Hudson Schools - January 12, 2026 - Regular Board Meeting

001Call to order tonight's uh school board meeting for Hudson School District. Could you rise for the pledge of pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> First, we have citizens right to speak or request to speak time. And I believe we have no one here for that. Nothing. So, we'll move on to reports starting off with schoolboard election. Nick, >> you bet. Uh so what you have here is the final ballot draw document that our clerk has certified. Uh Molly has signed it and um so the order of the ballot draw uh was this morning. Um Tim conducted the draw. We had multiple witnesses and even candidate that showed up. Uh so

002Megan Dresowski will appear first on the uh primary ballot, then Jeannie Castro, then John Dolan, then Maria Rudy, then Joe Rivera. So there is a primary. It will be on the 17th of February uh because there's more than four candidates uh running. You have to have a primary to get it down to no more than two per uh open elected position. So uh that primary people will get to vote for two and the top vote getters will then uh be able to move into uh the next round which is in April. So, thanks. >> Okay, moving on to act 20 update with Tara. >> Yep, this is this is me. Yeah, so we've got a few members from the teaching and learning team here. I'll let them introduce themselves and their position and then they'll

003give us an update on act 20. All right. Well, thank you for listening to our updates on Wisconsin's reading legislation known as ACT 20. My name is Laura Manarchek. I'm the assistant director of teaching and learning. Here with me tonight is Jenna Wland, our K through five literacy specialist and Melissa Miller, our district's data and assessment coordinator. The work that this team has done to ensure that students, staff, and families are well supported while also ensuring that compliance with the law has been nothing short of extraordinary. Um, and it's just so incredible to see the impact that it's having on students. Um, there's often a lot of conversation about what we're doing because of the law surrounding Act 20. Um, but what we found is that it's very much aligned to the district's strategic plan,

004the vision, the mission, and the core values. And so we've really started to reframe how we talk about Act 20 when we talked about it with students, um, families and teachers that this is the work we do because it's best for students, not because we have to do it. So these are the a few of the fundamental ways that it aligns with HSD's new strategic plan. As you can see, it is heavily aligned with focus area one, academic achievement. We see alignment for students, staff, parents, and families. And so we know how important this work is. So we've really done a lot of work to make sure that the systems we put in place are manageable, sustainable, and truly beneficial for our students. Okay. So I'm going to talk through what act 20 exactly is.

005So this slide reviews act 20, which is a state pro a statemandated process. And this is going to talk through how it applies to the different grade levels. So ACT 20 is a process that applies 4K through grade 3es and it starts with that step one with the curriculum and making sure that we are using a science of reading based curriculum and that we're not teaching kids to guess or use that three queuing system. After that all K through three students participate in a state approved literacy screener that is the same one that everyone in the state of Wisconsin uses. It's as well plus. They do this three times a year to monitor progress and then inform our instruction. 4K students also do a screener, but they only do it twice a year. Students in

006K through three who score below the 25th percentile then are moved on to the next area and they're determined that they are at risk for reading. These students go through diagnostic assessments to identify specific skills that they are struggling with. Then based on that diagnostic data, we create what's called a personalized reading plan or you might hear us refer to it as a PRP. This outlines goals for that student specifically targets specific interventions for them and is a way for us to communicate that intervention and the progress with families. These students on PRPs have ongoing progress monitoring and because of that we're able to see throughout the process of their plan if we need to change instruction or if we need to continue doing what we're doing if it is working. Now, some students also

007receive additional supports. We do have summer school options for all students, but we have a specific intensive one for those that are still on PRPS in third grade. Now, starting next year in third grade, act 20 will include a prom pro, excuse me, act 20 will include a promotion policy where we will need to look at kids that are on PRPS in third grade. If they do not come off of that PRP, we need to look at what's next year and what's entailed for them for best options. Now, one thing, the state only has a mandate K through three. We actually as a district really believe in what this does. So, we've implemented it for grades four through five. Those students also have similar screening processes and go through that same idea to ensure literacy

008support. So, we do have PRPS even though it's not required by the state for grades four through five as well. All right. And now we're going to dig in a little more into the steps that Jenna has mentioned. Um, so like she said, we take a the screener and then we have diagnostic assessments as well. And so that makes my data heart very happy because it gives us a lot of data to look at and make decisions off of. So what we do as a district, we do and participate in something called we call data rollthroughs. So myself as the data assessment coordinator, Jenna is the literary literacy specialist and then the building reading specialist, principal and psych school psychologist all get together and we review the new stat student data. We review the progress

009that they're making and we create that actionable personalized reading plan and what we want it to look like. So what I've included on the screen that you're seeing is actually a screenshot from our data system that we is next path and it's really great because what we see as teachers is all of the data laid out for that student and how they're performing in each of those literacy areas. It is a lot of information depending on a grade level. We're looking at four to six tests for the screener and then another additional three to five tests for the diagnostics and as well as the progress monitoring data that Jenna mentioned as well. And then based on that data and information, we're asking the question, is tier one instruction right for the student? Is this student

010now dropping and needing a new PRP? Is the student able to continue the PRP as is because they're making great progress. They're just not there yet. Do we need to intensify their PRP or de-intensify it in any way or are they ready to exit their PRP? And so again, that conversation, we look at three main areas where we're really able to personalize that reading plan. And as Laura mentioned that this is something that HSD lives and breathes even before the law of act 20 came into place. So what I've put in the upper right hand corner of this screen is our MTSS model or our multi-tered systems of support. So what we have here is what explains that students go from universal supports or light supports all the way to specialized supports. Just because you're

011in the specialized supports category doesn't mean that all those supports before it go away, which is why they're encompassed in each other. So, when we're looking at a level of support, we have those different types of plans. We call them classroom plans or pull out intervention plans. We have special education plans. It can look many different ways, but our goal is always to have the least restrictive environment because we know that we want to be warm demanders and we want to create independent learners. We don't want to oversupport or scaffold a student and rob them of that opportunity for independence. Um, and so then once we answer that question, what's the right fit for the student in this model? Where are they fitting best for their plan and where they're at currently? We then name

012a skill focus. We look at do they need help with funological awareness, decoding, comprehension, vocabulary. And then after that, we can then find our best fit instructional resource to help them close any gaps that are there. We have many different resources and we just put a few up there for you to see. The first one actually is what we call our structured literacy plans and that actually came out of our letters literacy training that we had. So all of our teachers have that background and that plan that follows the science of reading and best practices. Then we also have the resource of benchmark phonics and sundai which are more actual resource curriculum type six minute fluency and Hagerty which um hones in on phological awareness. So this sk this slide is going to outline how

