questions. Um, but I also think um I can I can be neutral with respect to those that we've talked about coming off um and the exception of um kind of the music being broken down because that's a large chunk. Um, I actually think that it creates
171more transparency and accountability from the board when we take each of them individually and say these are the ones that the board has agreed to move forward. Certainly, we can do the scope as a whole and we can divide those ones out that we've previously talked about. Um I I still um it would be hard for me personally to vote for this as a whole when with the music one on there. Like I could be comfortable saying let's take music off, let's take Swiss and let's take any virtual high school. We can approve the scope of those. um because we largely agree and I certainly understand that gets a little wonky. So, um I don't necessarily uh am advocating for us to do one way or the other at this point, but I do think
172that it creates more transparency based on our conversations and what questions have been asked by us at those retreats related to these specific positions where we can say we support as a board moving this position to the RIFF process rather than a scope as a whole. Thank you. Other questions? Jay, >> Bill, I I disagree. I think it needs to be done as a whole because I I don't think right now we have music people in front of us. We don't have the German teacher in front of us to speak our case. We don't have the, you know, the school within a school teacher in front of us. So I think that would be unfair to those people to to break it all down because they were under the understanding that it was coming as
173a scope of a total. >> Thank you Jay. >> Yeah I just wanted to clarify uh so Mr. Gillespie mentioned there may be other you know voluntary departures call them from whatever means those may be if if we go through these these this reduction in force and then those retirements and other voluntary departures still happening that doesn't mean we have to go find a riff just to meet this sort of vote we're going to take tonight >> that is correct >> okay thank you other questions. >> Sherry, >> just I my comment will be again as I've said, I disagree with doing it as a whole. Um I I appreciate Bill exactly what you're saying and I agree that all of these should have had the opportunity if we were to change the behaviors tonight
174for that and such. But because of that 6.5, I know I will be voting no. >> Bill. >> Yeah. I would like to make a motion at this time and we'll find out how people agree. I would make the motion that we based on the needs of the school district that we eliminated 15.5 additional full-time equivalent positions. And I'm taking out the 0.5 virtual high school teacher from this deal and instruct the superintendent to identify the individuals for reduction in force based on the reduction in force policy. >> We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? >> Can I ask a point of order on the motion? >> Sure. >> What does based on the needs of the district mean to me? That's vague and not clear. based on the needs
175of $4.5 million of cuts. >> Okay, >> we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? I'm going to second the motion to allow discussion. Is there discussion on the motion on the floor? >> Bill, the reason for my motion is financial period. And we've talked about that last time. We have to cut 4.5 million or $4.4 million out of our budget to get past. And we know the future is we could be back here in a year looking at more cuts. and I think you will be back here in a year looking at more cuts. So that's why I made that motion that we move forward and we can't keep pushing this off otherwise it's going to be all crammed in the two weeks where in this way it gives information to
176teachers as quick as we can that may be rifted and we can also look into hopefully retirements and people leaving that we can reduce this number greatly. Thank you. Thank you. Other discussion items? Amber, >> I just have a question about um Griffin said, so like Bill um removed the virtual high school um from his motion, but Griffin said the school within a school teacher faced attrition. So does that one need to come off? school. >> Yeah. It hasn't gone to the school board yet for approval. So the >> Got it. Got it. >> Yeah. The scope is is intended to make sure that the just in case factor occurs. So even within this list, there are some people who um have some aspirations of moving into different roles, but because that hasn't come into
177fruition yet, they're still on the list as kind of a just in case basis. >> Okay. And then um was are there any other positions associated with the virtual high school? I believe when we were talking about it before there was maybe the instructional coach >> the instructional coach position is separate from it just happens to be the same person filling both those >> okay that's confused okay >> other questions or discussion items Sherry >> I just want to again reiterate I so appreciate the fact that because I've been in the shoes of a superintendent and I know what it's like to have to cut the budget, but I am also very concerned with I'm not certain in my book that we have looked at every every area that we could possibly cut and to
178do this. And when um Dr. Lun said leave no stone unturned when we started this. Um I believe we have left numerous stones that we have not picked up and looked at. And so that is why I'm so strong against right now what we're doing to 6.5 music teachers. >> Dr. Glatch, >> I think one of the the challenging things to take under consideration and and I hear what you're saying 100%. Um the the board retreats were designed to bring forward those um FTEEs along the way so that it it didn't feel like a surprise in the end. Um I know that it's hard to keep track with all that information along the way. I think the hard part is right now to doc uh director Palmimo's point is that if we don't go forward
179with approving this um this next step in the reduction then we don't meet the reduction goal which means we have to go back and look at those stones which I'm not disagreeing with but that could affect other FTEEs in other places which we would then likely run out of time and to make the reductions in the end um as we move into the into the future. um as you all move into the future, as you already said that the financial forecasting that's coming down from the states and the federal level is not pretty. And so you already said it yourself uh director Hodc um very beautifully is that we're going to have to continue to look at those stones. So I would take I would ask you to consider the fact that there may be