013these are executed. We know our days are full. So you're probably wondering how do we fit this all in with everything we're doing. Teachers will often ask the same thing. Well, every teacher has a 30-minute block we call their target time. It's their targeted intervention time. This is the time that PRPs are implemented as well as all kids are really getting what targeted supports they need. So during this time, you'll see teachers meeting with small targeted groups in the classroom based on those needs. Some kids are also, like Melissa had mentioned, pulled out for a pull out intervention or potentially a special ed intervention or even an EL intervention. This is also an opportunity for those kids that do not have PRPS to still do practice at specific skills they have. We want to make

014sure that we are targeting all students. Every kid has different needs. So, when we go through that big data wall that Melissa shared, we do talk about those kids that are at risk, but then we also spend a good chunk of time talking about those kids that are in that 25th to 60th percentile. what do we do for them? And then what about those above the 60th percentile? Because we really want to make sure that all students are targeting their needs and the skill practice we have for them is purposeful. With this, it requires a lot of support from our reading teachers in our building. Each building has a reading teacher and those are really our biggest assets for this becoming successful. So, I'm going to go over what their role is specifically. So, number

015one, they meet with students. Our highest need students pull out interventions go with our reading specialists. We know that they have the most training. Therefore, they get those kids that need the most specialized supports. They also support by overseeing and supporting their reading assistants that see intervention groups. One way to support them in their schedules, it's each of them have chunks in their day that are called ACT 20 time. They have little halfhour chunks for each grade level K through three where it aligns typically with those grade levels specials or their preps so that they can meet with teachers and during that time they're consulting with teachers. They're talking about student data. What are they seeing? What's working? What's not working? Do we need to make adjustments? They're also talking about best practices and literacy

016to make sure that we are really staying with the research and we're using evidence evidence-based strategies. And then like I said, they are supporting those students that are not on a PRP. Is there a kid who maybe didn't flag as high risk that they're worried about a classroom teacher? They'll consult about them. Or again, if it's the other end of the spectrum that we have a student who's doing really well, how can we continue to push them to show growth as well? So, they have a really big role in this and we really couldn't do this without them. Now, one of the things we talk about is exiting a PRP. Once you've shown enough progress, you can exit a PRP. The state has tasked districts to pick their own criteria for exiting students. You might

017hear about surrounding districts, they exit students as soon as they hit the 25th percentile. Now, when we looked at that and we thought about it, we thought the hard part with that is, you know, what's going to happen? They're going to be out, they're going to go in, they're going to go out, they're going to go in. And we don't want that seessaw effect. We really want to make sure we're building sustainable and transferable skills. So, here in Hudson, we made sure that was our priority when we determined our exit criteria. Our exit criteria is the 40th percentile on that screener. So, we really want to make sure that those kids have a solid set of skills because we believe once they hit the 40th percentile, students then have the necessary skills to access that

018tier one instruction and continue to grow. And again, just exiting a PRP doesn't mean the support stops. We want to go back to that MTS MTSS model and really show that all students are constantly supported and monitored with that universal support and instruction. Um there's so much research out there about the necessity to include families in their child's um education and specifically when kids are learning how to read. Family communication and partnerships are so important. So one of the things that we have done is send out a beginning of the year reading survey for all students in grades five. Um act 20 requires us to send this survey out to any students family who qualified by scoring beneath the 25th percentile. Again, we looked at that survey and thought all families should have an opportunity

019to fill this out so that teachers can get valuable information about kids as readers before they even before they even walk into their door as students. Um, and so those questions kind of talk about the child's interests as far as reading, what they like to read, what they struggle with, um, how they believe that their child could best be supported through reading instruction. And then it also asks about any family history with dyslexia or reading difficulties, writing difficulties, spelling difficulties. And we make sure that families know that the survey is you don't have to fill out the questions if if there's anything on there that makes you uncomfortable. So that's a really important part of our communication and partnership with families. Teachers have said that they find that information really valuable when they start their

020work with students at the beginning of the year. We also have um consistent communication on progress and Melissa showed you that next path screen with all that data on it. There's also a parent portal that we use to communicate screener results with students or with families. So anytime a a child takes a screener that populates into Next Path and parents get a notification and they're able to go into that and see how their child is performing. It talks about the different literacy literacy measures that are being looked at and it shows how what percentile that child has performed in each of those measures. So that's a really important way um to keep families involved. We also have our reading specialists. Again, Jenna mentioned how pivotal they are to the success of this program. They are

021constantly communicating with families and so that's a really important cog in this wheel as well. And then obviously we have that parent teacher conferences. parents are um we talk about we teachers talk with families at conferences about how their child is doing if they're below at or above grade level. So we can kind of talk about progress for all students as well. We also have summer learning opportunities for all of our students. So this is something that is not new to ACT 20. Um we've always offered introduction to kindergarten and then that reading jump starts for grades one through five. And this is really just an opportunity to get students kind of familiarized with how we go about reading instruction in our district. Jenna and I are actually working on making some revisions to those

022programs because right now they reflect what we used to do, but we want to update that to be more aligned with CKLA. So that's what we're working on right now. You also heard Jenna talk about the third grade summer reading intensification. And so this program is for third graders who have not yet exited their PRP. And this one is by invite only because it targets those specific skills aligned to the science of reading. So that oral language and vocabulary, phonics and decoding, fluency and comprehension, if we let that be open to everybody, it would be really difficult for the teachers to target that instruction on the kids who need it the most because if you have an above level learner, it just doesn't mix well when you're trying to focus on targeted skills. So that

023one is by invitation only. And the great part about it is it's offered in the afternoons and the other ones are offered in the morning. So students can come to both sessions and kind of get ready to jump into CKLA and also get that targeted support. So overall um using this process what does our data show that how are we doing as a district? What are we what does it look like? Um, so for act 20, we are required to report the amount of PRPS we have per grade level to the state. Um, so I keep track of all that data. And what I like to show you guys today, which I thought was a great snapshot, is we just finished our winter PRP window. So we just went through all of our data rollthroughs.

024We just redid all the PRPS. Kids are out there. We're learning. And so I like to compare last winter, which was our first time ever giving the statemandated screener. and writing PRPS to this winter now that we're seasoned veterans. Um, so you can see just for example for kindergarten, last winter we had 69 PRPS and this winter we have 41. So that was we're down 28 PRPS. First grade we're down 47 PRPS. Second grade we're down 15 PRPS and third grade we're down 30. So what is contributing to having less PRPS? Why do we think we're seeing this happen? First and foremost, what it's telling us is that our tier one mainstream instruction is working. And so that evidence-based resource of CKLA that's aligned to the science of reading as well as knowledge learning is

025really helping and supporting our students at all levels. Um, and then additional the science of reading training that we had for our K5 teachers. That letters training is crucial that teachers have that toolbox of skills and strategies in their back pocket at all times. and they're able then to implement those strategies at any given moment. And then additionally, we also really looked at our small group instruction. As Jenna said, that intervention block that we have during the day, like how do we make this the most purposeful possible? So, we wanted to make sure that those small groups were focused on those science of reading strategies and using those tools with things like structured literacy plans as I mentioned earlier. And finally, there is one other component that's kind of outside of our district, but Ames

026Webb Plus reormed their screener for the first time in seven years. So, I just think that is an important thing to make sure everybody's aware of that because of COVID, they delayed their normal norming process. So what this means is this winter's numbers are actually closer and more accurate in comparing our students to their peers across the state in the year of 2026. >> Megan, >> this is fantastic. I just want to thank you so much for all the work you're doing. because there's so much here and I um I see the difference it's making. I have a kindergartener who's doing CKLA right now and the patient she has to sit there and sound out words is it's unbelievable just the the way it's being taught. It's so it I loved seeing the curriculum with

027my older child, too. But like and then this layering of everything. I'm just so excited about how this is going and so thankful for all your work and the work of all of our teachers who have learned new curriculum and trained and I'm so excited to see how this is going to keep improving. So big kudos to you all. Yeah, I really liked what you said about um you know, needing to establish that strong base, strong enough so they can stay in the program and not seesaw. You know, having a having a child that struggled with reading throughout his educational career um to see that when it clicks and then all of a sudden it can lose it just as fast. So, you know, appreciate that. I just want to echo what Megan was saying

028that this was a huge lift, I know, for many years for you people, educators and professionals. And it's so great to see the results. I'm sure you're all so happy. I can see your smiling faces and it's so great. Um, and I noticed like what I really appreciated too is it seems really geared towards the individual child, not for the group as a whole. And you're really digging down into what is it with this person, you know? Um and also the communication with parents so that they are fully aware of what's going on and they can reinforce and kind of have that um conversation that's super important between families and educators. So you guys are awesome and just convey that to all the teachers that this is amazing. I'm so excited. I wish I was

029in kindergarten again. It's just like it's just so much fun to be little and I can see you guys are just amazing educators too. So thank you real quick. Um, echo everything they said. Thank you for all that you do. I have a couple of data questions. Um, so I'm curious and I just want to make sure that so that I'm understanding correctly as you're looking at the I'm going to go back to it. So you guys talk about the 25th percentile. Identify at risk students score below 25th percentile and then you talk about the exit strategy is at 40. And I love that, like saying, "Nope, we want them performing really well and setting them up for success." So my question becomes for what happens with those kiddos, you know where I'm going, who

030are at 25 or above and kind of in that category. What are we doing for them? Because I I have to believe there's something there. So I want to just give you the space to talk a little bit about those kiddos, too. >> Yeah. So, and I'll start and then you guys can chime in as necessary. But I think what's really important is when we talked about that roll through process, we do talk about every kid on that list. And so we address first those students that flag and make that PRP plan. And then our next step is looking at those students that are between the 25th and 60th percentile and saying, "And what's our plan for them?" We we notify the teacher that that's the band they're in. We make a plan of attack

031is what we call it to say okay now during that small group time what are they getting specifically what skills are lagging that put them still in that bubble area not yet fully proficient and we let the teachers then use different strategies and those literacy plans also on those students. So just because a teacher might be meeting with a PRP group they can also pull these other students in to work on those specific skills when they need it. Yeah, like she said, they pull them in as guests. Also, PRPS typically, if they are not pull out interventions, the pull outs usually are five days a week. When they're not pull out, we usually do them three days a week because we also want that child to be working in the other type of things through

032the core. So, that allows the teacher two extra days. So, there are times where teachers will pull a group and maybe two days a week or even some of our de-intensified groups will be three days, move down to two days, and then like Melissa said, they might pull these other if that kid is at the 30th percentile, they're not quite exiting yet, they still have a PRP. why I have these other three kids that are in that same one that don't qualify for the official plan. We still execute all of those things and talk through them. So, the reading specialist, that's part of their job as well is they give, you know, here's your list of your PRP kiddos, what they're focusing on. Here are your next group of kids, though. We also want to

033make sure that you are intensifying instruction for them as well because yes, we don't want to forget about them either. >> Thank you. U Thank you for presenting. Great report. >> Yeah, perfect. It's worth clapping for. I'm a clapper. >> Okay. Uh, next on the agenda is the superintendent federal update with Nick. >> Uh, yes. Thank you. Um, so had the opportunity last week, um, as I sit on the AASA's executive board. Um we were out in Washington DC last week for a couple days uh meeting with the department of education uh specifically the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, the assistant secretary for civil rights and compliance and then also the deputy chief of staff for the department of ed. Um and so really they wanted some feedback as there are major changes

034happening in the department of education right now as I think everybody's aware. uh both to give us kind of a heads up as to what they see coming down the pipe, but also getting some feedback from us responding to it. Um and just a couple things I kind of wanted to highlight. Um and things to things to, you know, kind of keep on our radar as it relates to things. Um, you know, first of all, um, you know, want to kind of talk about what's changing, what isn't changing, and and what we should be kind of watching together, you know, as as school community folks. You know, the clear dis, you know, the clear message uh from them was I they not disruption for disruption's sake. I mean, they they don't want to dismantle just

035to dismantle, but a strong push towards state uh state level control. um you know, they want to have fewer federal uh burdens, more flexibility. Um and they paired that with a recognition that, you know, districts need predictability. That's one of the things that we talked about over and over again. We had some situations that happened this last spring where or sorry, this last summer where all of a sudden districts were counting on funding. It had been allocated by the leg uh by the legislature uh the federal legislature and then all of a sudden it was being withheld and it really created some some real challenges. Um, you know, a couple things to kind of start with. What's not changing? Um, you know, formula funding streams are still going to exist in fed, you know, title

036one, title two, title three, title four, IDEIDA, all those different pieces are still going to be in place. They're not looking at changing the the the funding streams or the formulas related to that. Um, the district allocations are not being redistributed. you know, they're not looking at all of a sudden just basically throwing everything uh out and starting over. Um, and one of the things they they highlighted is that although a lot of the people that were working at the Department of Ed are are not any longer, um, I think they reduced almost twothirds of the staff or 70% of the staff. uh a lot of those folks that were our main contacts in the department of ed are actually now working for like the department of labor, the department of the interior, you know,

037different departments and working on the same topics that they were working on in the department of ed. So, um there could be uh things related to CTE contacts and things like that. So, our career and technical education that typically we'd be calling the department of ed about talking to certain people. Now, that's being moved in the Department of Labor. Um, and lo and behold, some of the same people, not all of the same people because there has been a reduction, but some of the same people are still there. Um, and and there's no real changes as of right now when it comes to like the funding pieces that that that happen. However, the Department of Ed and the way they distribute funds is different than all the other federal um I'd say bureaucracies, but I