180some that were not fully turned over and looked at from all sides. the time is going to come soon when I would argue that you will likely have to do just that. So, we're in a really difficult situation right now. >> Thank you. Other discussion, Amber, >> I have a written something to say and I'll save it. Um my question is how long has the district and administration including principles been aware that we are going to face this large of budget reduction? Like was it during negotiations? Was it I mean >> I'll take the first swing at that. It wasn't during negotiations. It was long after negotiations when we discovered we're 150 students fewer this year. That's a large chunk of change. Um knowing that we were getting 2.5 and 2.5 from the state uh
181over each year. We knew anything that we did over that during negotiation negotiations would go we'd be taking out of our general fund. Um but the board uh and district leadership have been committed uh to salaries. Um, but I would say the the real missing piece was the the number of students. We've seen an 8% decrease in our federal aid and you always have something else to add to that. So, >> the caps certainly on >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, Vice President Anderson, board member Flynn, I would say all of that and and you wish you had the crystal ball and you could see everything. I mean, even a part of the property tax thing, too, is you try to anticipate how fast your community grows and you try you factor that in. We came
182off of recent years of faster growth than where we are now and and then you have caps on top of that, which would certainly hold you back a little bit. But so, I think everything was said is if you could predict what the feds would do, um those kinds of things. But the the biggest thing that really came more as a surprise is the fall enrollment. I mean, just the year prior it went up by as much and then it came down. That's not normal for our school district. >> Thank you, Jay. >> Yeah, the question was asked about when we knew we were facing this magnitude of budget. I I certainly recall being told nearly instantaneously upon awareness from our administration. So, I think we all had the information. I want to say it
183was in August, you know, maybe September. Uh, this is not news. Uh, so I I'm certainly not unaware of where this budget is. Uh, also regarding the 6.5 FTE music, I've had that number in my head pretty much since we saw any level of detail. So, I don't think these are new information being shared new, catching us off guard. I certainly have felt well informed in the process, but I've asked about a billion questions. So, which is our incumbent duty to do that. So, I just want to reiterate this is not a surprise. We knew about it. Um, and here we are tonight making decisions. >> Thank you, Dave, and or Jeff. Anything from you on the phone? No other questions for me. Thank you, >> Dave. Anything from you? >> I I have just
184one if someone wants to speak to the potential impact of taking the.5 FTE virtual high school teacher. Uh to board member Palmino's point about still meeting our $4.4 million reduction. H how do we reconcile that? Is is it the hope that some of that's built in in that waiting list of students? Uh are we will we come back with a modified number? Help help us understand what that impact is in the process so far. Dr. Rener, >> thank you board member Burgerer. It could be a combination of a couple things. uh one is looking at our uh open enrolled students who are coming in from outside uh into the virtual high school. And then secondarily, if we don't if we don't meet that $70,000 reduction, we're going to have to meet it some other in
185some other place. So that would be to uh Dr. Hodc's uh perspective about turning over some other stones. Um and and I think we have some we have some opportunities with uh some resignations, attrition, some movement uh where we will be able to capture that. >> Thank you. >> Just one just one follow-up comment. I think more for the the good of everyone listening. Up until this point, we've used a metric of one FTE is 85,000 salary and benefits. Those numbers are not known until we start going through the process. Correct. So we may we may find the numbers are slightly different than what we expected. >> Brandon. >> Yeah. Thank you, Chair Anderson. Yeah, that that's accurate. These have been estimates based off of averages because there really haven't been, you know, specific names
186attached to it. this roof process will bring specific names and then when you have names and those decisions then you'll know precisely where that individual would stand on the salary matrix uh any benefits associated that are paid for by the school district so you get much more exact figures these are estimates thank you Dave anything further >> no thank you >> thank you any other items from board members in the Amber, >> I just want to clarify. I asked the question about how long we've known about this because I think sometimes, you know, the the we've heard from the public about, well, why did we go through and give raises then to teachers and we made a commitment to catch up those individuals. Um, that process is very well defined. GFA has the same information
187as we do. So does the principal association. Um and I think to Jay's point, you know, we've we have known about this for a while. Was it in concert with negotiations? No, not necessarily. So we made decisions at that time based on the information that was available to us. Um certainly any decision has consequences. And so um you know, here we are now. in a place where I believe that largely exists because we have a state that's not necessarily funding public education as adequately as it should and that's really impacting how we deliver a well-rounded educational program to the most vulnerable population. And I have been through a variety of conversations. We've had the board retreats. I think this process has been more thorough than the last time we went through this process. I agree
188and I've said this multiple times, my stance has not changed with a majority of the concepts. I just am really really struggling with the orchestra piece because similar to the virtual high school really the only thing the only reason and rationale I've been given is that we need to cut that's a large program that costs money and we can find some savings there. So, I did prepare a statement about this and I will ask for support um to potentially remove the two orchestra positions. Um, but I'm going to read my statement and go on my mini filibuster for a second. Um, and I hope maybe we can consider that as part of our conversation. Um, so I said I want to begin by acknowledging an important topic we're facing. The financial constraints facing our district
189require real reductions. I agree with a majority of recommendations and I've stated that publicly and in private. I have attempted to provide rationale to the public who have asked me questions. I've also tried to provide additional solutions to administration throughout this process and have asked several questions through board meetings, meetings with administrators and teachers. Specific to music, I've supported the certain secondary level adjustments because they reflect enrollment realities and staffing inefficiencies as well as kota which I can which I believe can be worked out through programmatic direction. I'm not opposed to making difficult decisions and I think my record as a long-standing schoolboard member has shown as much. However, fourth grade orchestra is not an inefficiency issue. This program represents an entry point into our string pipeline. It is where students first learn basic skills
190in production, ensemble listening, and instrument care. Beginner string instruction is highly specialized. The quality of that foundation directly determines whether students persist into middle school and high school orchestra. If we eliminate fourth grade orchestra, we are not trimming at the margins. We are removing the base of the pyramid. Once beginner access declines, middle school enrollment declines, middle school enrollment declines, high school enrollment declines, and potentially could become unsustainable. This is not speculation. And this is predictable structure consequence of eliminating early access which I've had asked for evidence from various administrators that I've talked to and there was one example provided of a transition from Bismar that there was a reduction in students when they moved from fourth grade to fifth grade. There are published articles that I have found by myself without any ask or
191uh unprompted nature from any music teachers. And I've studied the topic on this because it means a lot to me personally. Some of these articles have indicated through reverse economics that the programmatic cost savings actually creates a negative cost effect on the budget. This is because districts must add additional FTEEs down the road as students who would have otherwise taken music classes metriculate into upper levels and engage in other electives with lower student teacher ratios or there is less time for opportunities for grade level teachers to implement curriculum level courses enrichment or interventions. We're I'm I've heard this from a few teachers already related to uh confusions with wit and wisdom and how that's delivered um in concert with scheduling. I'm concerned that this reduction creates a negative long-term impact disproportionate to short-term savings, which
192I know we need to cut, but that has been the rationale that we've used for other solutions that that is only a short short-term savings and it's not a long-term solution. If our goal is to preserve opportunities to the greatest extent possible, then strategically we should be protecting entry points for any program. Programs can survive consolidation at the top. They cannot survive removal at the base. This is not about me resisting change. It's not about others resisting change. It's about avoiding what I believe is irreversible structural consequences. I am not an expert in this topic. I have only researched through my own and my own personal experience, but it's something I believe strongly about. Our school district has a foundation of strong music programs. Even though yes, we are not a music immersion school. I
193believe we need to examine whether eliminating fourth grade orchestra aligns with our long-term commitment to sustaining comprehensive rigorous programs even through budgetary constraints. Because how does this same concept apply to any athletic extracurricular that serves less students and is more inefficient? I am not advocating for reducing any of our athletic programs, but we should treat them all one and the same when we are making decisions. I've supported dis difficult reductions where they make structural sense, but eliminating fourth grade orchestra removes the foundation of our string program. This decision will outlast this budget cycle. If we are not trying to preserve anything long-term, protecting the beginning is the strategic move. We are shaping the future experience of students and the stability of the professionals who serve them. Budgets are numbers, programs are people, a group of
194people on a stage in harmony. Our teachers are carrying a tremendous burden. They are the first point of entry for educating the world's most vulnerable population. They are dealing with an increased behavioral health concerns and they feel constant pressure from unfunded mandates and curriculum adjustments, not necessarily by our district, but a state that is making decisions that adversely affect how we teach our most vulnerable youth. The reduction in force process is not a spreadsheet exercise. It affects careers, families, and all livelihoods. And I think that's something we can all agree upon, which makes a decision for me an emotional one. I have never been accused of not bringing my heart into a head decision. Many educators feel confused about how decisions are being made and how they align with our stated priorities. That uncertainty weighs
195heavily on morale and culture. In fact, on our website related to the budget realignment process, under the section that says who has input, the individuals or groups listed are the school board, school and district leadership, including principles, and says community voices will be heard. The community has spoken loud and clear on this topic and teachers are missing from that list, the list that is on our website. We can make fiscally responsible decisions and still choose to be thoughtful about how we implement them. It is an interesting dichotomy to both hear that we didn't include teachers or didn't want to ask more specific position questions in the beginning when now we have also thrusted every K through2 music teacher into a process that has caused fear, concern, and confusion. If we are eliminating two FTEEs in
196orchestra, why does that then mean that every K through 12 teacher in music has to go through the rubric process? It has been 41 years according to my calculations since the district has successfully let go of a teacher through the reduction and force process. If that number is inaccurate, I stand to be corrected. Boards before us, including Mr. Pomacino has figured out this process and we can too. I hope we don't have to go through this again. That's why I believe strongly in a majority of the cuts. But if we do, having gone through this process two years ago, the burden falls on the district, including administration and building principles to justify every single line item position for the reason that individual and that position is eliminated. I also want to acknowledge my most important
197role, a mother. My husband Aaron and I have two children in the district. One middle schooler and one elementary, both of whom have participated in choir and orchestra, both of whom play piano, and our oldest also involved in band and theater. We have a preschooler who will attend Discovery Elementary this fall. Music is not an elective in our house. It's been a place where my children have learned discipline, resilience, teamwork, and joy. I am living the values that we read every meeting which says to keep the students in mind. My students as we move forward I hope we can remember that decisions we make tonight will echo for years to come in our classrooms in our concert halls and in the confidence of the children we serve. My biggest fear is showing up to a