038guess departments would be a better uh more fair term. Um, and so it's only a matter of time before some of those things start changing because once the department of ed if if they have fewer and fewer programs that are overseeing certain funds and in certain areas, then it's it's going to be more than likely it's going to move to how does the Department of Labor uh distribute funds? How does the Department of the Interior distribute funds? You know, all these all these different uh folks. Um the Department of State may start overseeing all international students and uh what that looks like. And so it's it's not going to be a sudden elimination or anything like that or a shift away from districts uh dollars. However, uh we do need to stay uh definitely uh

039on top of those dollars because there have been several budget uh proposals that have been made by both the administration and uh legislative proposals that do show reductions to allocations for education. So, not necessarily as it relates to cutting the Department of Ed, but just wanting to cut programming in general or cut allocations. And so, I think that's important for us to keep in mind. Um, the big thing and what is changing, why it matters, the big push is increased state flexibility through waivers. They issued their very first waiver actually the day before we went out there. uh Iowa received the first waiver allowing them to consolidate state activity and set aside funds across multiple ESSA program. So that's elementary uh and secondary uh schools act. And so what's going to happen is it's almost

040like putting the entire state as a charter essentially waving a lot of the uh federal regulation. However, there's a the waiver process you have to go through you have to prove it and things like that. I think there's they said something like 13 other states are now applying for these waivers. I'm not sure what was Wisconsin is on that process. That's coming up. Uh I have a meeting coming up on Wednesday uh with the Department of Public Instruction. They're going to be giving us an update on that. Um again, although they claim increased flexibility, which in theory uh sounds good, um a lot of this stuff is not finalized. And so, you know, one of the things I'll be telling my colleagues on the statewide call is I give them feedback from from last week

041is our influence now matters more than anything. You know, for the longest time, lobbying at the federal level, the less with education was not a big not a big thing. It was kind of a federal education policy really didn't change much. It was kind of a slowmoving animal kind of thing. But now it is moving very quickly. It is changing, you know, um, drastically at different times. And so, uh, it created kind of a new lobbying front for us that typically has not been on the huge radar for, you know, regular districts. You know, the big urbans have always had a pretty uh heavy federal lobbying presence just because of the way the formulas are set up and stuff like that, but it it is going to impact all of us moving forward. um their

042goal is with these ED flex waiverss uh that they hand out to the state is that it's supposed to be you know providing you know I don't know some level of relief to districts we brought up things as simple as the CDRC uh which is a data collection process that we have to do I if it's annually ter I mean it is hours when I say hours I mean it's like 40 to 60 hours of time at the district level to input this stuff and um and you start to look at some of this and we never quite get get the outputs. We put a lot of stuff in and never get anything from it. Uh and so they're looking at some you know those that's just one example of okay are there things that

043we could do a little bit different. Uh there's also, you know, some potential language changes and things along the lines with IDA and and how that is administered and the amount of bureaucracy or red tape associated with that because, you know, part of why we have as many positions as we have sometimes is to do the level of paperwork that's required by some of these federal programs and and we are a highly regulated entity. Um, you know, the the other piece, um, I think that we wanted to make sure that we stressed and that we kept getting the point across is, you know, when you're thinking about the grant programs, whether it be before and after school grant programs or we have some of them happen to be with like alcohol and drug uh, grant

044programs, things along those lines. When we don't know if those funds are going to be there, it's hard for us to then employ staff. And we're in the budget setting process and we're in the hiring process in the spring. And if all of a sudden, yep, we think we're going to get this money and then all of a sudden June rolls around and they say, "No, if you're not getting this money, that creates some real challenges for us." Not as big of a challenge for Hudson as it is for a lot of other districts in the state just because of the way the the dollars are allocated and it tends to be based on levels of poverty. Um, you know, there are some districts that have anywhere from 15 to 20% of their district budget

045is coming from federal dollars. Ours is more like 1%, one and a half percent. So, not we're not quite as susceptible to some of these federal swings. Uh, but that that doesn't mean that, you know, having those dollars leave is doesn't impact our kids or doesn't impact what we're trying to do. Um, I talked a little bit about about the data collection pieces. You know, we just continue to to hit them on uh the amount of data and the amount of things that they require from districts to upload and and uh and then we don't ever quite see the outputs. Like it'd be one thing if all of a sudden we're going to put up this data and then we're going to get usable information with it. You know, it's it's kind of like NAPE

046data. You know, we have to sit for the NAPE exams and things like that, but then we never find out exactly how our kids do. We just find out as a whole and um which makes it a little bit a little bit challenging. Um, you know, there's uh they did acknowledge, you know, um that there's some tension right now between some of the civil rights compliance and classroom safety pieces and and things along those lines, especially as it relates to IDA. Um, you know, because that has been some of the feedback in in uh how we are working with uh with students and how we are keeping our staff safe and keeping other students safe and what does that look like? Uh those pieces. Uh, one area I thought was kind of interesting is as

047much as they're wanting to push things back to the state, they are starting up a kind of a federal task force related to AI. And so like they're wanting to uh clarify a narrative on on AI. Um, and they're uh it's we we currently have some really competing points of view right now. So right now in the in the uh you know the blogosphere or whatever you want to call it the narrative is less screen time for kids less you know get them off the devices less screen time all stuff and then at the same time make sure you're teaching them how to use AI and make sure you're getting them you know to utilize technology to make their lives better and their jobs easier and that they can do these things. Um really hard

048to teach AI if you don't have kids on devices to do those things. And so it's trying to find that balance of, you know, where does it so it's not it's not standalone because everything that we're researching and seeing about artificial intelligence and how to use it, you want to incorporate it into what you're doing, not to have it be a standalone separate item. And so those are are kind of, you know, some competing things that are going on right now. Um, as we as we look forward and, you know, they they even claim that, you know, with AI, they still want to rem you know, maintain local control. They keep pushing this local control mindset, but um I'll be interested to see where that goes. And at the end of the day, the big

049picture um the long term, we asked what's your long-term vision, smaller department of public constru, you know, Department of Education, they don't have the authority to uh completely unwind or wind it completely down. It takes an act of Congress to do that. Uh but essentially, you know, as you go to that building, uh last Thursday, like I said, twothirds to 70% of the staff is no longer there. Um you know, as you walk around that building, 3/4 of the spaces are empty. Um and so it is a totally different feel. Um as you go through it, um I just, you know, I think the biggest thing that that we want to see is do the dollars actually flow through to the districts? Do the dollars flow through to the state through block grants and do

050we actually get those dollars? Um that's the biggest concern. You know, the original thing was well, we're going to streamline the department of ed. We're going to cut all these things so then that savings will get passed on to the districts, but at least the first set of budget proposals that came out uh from the current administration, the current Congress, it was the exact opposite. They were cutting the department and they weren't funding uh the programs at the levels that they currently were. Um so that that is kind of a real real challenge for us. But you know I think at the end of the day um we're kind of in uncharted waters because the level uh or the speed at which things are changing is unprecedented at the federal level. This is just it's

051never been like this. This is this is unbelievably fast even at the state level. Um and so it's something we're going to have to kind of keep an eye on. I'm sure uh down at convention next week, there will be some conversations. There's some breakout sessions related to federal uh uh stuff that that's going to be coming down the pipe. Um but it was quite it was nice to have a seat at the table that they wanted superintendents at the table saying this is what we're thinking. Give us some feedback on these things. They genu genuinely uh seem to be taking some feedback. They asked very uh very good questions as we went through it. Uh spent quite a bit of time. So the proof will kind of be in the pudding as you move

052forward. So, what questions do you have, >> Mr. President? >> Um, so I just want to working in higher ed, which is a little bit different than what's been going on in K12, but I think uh just a good point just to just to keep watching very carefully because there's been uh unbelievable increase in unfunded mandate for more data that I don't know if we'll ever see from colleges. It's a different environment, but it's the same department. So, I just think I'm glad to hear that they're saying they're not going to go that way and I hope they stick with that. >> Um, two questions for you, Nick. Could you um say the full name of the organization you were out there with, you used the acronym? >> Yep. Yep. So, uh the American Association

053of of School Administrators and so that is this the National Organization for uh school superintendents. >> Okay. So, uh, I was out there with about 20 folks, uh, sit on this board and superintendents from all over the country. Um, so it is a unique experience. You can hear what's going on in other parts of the country, some of their challenges both from the federal level and the state level and what's going on. >> And then when you talked about that waiver that Iowa got, is this mean like all their title monies coming through a block grant now like sort of like when Medicaid went >> Yeah. So, what's going to end up happening is instead of having uh the strings attached related to the federal level, now there'll be strings attached related to the state

054level. Um, >> we'll see if one's better than the other to be quite honest with you. I mean, it's it's uh um there's been a lot of things, at least been my experience, that even at the state level isn't overly easy to deal with. So, um but yeah, they're they're going to come through that way. So basically what happens to this waiver process is um you know a lot of the programs that always continually need federal approval and and and you have to run you run all the way up through the state will now be able to handle those at the state level and it'll stop with them. So then the state will also then be able to issue districtwide waivers, but the um but not until the state has a has a waiver related

055to certain things um that uh that districts could actually then apply for waivers as well, waving some of these these different requirements. Now, I'll be interested what those requirements exactly are that are that are going to be waved um and what that looks like. >> Nick, you keep saying waivers of different things. Could you just expand on what some of those waiverss are? >> Uh, yep. Let me just pull up here. Um, so, so what ends up so what ends up happening is any any anytime um anytime that we have uh federal monies, usually what happens is uh the department of ed at the federal level says, "Okay, how did you spend it? What were your outcomes? Did you hit these targets? Did you do all these different things?" And so uh these waiverss essentially

056what'll happen is um if when the state got granted that waiver or Iowa got granted w they get to set their own outcomes. They get to they get to turn around and say um if we do this that meets the expectation for the law that for the money that's been allocated. Um, and then they get to turn around and it's, you know, similar for like if you get waiverss down to the district level, we would create what we think are reasonable outcomes for us and as long as they say okay, then we would meet our our um outcomes and things along those lines. >> And I was I guess I was going for a more specific example of what the waiver actually is for. Well, and and to be quite honest with you, I don't

057have a 100% uh understanding of it because it just happened last Tuesday. And they are supposedly in the next week or two are going to be releasing the actual Iowa waiver that that came out with all the documentation associated with it. Um so really it like I said really what what happens the way waiverss have worked in the past is we get money from the federal government. They put stipulations on it. You got to meet those stipulations. The waiverss basically say you don't have to meet the federal government stipulations. However, the state has to have stipulations and they're going to set their own stipulations regardless of what program it is. It could be grant programs. Um so it could be related to um money that goes, you know, related to mental health stuff. It could

058be stuff that could be uh related to uh title reading. Um there's also we have a bucket of money that comes from professional development. I believe it's title two, title four um monies that that come through. So all of those different things basically any it usually that the the the thought process is congratulations you got money from the federal government condolences you got money from the federal government because there are so many usually strings attached how you can spend it when it has to be spent how you have to track the spending of it and then you know Carl Perkins for example uh being a former teched teacher they'll say yes you can buy all this equipment but here are all the parameters in which you could spend it on and by the way make

059sure Do you inventory and track that piece of equipment into eternity? Like so that you always know and then if you ever want to get rid of it, here's the big long process of how you'll dispose of the fedally subsidized equipment. I mean, it's just the anytime usually they get involved, it creates a lot of headaches for us. >> I I have another follow-up question here. Um, when you were talking about all this AI stuff, I get a little, you know, like most people hear AI and they start kind of freaking out because, you know, we're down to like seven seconds of a span of attention now, which is actually we have entered less than a goldfish, which is a little scary. >> Um, in from a marketing standpoint, seriously. Um, so what were they

060talking about? like where were they proposing we add more AI or what was the I mean are they looking at like learning are they looking at replacing staff with it that kind of is a scary thing like teachers like at what point administration like where does this AI tool are they focusing it on just learning with the students like how to just use chat GPT for example and not abuse it. Um well, you know, it was it was interesting because we um we asked that question and there wasn't a whole lot of >> detail or depth to the answers. And so, >> did you get a robotic answer back? >> Yeah, I mean, it was, you know, they started talking about how they're going to start using AI to um deal with grant applications and

061things along those lines, scoring those things and stuff along those lines. However, um you know, is the notes I had down here is they're not going to have technically an official stance on classroom saturation of AI. They're not going to say, well, you have to use it or you don't have to use it. They just think it's really good. You know, it's it's like okay, you know, it's it's uh that's an interesting take on it. Um and then and then they're like, you know, you should be using it. But then they you countered that conversation with but we really have a strong concern about screen time and uh student mental health. And so it's like okay and and you know worrying about obviously um some of the chat bots and things like that and and

062and those pieces. So um it was very incoherent as far as the AI conversation. And it's kind of like they feel like they should be talking about it, but they don't really have what they want to be talking about. And the thing is is the AI conversation is has been happening in most districts. I mean, we've been talking about it this year with our leadership team talking about taking it from how do we utilize it as employees then to all of a sudden, okay, how do we have kids utilize it in what they're in what they're doing? And so that's been our focus of all of our kind of leadership PD uh over the course of this year and we'll continue to roll out going into next year. >> Yeah. Something popped up on my