198concert with half the members on the stage. If we can preserve the beginning, I believe we can preserve possibility and we can grow together to enrich the world. I urge us to consider amending this motion to remove the two FTEEs for the elementary orchestra program. Jay, did you have something you wanted to add? >> Well, I mean, yeah, actually. So, I have four kids. They all did music. Fourth grade through 10th grade. They did spa. They did theater. They did hockey. They did soccer. They did track. Okay? And and I bring these not to talk about myself, but to talk about these are all opportunities that are still going to exist. And and there's been a lot of discussion, passionate, informed, smart discussion, but I think we've missed sometimes the fact that all of those
199activities are still going to exist. I agree with Amber on fourth grade education uh particularly starting point for orchestra that would be wonderful. Uh I think the challenge then would be all right uh something else that I've learned in this process because thousands of discussions regionally nationally I have friends luckily all over the country in public education special education you name it. I've called them and they've all and I've explained kind of general what we're doing and they ask well what about your music program and I tell them we have a K12 SK I forget the exact title of Mr. Bloom, forgive me. And their general response has been, you have what? Their job is what? They never heard of that. I bring that up as background because if we want to try to uh
200retain fourth grade orchestra, we have tools at our disposal to help on that scheduling that other districts do not have. I would propose it's a challenge to our music program. We want to keep fourth grade orchestra, which is a great and wonderful goal to achieve. Let's try to challenge them, you know, put it put it put it in the hands of the people who live it dayto-day. That would be very supportive from me. Meanwhile, let's also recognize the fact tremendous opportunity still exists in this district and and there's just been a lot of overarching discussion cut all teachers, all programs. Like there's a rhetoric out there that it's all going to go away. And I know you don't mean that. I I know that. I understand that. But I I think a little more accuracy
201on the rhetoric would help to put back into context what's being proposed here, which is significant, but the world will not end. Music will be modified, delivery will change. Uh but still there's amazing opportunities. And everybody I've talked to in my peer network have all said something like, "Yeah, it's still going to be pretty great, isn't it?" because what we would still have is superior to what others have reported they have. And I don't want us to lose sight of that. Meanwhile, I think the challenge should be given. Let's ask our music department and educators a way to save fourth grade orchestra. How we go about doing that with amendments to motion? I think that's something we're going to have to figure out here in short order because we do have a motion on the
202table. And with that, I will get off my soap box. Bill. >> Yeah, I I will piggyback a little bit on you, Jay. We we will be providing orchestra for eight years in the Grand Fork school district. In my previous job before retirement, I worked with multiple groups who felt that their wanted more for their kids. These groups included gymnastics, dance, cheer teams, figure skating, baseball, basketball, hockey, football, wahoo swimming, and wanted more for their younger kids. Well, then I would challenge the music community that maybe they need to get together as an association and put together a fourth grade beginning orchestra program to get kids ready for the fifth grade. just as these other groups have had to do it. Football started football at fifth grade and they put together a flag football program
203for fourth graders because they felt fourth graders needed to start at some place. So I would challenge them to do that because I think it's pretty easy to ask the school district to do it but it is a little harder to get together as a group to do it yourselves. >> We do have that currently exists. that program currently exists. >> Okay. Thank you. Other comments? >> Okay. I just want to reflect uh myself. Um take a moment. Um as I look back, you know, overall on the process uh we have ga engaged in for the bud budget realignment work. I really do believe it was thorough, thoughtful, and certainly highly challenging at all times. Um, no one wants to make cuts. Um, every item being discussed for realignment represents a student experience um, being
204offered in one way or another. Uh, it was all in my view thorough datadriven work. Many members of multiple departments and groups came together to discuss and recommend these concepts and pieces to move forward. Many questions were asked and answered. Discussions were shared. force choice activities were moved forward. Um, and all that had and all had to make all of this had to make order of what to do that what we to do what we see is best for the future of our students, staff, and our overall district to be able to move forward. We had the opportunity to hear again tonight and many multiple of times from multiple stakeholders whether that be at the microphone in front of us, emails, uh, face-toface conversations, um, and and throughout the whole process. And for that, I
205am truly grateful. Six months of heavy intense work done in a transparent and collaborative method to bring us continue forward to today. no decision in this to this point and going forward is certainly easy. I've had the pleasure of experiencing and benefiting from many of these programs myself as a student in the Grand Forks Public Schools. My children, three right now who are attending Grand Forks Public Schools, one who will join the Grand Forks Public Schools in the fall, all enjoy their involvement in all of these programs to this day. No decision is easy from either side, from any aspect, from a parent view, from a board member view, from a citizen. No decision is easy. However, I am confident in the process that has taken place to get here. And I believe again that
206we're doing what is best to move us forward and give us the ability to do what is best for students, staff, and the continued future success of all of the Grand Forks Public Schools. So, that's what I have to say. Any other comments, discussion? Amber, >> I'd like to make an amendment to the motion to remove two FTEEs related to an orchestra removal and to keep fourth grade orchestra in place. >> Okay, we have an amendment to the motion on the floor. The amendment is to remove two FTE. Is there a second for that? >> Second. We have a motion and a second. So now we will discuss and and uh the amendment. Any questions andor discussion on the amendment itself? Any questions or discussion on the amendment itself from the phone? Jeff or Dave?
207>> I have a couple of thoughts. Uh Jeff, go ahead. >> Nothing further. Dave, sorry. Go ahead. I I'm I'm interested to hear a bit more as as these potential FTE reductions have been discussed in those um music staff meetings, however you characterize them, Dr. Brener, are we certain that if we move forward with this concept of reducing two FTEEs, are we realizing the full savings? I know we had heard some questions about, you know, h how could these educators reach multiple more buildings. Uh so that's sort of the the question that's swirling about in my head. Are we convinced that by eliminating this program, uh you know, some of the other pieces have been said around the domino effect? But what I'm getting at is are we far enough in the process to know
208that again we know these are averages, but that this would save the district on average the $170,000 that that we're we're using as that number. And then I'll I'll hold my second question for a bit. >> Dr. Brener. >> Yeah. On board member Burgerer, on average that that would still be accurate at 170,000. I don't know if Brandon if you wanted to add any more context. I defer back to the chair first. >> Brandon, do you have any? >> No, I have to admit I was doing two things at once when the question was asked, so I have nothing more to add you. >> Thank you. >> Second part to your question, Dave. >> I'll just I'll state my concern again and then move on to question two. I'm not sure we're fully convinced that
209we know we can move forward with this concept and fully realize uh an FTE reduction because of the teachers covering multiple buildings etc. So just to piggyback on Amber's point and my second question would be is this the sort of thing where because we have a bit of an unknown in the other costing we we let this be a study we you know we put a timeline on it to to board member Paul Msino's point is there other community support uh is it is it simply too soon do we know enough and I know there were a couple of community members talking about you know we we took reduction in salary off the table as a concept. We took closed combined buildings uh just so that everyone knows uh we knew that that might be
210something that we could realize a bit further down the road but certainly wouldn't impact this upcoming year's budget. So I'm interested perhaps board member Flynn your thoughts about if we in a sense put took these two off the table and in the same way as the virtual high school said we need one more year to look at this. uh if if that's something that you've thought about. >> Amber, >> I have thought about that. I've had questions or I've had conversations with administration about that. Um frankly, I was told that we might just be kicking it down the road in making a decision. And I believe strongly that there's more research and data that needs to be gathered to understand the long-term financial impacts. As I stated in my statement, through my research alone, through
211different journal published articles that have been conducted through lengths of time of when a student could metriculate, there's longerterm financial impacts that outweigh a negative cost than just what we would save in the beginning. And I I think to Dr. To Lun's point, whenever we talk about facility improvements, yes, it seems like a large dollar tag now, but if we delay the decision, it's or if we have to bring it back, it's going to cost us more in the future. To Bill's to Bill's point, we have a program that exists. We're not starting a new program. So, at the very least, if the administration is asking that group to change things around, give them time. The question has never been proposed to them figure out a solution to not have fourth grade orchestra until now,
212but it's out of their hands. We in how we will evaluate the impact on our website says student impact, staff and operational impact, financial impact, and community impact. We have heard about families. We would lose 220 students potentially not having fourth grade orchestra. And I'm just saying that amount because that's how many people we might lose less than that. But the partnerships we all also heard related to our workforce in small businesses and those individuals who would lose equipment rentals. My decisions are that that's less than 1% of my decision. But we also talk about workforce issues with our CTE and we are effectively taking those opportunities away from those small businesses. I just can't support allowing this decision to occur now when I think we could give them more time. Mr. carrier talked about
213how is it a reasonable expectation to take an entire program away and switch things around and we're almost to March 1st. Are we going to pay these people a stipen to figure out their curriculum over the summer? No. It then it it virtually like there's no point. So I just think if if the when we go through teacher negotiations and we struggle to come to terms as a board and GFA as much chagrin as I you know have to deal with Joe Drum for a year after negotiations. Um I just think that we have again set of presidents where we've said let's study this in greater detail to get the information to answer the questions at hand. And I think we owe it to this process. We can we can disagree. I want to support
214a majority of the work that administration has put together, but I can disagree on a music specialty conversation and to ask for more time. >> Thank you. Dave, did that did you have any follow-up to that or was there another question there? >> Uh, no. I got both of my questions answered. Thank you. >> Thank you. Jay, >> so there's an amendment with a second, correct? To >> adjust the music FTE from 6.5 to 4.5 by removing the option of reducing 2.0 FTES for elementary music education. Is that correct? Do I have it summarized? My my specific ask was to remove those two FTEEs with consideration of fourth grade orchestra staying as part of the curriculum. >> Right. And I'm just trying to restate it so there's a entire understanding of the of what's being