063work laptop and I'm like asked coworker, what's that? Well, that's your AI, you know, assistant, right? And so I started playing around with it. I'm like, when will I wonder when we'll be loading these on our student Chromebooks, right? So, we >> No, I'm just saying that's a frightening frightening. >> Well, I mean, >> and we do have it. We do have Gemini. It's actually been loaded onto staff uh staff devices because it's part of our our Google platform. So, they do have access. Staff has access. We haven't unlocked it for students yet. Um but we have the the paid version um related to AI because we have to pay for student accounts anyway, so it comes with it. Um, part of the reason why we would prefer the paid version of AI software is

064because um there's there's more controls in it as it relates to uh what information will be used for learning and teaching these language models and things like that. Um, so our staff as of right now, um, you know, there we're laying out parameters, you know, not putting student data into AI or any identifiable student data, things along those lines. Um, but also using the paid version of Gemini versus the free version of Gemini because that means the stuff that we're putting is not being added to the overall general learning model that can be accessed um, as we work through it. I imagine a lot of you at work have probably started getting Microsoft Copilot. That's the big one. I know my wife's work has now added that. Um and so we're going to continue to

065you know play around with it. And I think with AI for us at least um administratively it just you just got to play with it. I mean you got to use it. Um it can't just be oh I'm going to do a standalone 15 minutes and then I'll come back to it next week. It's how can we start utilizing this within our our daily workflow. So it's been it's been interesting. >> Mr. President. Yep. I know this is not fully our topic of conversation right now, but I feel like first of all, I've seen Terminator 2 a lot of times and I'm very afraid of AI, Skynet, you know, that's the era I grew up in. I feel like it's fine to watch and see how it plays out. And as you read about uh

066leaders in Silicon Valley, their kids aren't using AI. So, I it's not a topic of conversation. totally get folks using it to help them at work, grown-ups. I don't use it because I'm afraid of it. But, um, you know, I just I I hope whatever's if as more discussions come with that where it relates to curriculum that we would have robust discussions here about it because I'm a >> Yep. Absolutely. >> Scary. >> And I think the thing is it everything's kind of changing. It's evolving, right? I mean, so >> you know, prior to the internet coming out, schools were the gatekeeper of all information. You had to go to schools in order to get information on anything. And so, um, it it was definitely a game changer. So, then all of a sudden, schools

067had to start to figure out, okay, since we're not the gatekeepers of information anymore, now what what is our role? And it was more about being able how do you utilize that information and how do you do these things? And, you know, now it's going to change again with with AI. And it's because not only um uh is it that that the information is out there on the internet now you can put prompts into the things and have it do things for you and um you know and I think that's the piece that you know it's not about finding information now it's actually completing tasks and so that's going to change it's got to change the way we do things. It's got to change the way we teach or there are assignments that we've been

068given maybe for the last 20 years that kids wouldn't even have to do. You know, I think about it, my son at at his first year of college, uh they don't no longer they either take paper pencil test >> or they have to go to a testing center to take their test. They sign up for a test. So, um it's like a giant silven. It's a giant building on campus. They all go there, they have to check all of their devices in a locker and then they sit down at the computer, they log in and there's their econ test so that they can't, you know, utilize AI to answer the questions and do those things. So, I mean, there's going to be some of that conversation we're going to have to have otherwise, you know,

069kids will find ways around it. That's what they that's what they do. >> Mr. President, >> sorry, >> I just wanted Sorry, I just wanted to I had a couple questions. Thank you for for going and advocating for districts um and the AI thing. I mean, I I do think we need to have a discussion about that >> because I envision a kid does a paper on using AI and then the teacher uses AI to check it and it's like nobody's doing any work here. >> I think it I mean that's my feeling and we have to be cognizant of our our footprint for junk water usage and what it actually does. So, I am completely like I would rather have none. None. I'd rather have paper books and pencils. Go back to that because

070we're going to end up with people who can enter something on the computer but they don't know Jack. They don't know how to do anything. >> So, um that's just my feeling >> very strongly. Um the other question when you I had was when you're talking with um this revamped department of education, what is the plan for if they're parceling out all these different parts that used to become, you know, in this used to be in this um department as a whole? >> How are they, you know, letting districts know this is where you now need to go for CTE? You go to the Department of Labor or for the State Department for uh international students. How how are we going to know that? Um, so those I mean the one thing we don't have

071a shortage of is emails from the federal government, you know, from the people that are responsible for these programs and they they push that stuff through and they let us know um you know this is now your new contact for X Y or Z. Um the other thing is a lot of that is handled at the state level. So they're having the conversations with the state departments of education, not the state department but the states departments of education and and then they're disseminating that information. You got to remember the vast majority of our contact uh related to even at the federal level is through the state. Um there's not a whole lot of times that we're directly interacting with the federal department of of education. Some of the big big urbans have you know some

072things that they do with it. Uh but for the I would say for the vast majority of our interaction even on federal programs there's a local state contact related to it. So the bigger change is going to be probably for the 50 different state contacts that are around the around the country that now we're going to have a different federal contact when they're working through some of those programs. >> Thank you, >> Mr. President. So on on that issue, Nick, when you're talking about waivers, my experience with waivers tends to be more on the Medicaid side, which is, you know, it takes an act of the state legislature to change a program, then the administration applies to the feds. The feds say do this, the legislature goes back and changes it to do this. Is

073that what education waiverss are going to look like? And what I'm getting at is do we need to depend on the Wisconsin legislature and governor um making changes and in which case it's going to take a long time for >> Well, we're not Iowa. >> Yeah. No, I know. And and I think that the biggest concern I have is whether it be at the federal level or the state level is anytime I I'm a big proponent of divided government because I think things tend to move a little bit slower. Um, and I think part of the reason why Iowa went as fast as they were, as they did, is they had, you know, they didn't have divided government, so they able to kind of push through. It does take the, it does take the state

074requesting the waiver, and that's DPI. Uh, so it's not even the governor's office. It's the state department of education that has to request the waiver. And so depending on what, you know, if if you have a department of education that doesn't want to waiver, you're not there's nothing we can do at a local level. we'll still be under the same things that we've always been. And then the concern is also um it used to be because even when administrations flipped at the federal level, things changed but not really all that much. I mean, like you said, it was a big kind of slow animal. But now all of a sudden, if you start having big political shifts at the local or at the state level, you could have us going back and forth between the