215amended here. >> I understand I'm saying the same thing you are. >> Yeah. >> I'm just saying it differently so I understand it. >> Correct. Okay. Other questions? Brandon >> to say it a third time differently or to try to understand it just because the agenda item is related to the scope of a riff and this scope is agnostic to certain programs. The scope is K12 music teacher 6.5. So the scope of this riff the amendment I understand would be to adjust it down to 4.5. It would be relatively silent. they would be silent on I mean you your spirit is carried but the I think the agenda item only speaks to the scope of riff. >> I I certainly hear your point. Um but the scope of the elementary riff as it's been discussed
216and talked about has been related to removing fourth grade orchestra. So, we can go back and forth about the technicalities. I appreciate that because I think it provides clarification, but then I would appreciate the district acknowledging if the motion moves forward that fourth grade orchestra stays in place on good faith. That is understood by me as a superintendent. Okay. Further questions or discussion on the amendment? We're on the amendment currently. Okay. So, Brandon, I would ask you to read the amendment one more time that we have a amendment and a second and then please take a roll call vote for the amendment. >> Okay. I was just typing it a little bit there. um amendment to remove two FTEEs from the scope of rift uh associated with K12 music education and I was just typing
217out more specifically to reduce from 6.5 FTE to 4.5 FTE. Okay, does everyone understand the amendment that we will now vote on? Okay, roll call vote, please. Brandon >> Flynn, >> yes. >> Hodc, >> yes. Anderson, >> yes. >> Manley, >> no. >> Um, Lun is absent. Cleven, >> yes. >> Palmino, >> no. >> Larson is absent. Burger, >> yes. >> Five yeses, two nos, and two absent. >> Okay, thank you. The amendment passes. So with that then to take a step back. We now have an amended motion and we need to I think review what the amended motion now will state. So thank you chair. I um will take a swing at that. There's in the board memo uh the recommended language that I think the original motion was made off of and I'll
218incorporate the two changes that were not reflected in the memo which would have been a reduction of.5 FTE associated with virtual high school teacher and then a 2.0 FTE reduction from the K12 music teacher. So the motion reads that moved based on the needs of the school district to eliminate uh 13.5 additional FTE equivalent positions as follows. They're listed here. K12 music teacher 4.5 FTE. 6 day intervention special topics teacher 2.0 FTE. K12 physical education teacher 1.5 FTE. K12 multilingual teacher 1.5 FTE. Secondary MTSS coordinator 1.0 0 FTE elementary enrichment teacher 1.0 IO FTE 9 to12 school within a school teacher 6 FTE K12 instructional coach.5 FTE skipping the virtual high school component of that CTE information technology teacher.5 FTE 9 to12 graphic design teacher 2 FTE 92 German teacher 2 FTE and instruct the
219superintendent to identify the individuals for reduction in force based on the reduction in force policy. Okay. So that is the amended motion now on the floor. Is there any questions or discussion on that? Anything on the phone Dave and or Jeff? One point of clarification. I I know this question was asked of board member Paul Msino who made the initial motion about the specific meaning of based on the needs of the district. Can we clarify whether the board's original intent to find a $4.4 million budget reduction will still be realized and that report will come back at the next meeting? Uh, and my my followup to that is, is it within the realm of possibility that there may be a necessity for other concepts introduced? >> Dr. Brener, >> the the second part of your
220question, board member Burger, is yes, there would be the the necessity to look at um something to balance the 170,000. Uh and the first part of your question, Dave, again, was just to clarify whether we're still talking about a $4.4 million budget reduction. That's what we're getting to for this upcoming school year. We have not adjusted that number down by $170,000 by amending the motion that was on the floor. >> That is district leadership's understanding. Yes. >> Thank you. That's all I had. >> Further questions. Amber. >> As it stands without like just as it has been presented to us tonight, do you have the dollar amount of where we're at? estimated. >> Yes. So just to clarify when you say dollar amount I think um the list that was presented with the 52 concepts
221had came come to a total of $4.9 million. There were some items that were revenue. you back those off and it was 4.58. And then if you take based on the average estimates of an FTE cost, it gets closer to 4.367. >> Thank you, Brandon. Further discussion on the motion. Okay, hearing none, let's take a roll call vote, please. Paul Msino, >> yes. >> Lun is absent. Larson is absent. Flynn, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Hodc, >> yes. >> Manley, >> yes. >> Cleven, >> yes. >> Burger, >> yes. >> That is seven yes, zero nos, and two absent. Motion passes. >> Uh moving on, we will take to item number six D, which is adjustment to high school physical education graduation credit requirement. Dr. Brener, >> thank you. Uh if board members
222would allow me the privilege to skinny down the memo for you. Is everybody okay with that given where we're at for time? You've >> read it. >> You've read it. Uh, so the recommendation before the board is to reduce current physical education graduation requirement by one half of a credit. This adjustment is aligned with our efforts to identify responsible student centered efficiencies while maintaining the integrity of the district's overall graduation requirements and the educational experience for our students. Um, the recommendation is on the second page. Uh, I won't read the recommendation this time. I'll defer to board members discussion first. >> Thank you. Any questions for Dr. Brener to start? >> Amber. >> Um, so with this specific program, uh, will the physical education course still be offered? It's just not a requirement. So, just
223making sure people could still sign up for this as an elective course during their course of study. >> Yes. >> The answer is yes. >> Yes. Answer is yes. Other questions for Dr. Brener >> or others on the phone? Jeff, any questions from you? >> Nothing for me. Thank you. >> Dave, questions? >> No questions. Amber made the point that I was going to make. Thank you. Thank you. >> Amber, one more question. >> If process-wise, do we need to do anything as a district with DPI if we're changing our requirements for graduation? >> Yeah, >> Dr. Glatch, >> any any additional items? >> No, this exercises the process. >> Do we And then is I'm assuming there's like a filing of paperwork or we just we own our requirements and that's it. as long