075types of waiverss that we have and what does this look like and now all of a sudden we're changing things. So, yeah, it it's um I I don't know. It's going to be it's definitely going to be interesting um to see how this all plays out. And and it'll also be interesting to see, you know, things can change every two years at the federal level, right, with midterm elections and all of a sudden you can Congress can bring things to a halt depending on how things how things work. So, um right now, state legislators don't apply for those waiverss. It's the state department of states departments of education. So a little different than Medicaid, but they did such a wonderful job rolling out that block program that you don't have a huge level of confidence

076that it's going to go overly well. Um you know with that. So >> Mr. President, >> um I guess two quick things to echo. I agree I agree with Molly. I I think we need to have a conversation about AI sooner rather than later and think about not just like district level policy but also hear from our teachers about how they're using it, what the challenges are to kind of inform that. Um I know as a parent it is challenging to think about what the guard rails are and help kids use it. They're curious, they want to and >> it chatgpt whatever you want to use it does not always get it right and you have to be able to verify that. So um and that's a skill set and there's a basic skill set

077of being curious and knowing how to verify your information. It's going to be critical. Um and then just the other observation is um I think our biggest risk is right now the speed at which things are changing. Um it is um in public health I can similar to you it's it's hard it's hard to manage the change from day to day of what's happening. Um, so you being able to be in that conversation, I think gives us an a critical window and is helpful for us to start thinking long term what what might we need to be ready to pivot to do. So thank you for going. Appreciate it. >> Absolutely. >> Okay, other questions. Thanks again for your effort, Nick, on that. Um, moving on to reports. Oh, excuse me. Tops for discussion and

078possible action. Um, looking for uh consent items, >> Mr. President. >> Yes. >> I move approval of the consent items and that the chief financial and operations officer be authorized to pay bills in the amount of 1,65,126.74. >> Do I have a second? >> Mr. Second for Megan. >> She's closer. >> Uh, all those in favor say I. >> I. All those oppose say nay. pass. >> Mr. President. Okay. So, um, as you know, our deadline for, uh, retirements is December 15th, and given the timing of the board meeting, we have several new retirements that we want to be recognizing tonight. So, first up is Tracy Havalene, assistant director of community relations, district office, 18 years of service to the Hudson School District in her current role, as well as two years as a board

079member. Um, so that's Tracy. And then we have Elsa Breden. She's a kindergarten teacher at Hudson Prairie, 28 years of service to the district. Uh, Linda Darley, science teacher at the middle school. Um, five years of service in the district. Uh, Jason Lond, art teacher at the high school, 25 years of service to the Hudson School District. Lisa Hayes, a media specialist at the high school, 20 years of service. And then another one in the room, Tim Miner, um, the superintendent's executive assistant, and he has 18 years of service to the district. So, I'm sure the district will be celebrating them come the recognition banquet. >> Uh, thank you. Uh, I would would like to take this opportunity because normally we don't have people here when these things are announced. Um, first I would say

080uh with Jason Lund, I remember when he was hired. I remember when he was a new teacher and uh yeah. Wow. >> Right. I mean, new impressionable. Yep. And I was also younger. So, um, but I would, you know, obviously we're all very familiar with Tim Miner, uh, with Tracy and and with Andrea and, you know, 18 years each. And Tim, how many for you? I forget. >> 18 as well. No, no, okay. How much for you, Andrea? >> Uh, this is my 13th year. >> 13th year. So, uh, you know, a lot of history, a lot of great effort. Um I just personally would like to thank and on behalf of the board and uh for all all those years I mean known many of you for some of you for 30 years you

081know in our community as parents as as employees at different schools Tim as a school board member with Tracy years ago um as well as a district employee and Andrea as well great service. So just like stand and welcome any comments from anybody else that would like to speak as well. Maria. >> Yeah, I just want to echo um couple since Tracy, Andre, and Tim are here in the room. Um Tracy, I have always appreciated your willingness to have a conversation and listen. You enter into every conversation just so thoughtfully and your presence will be deeply missed. But I'm very excited for what's next for you. Well, thank you, Andrea. Um, we've known each other as moms with kiddos in sports and I appreciate your enthusiasm. You always bring into everything. Um, you are a

082glasses half full kind of person and that is such an asset and so you will be deeply missed but hopefully not too far away. So, congratulations. And Tim, um, I have learned a lot from you. you have been a just a wonderful resource um both as a parent in the district but also as I have onboarded uh to this board um just always accessible and just enter everything with just such space and grace and kindness always. So thank you and hopefully I'll see you on the cross country trails over below. >> Mr. President >> Molly, >> um I adore all three of you and I kind of feel like how are we going to go on? >> Like I'm gonna just have a temper tantrum and you can't leave. Um I have known Tim since

083he was the um administrative assistant person at North Hudson. So he's seen my kids from day one and all the terrible things that they used to do and being brought into the principal and all those things. Um, and you're just a gem of a person. You really are. Um, Tracy, I don't think people realize all the skills you have beyond this and all the things you do in our community and that you are a fashionista. Um, and I always think you are so cool and someday I want to be as cool as you. Um, and I agree completely that Andrea is a glass half full person. She's just um, a joy spreader. She just spreads joy wherever she goes. and we will miss you all of you very much. Thank you. >> Okay. All right.

084Very good. Moving on. Uh we'll Oh, we got to have the No, we already voted. So, uh we'll move on to uh the WASB delegate assembly resolutions. Nick? >> Yes. Uh so you can click on that document. U these are delegate resolution or uh delegate assembly resolutions. Um, so as we as we continue, what we try to do is we put a district's administration. So Brian's the one I believe that's going on your behalf. He gets to have all the fun. Um, and so uh, what these are are new resolutions. There's actually probably 100 plus resolutions in the WASB resolution and these would just be new resol or modifications to existing resolution and uh, that will be voted on. Um there may be other other items that get voted on as we as we work

085through it. Um they I think there's a district that I forwarded you the information um that's trying to kind of circumvent the resolution process. I don't know how that'll go. That'll be interesting for Brian to fill us in and let us know how that goes. But uh first resolution opposing the removal of caps from the Wisconsin parental choice program. Um you know we were supportive at least administration's recommendation is to be supportive. Um the biggest question is you know any additional money being spent uh on voucher programs will in essence cost taxpayers in our district more money because it'll be a reduction in state aid. Um there's there is money is finite. There's only so much of it. uh if they're going to fund more money towards um private programs, it's it's got to come

086from somewhere and it has come from our district in the past and other districts. And so that's why we said we'd be, you know, administration would be supportive of of that resolution. Um and you can see there's more dialogue there. Revisions to the school district and school report card process supportive. The current process does disproportionately impact Hudson. And the other problem with the school report card process is it changes every single year. And you know what we're being held accountable for based on um what matters more growth or achievement and things like that uh really creates some challenges for us. Um and because we are a high performing district, but because we're a high performing district that happens to have lower numbers of kids that have uh low SCEs, we get penalized for that. And