224as we're meeting what they their minimum. Okay, >> thank you. Other questions in the room? No other questions? There is a uh the recommended uh motion is to move to approve the reduction of the high school physical education graduation requirements by 0.5 credit effective beginning with the 2026 2027 school year and direct administration to revise the district's graduation requirement documentation and student regit registration materials accordingly. >> So move >> motion by J. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Amber seconds. Any further discussion or questions on the motion? >> Hearing? None. Let's take a roll call vote, please. Brandon Burgerer. Dave, we're taking a roll call vote. You are up first. >> Yes. >> Anderson. Yes, >> Flynn. >> Yes, >> Cleven. >> Yes, >> Hodc. >> Yes, >> Pomino. >> No, >> Larson is
225absent. Lun is absent. Manley, >> yes. >> At six, yes. One no, two absent. Motion carries. Item 6E, approval of UFly foundations to replace really great reading. Dr. Brener. >> Yes. The reason this is coming to you is because the board did adopt really great reading uh in our last literacy um adoption cycle and the adjustment between from really great reading to UFly University of Florida uh literacy institute is a budget savings but not the science of reading loss of instruction. So that is the skinny version uh of the two and a half page memo and the recommendation is found on the final page and we can respond to any questions without Amy Bart here. Uh we will do the best we can. >> Jay, >> well thank you. Uh you referenced uh Amy Bart.
226She approves of this curricula change if I understand and by previous statements. Correct. >> That is correct. Member Cleven. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions? Um the only question that I have is and I'm not certain who can answer it if at all. >> What teacher professional development will have to happen to bring this in? And will teachers um be given extra time? Will they need um and will that time be compensated with um salary? >> Matt or Dr. Briner. So, thank you, Dr. Rodc. Um, so that actually will start this upcoming spring. We'll start with literacy coaches and instructional coaches and and Amy Bartch's department. Um, so, uh, Miss Bartch has a a plan um, to proceed with that. Um, additionally, we received some additional Title One funds um as a reallocation process
227as I know you're familiar with that has happened um from time to time throughout the years and some of those funds would be utilized to provide that additional uh funding or professional development. I apologize. So, next fall. >> So, basically it would be all done and we wouldn't be expecting teachers to come and work this summer. >> Correct. It would be happen happen in the fall. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. Other questions? Amber, >> it was my understanding from talking with Miss BCH about this that the programs are um foundation is sort of similar in nature. Um so there shouldn't be many deviations and she also mentioned that part of the strength of really great reading um relies on those great teachers. so they could bring their expertise in knowing that curriculum combined
228with a similar program and still deliver a viable curriculum. >> Um board member Flynn, that is correct. As well as what I would say is we are using it um currently you fly um throughout pockets of our district right now. And so um we just continue to expand upon it. I know the district or the board um has received a few emails from um teachers regarding the switch. Um given those concerns from those teachers, has there been any conversations? I don't know whose department or if that's principal specific based on building, but um could there be a potential uh let's sit down and talk about this. What are your concerns? how do we mitigate those before I'm supportive of this, but um you know just to try to mitigate some of those issues. I don't
229know if that happened or not. >> Uh board member Flynn, I would say that it would happen at the building level with uh led by the building administration as well as with support from uh Miss Bart. >> Sure. >> Y >> thank you. Other questions? Any questions on the phone? Jeff, any questions from you? >> No questions. >> Dave, questions? >> No. As usual, someone else stole my question. >> Okay. Any other questions in the room? Seeing none, the recommended motion is to approve the adoption of the UFly foundations as the district district's elementary foundational reading skills curriculum replacing really great reading effective for the 2026 2027 school year. >> Jay Mo motions to approve. Is there a second? >> Sherry seconds. Any further discussion or questions on the motion? Let's take a roll call
230vote, please. Cleven, >> yes. >> Larson is absent. Burger, >> yes. >> Paul Msino, >> uh, Lun is absent. Manley, >> yes. >> Flynn, >> yes. >> Kodak, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Seven yeses, zero nays, and two absent. Motion passes. Item number six F is the adjustment to high school speech graduation credit requirement. Dr. Brener, >> I think this is my final memo for the night. Uh again, I'll give you the abbreviated version. You have the memo in front of you. Uh the recommendation is to reduce the current speech graduation credit requirement by 1/ half credit. Uh this adjustment is intended to support the district's long-term financial stability while preserving meaning meaningful student access to communication focused learning experiences that are essential for post-secondary success, workforce readiness and civic engagement. And you
231can see the recommendation is on page two. >> Questions for Dr. Brener. >> Cherry. Will the speech still be offered within the electives by the principles? >> Dr. Glatch, >> dual credit speech will be offered. >> Thank you. >> Other questions? Amber, >> I'm also making an assumption here, but similar to how it's encouraged to weave math and reading concepts within other courses, I would imagine that the conversation is happening about how do we learn about speaking and speech and public debate in other classes as well. >> Uh, you are correct. In in most districts, the speech components standards are woven into the ELA curriculum. ELA curriculum in all transparency is tight as it is, but you are absolutely accurate in that uh assumption. Thank you. >> Other questions from board members. Questions on the
232phone? Jeff, any questions? >> No questions. >> Thank you, Dave. Questions on the phone? >> No. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll make the motion to >> I'll make the motion to uh approve the reduction of the high school speech requirement as outlined in our agenda packet. >> Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Jay second. Any questions or discussions on the motion? Hearing none, we will take a roll call vote. >> Lararsson is absent. Manley, >> yes. Lun is absent. Palmino, >> no. >> Hodak, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Cleven, >> yes. >> Flynn, >> yes. >> Burger, >> yes. >> Six yeses, one no, and two absent. >> Motion passes. Item 6G is the uh finance committee report. I will turn that over
233to Bill. >> Are we taking three different motions, Brandon, or one? >> Yeah, just to clarify, the first will need action from the board. The second will not, and the third will. So, two actions. >> Okay. So, the first one is the uh safety and security enhancement at Viking School. Uh that let me see where am I? I got Sorry, I got to enlarge this so I can read it. The bids came in at the uh it's for the new entrance at Viking Elementary came in at 638,977 or 18,326 less than projected and a total cost of the or the original estimate was 782190. So it was uh recommendation by the finance committee to accept the the bid of 638977 for the Viking school safety and security and just for the general public's knowledge this
234is coming out of the bond issue that was passed um by the general public and I would make the motion that we would ex accept the recommendation. I'll second that. >> We have a motion and a second to approve the consideration of the bid results related to safety and security enhancement at Viking Elementary. Bill made the motion and a second by Jay. Any questions andor discussion? Hearing none, we'll take a roll call vote on that item. Anderson, >> yes. >> Flynn, >> yes. >> Hodak, >> yes. Cleven, >> yes. >> Larson and Lun are absent. Manley, >> yes. >> Balmino, >> yes. >> And Burgerer, I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Seven. Yes. Zero no. Two absent. That motion passes. Back to Bill. >> Okay. The second part of the deal was a an a change
235order that was approved by the uh the committee and it's just for an update for you is we previously have a a unit. It's on top of the third floor at Valley Middle School and we because of a cost of a middle school that we were concerned with, we bid it with a ladder going up there. And what we've done is is accepted a change order of 111,423 to put a stairwell up there for safety issues. So the uh finance committee approved that change order. >> No action needed. >> Yeah. Any questions? >> Any questions on that? Board members, >> can I ask a a technical question? >> Yeah, he's here. He could answer. Well, >> he just left. >> Okay, never mind. >> I was hoping Mr. Palomino would know that didn't seem to
236be the case. >> Thank you. >> Okay, the the third one is the Winship School uh flooring project. Uh I think it was seven years ago, they put uh carpet tiles in Winship School and they ran out of time. and there's three classrooms that still have the old tile in it and they found out that the tile they used is going out of out of stock. So, our recommendation as a committee is to finish those last three rooms and the cost would be 12,937. I did go over there and look at it and the current I think there was some question at the time what was the current shape of the uh tile and everything looks good over there with the tile squares. So it would just make sense to finish the school so all
237three all the the three other classrooms are all filled with the same tile. So our recommendation is to accept the $12,937 out of the building fund. >> Perfect. That was my question at the finance committee. So, thank you for the answer to that. >> Okay. >> Any other questions on this item or anything to add, Brandon? >> Okay. >> Did Bill just make a motion? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. A motion and a second to approve the building fund use for windship flooring project. >> There questions or discussion on the motion? Questions or discussion on the phone? Jeff or Dave? None. No, thank you. >> Thank you. We'll take a roll call vote. Burger, >> yes. >> Palmino, >> yes. >> Manley, >> yes. >> Lun is absent. Larson is absent. Cleven, >> yes.
238>> Hodc, >> yes. >> Flynn, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Seven, yes. Zero, no. Two absent. Motion passes. Next item on the agenda, item number seven, 7 7A is announcements. Any announcements for this evening, >> Jay? >> I think recently, maybe last weekend, there was state speech competitions and I know there were several award winners from Grand Forks Public School. So, just to those out there who succeeded and won their awards, congratulations and thank you. Other announcements. >> Sounds like there's a winter weather advisory. >> Thanks. >> My phone's in use. >> Okay. Hearing no other announcements, we'll go to item 7B, board refs for future consideration. Any board requests for future consideration? Amber, >> based on our conversation related to orchestra, I think um it would be appropriate to have that question
239put to that group, music, self-study, whatever you want to call it for elementary orchestra, um and have a report to gather information and data on um if it's feasible to transition and what a transition could look like. Thank you. Other board requests? Anything from the phone? Dave or Joel? Uh Dave or uh Jeff? >> None at this time. >> No requests. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Item 7 C, schoolboard meeting norms. Jay, how did we do? >> Uh we were good. I think everybody was preparing this informed and passionate discussion. Thank you. With that we are adjourned.