087so, um, I understand they're trying to equal, you know, even out the playing field and things along those lines. However, um, you know, we could we could end up scoring below we could have more of our kids proficient, more of our kids doing what they need to do, um, moving our kids along as they should be moving along and score below a district that or below a school that doesn't, uh, simply because of the makeup of our students. And so it would just be nice if they would just get to a metric and leave it alone >> because they have changed at least I think in the 11 years I've been here I think they've changed it almost every year um as we work through it. >> Um the amendment to resolution uh >> that's

088a question. >> Yeah. So with with this um revision of the report card, you know, I can see how you'd want to compare how free and reduced priced lunch students are doing compared to other free and reduced price lunch, right? You know, like you want to take that into account to an extent. Um so this wouldn't be stripping out necessarily the data on how on your share of free and reduced price lunch students. It would just be that it the the underscoring waiting would and just not change it so we can compare to year to year. >> Yeah. So we we would still >> it'd be nice to have a decade to compare some data that's the same. >> So you'd still be getting data based on those different subgroups. However, you know what, like

089I said, what tends to happen is based on your free reduced lunch levels, all of a sudden achievement can mean less, >> growth can mean more or all these different components. And you know it it is a little bit challenging and sometimes it feels like it's in an effort to protect big urbans um because they aren't hitting they aren't hitting the levels they need to hit and so you I was talking with the superintendent from another district who said I don't even understand what's going on. The previous year their school they had an elementary school identified as a blue ribbon school of ex academic excellence and the the next year they were meeting they were just meeting standards. they weren't even exceeding standards or significantly exceeding standards. They were like on the third tier low

090and it's like and their scores were the the same level. It's not like all of a sudden they they had a drop in scores but it was because they were changing the way that they were waiting the different parts and and it created some real challenges. And so it is I understand that you know there there are definitely some different indicators and stuff but um uh it it has created some challenges for for districts. Um the amendment to uh uh uh to resolution for funds distribution. Um it was kind of neutral. I mean it was just some language pieces in there. Um you know it's just the distribution of funds intended for educational programs for youth and elementary and high school age. Um, and you know, again, the the other piece is if we move

091to block grants, more block grantoriented, have DPI oversee that so we don't end up in a system like what Brian was talking about where it takes huge acts of the legislature in order to sometimes even get our money. Um, and then it sits in in frozen frozen land. >> Um, >> I have another question. I'm sorry. So they're changing it here from public schools to any school system receiving public funds. So this would create in theory more oversight for private and voucher. >> Yep. >> Cuz that >> to me I feel more uh supportive than neutral on that. I don't know if people want to have a discussion, but I feel like if taxpayer money is being spent, shouldn't there be supervision of those outcomes? Don't we want those measures? The accountabil the the difference

092in accountability to accountability to me is very problematic that it's just money, public money can go to private schools and there is not accountability whereas we're held to accountability seems problematic. Is is that the goal of this this resolution? >> Um >> is that do you know if that's the intent of this resolution to make all schools accountable to they receive public funds they must be accountable for what they use it for? I mean, I I didn't I didn't quite read it that, you know, the same way, but um I I thought it was more about about flow through and making sure the money came through, but >> it is then I'll be okay. So, I was I was going to wait till the end, but I I serve on the policy and resolutions committee

093and we we meet three times, you know, this before at the >> policy and resolutions committee. >> Um Oh, yeah. I was talked into it by Alan Totenhagen. So I don't I won't return his calls anymore. No. Um No, but it's it's been very No, it's it's been it's been uh um very interesting and and it gave us an opportunity to talk to state legislators, which was awesome. Um but in this case, this was one that was debated back and forth about what is the true intent and and it is about the flow through like Nick mentioned. It's not necessarily to, you know, because because when you read it, you're like, "Hey, yeah, exactly." You know, um it's interesting because you'll have a resolution, two res separate resolutions. When you read them, they look like

094one wants to go this way, one wants to go the other way, but then when you dig into them, the intent is actually they're very similar. So, we've had a bunch of those where we had to strip off and go with one and, you know, re reward it. Um, and there's another one down the list farther. When we get there, I'll talk about that. But, you know, I it it's I'm fine with the neutral on this one because it it it there's there's not like a a underlying >> current or agenda that I see that that would damage districts like ours. >> Clarify. >> Um the next one is related to uh authority to schedule referendas. Um and and I think uh the the big piece is we're supportive of you know it's hard for

095in one breath uh legislators whether it be the federal or state to say they support local control and then they say but yet we want to limit your ability to exercise local control. Uh and so um you know restricting referendums flies in the face of local control. We've talked about that. We'd support having the decision at the local level. the local taxpayers are willing to support something, then that's what they're willing to do. Um, so I believe they added the word frequency um in there as they as they look at it. So we were supportive of that. So as you can imagine, this was one that was talked about quite a bit. And when we had um Representative Kitchens and Senator, what's that? Molly's favorite. Yeah. Um that came up, it came up in dialogue

096during our meetings. that came up in dialogue after after the speeches they gave. Again, it's like you're setting us up, you're setting districts up to to to fail. And and so at least be accountable for that. And um so that was uh the reasoning behind this and you know, sometimes it's it's like everybody in the room sees something and they see what it is and they see the irony or the hypocrisy or what have you. That's that's that's kind of the way it is. But um there that this was a big one and um so absolutely. Okay. The next one uh you say why would you be neutral on a substance abuse disorder and treatment aid? Well, it's could be supportive. It could be very positive, but with the strings attached, you never quite you

097never quite know. Again, it's that congratulations, you got the money, condolences, you got the money type of piece. But then also, you know, and I've talked to you about this before, I think that, and we've talked about this, you know, with our legislators, and I know I have, is very supportive of more, uh, support for mental health, uh, for, um, substance abuse, things along those lines. However, would it be better situated at the county level versus the school level? Um, not that I mean, we'd absolutely, you know, allow folks to come in. We currently have colloccated mental health services and things like that. But you have to remember kids aren't only in crisis between, you know, 8 and 3:30. And so we're set up primarily for a during the day situation, whereas counties are set

098up for, you know, 247 response. And so, um, and for us, I mean, because we're able to provide, you know, find providers and things like that with some of these grants. But I know with some of the districts, um, you know, more rural districts, even with mental health money, it's hard to find, um, providers and so they get the grant money and then they can't they can't spend it. Um, and then the other piece is this is more related to um, substance abuse and and treatment and things like that. So, I think definitely a, you know, positive thing. It's just, you know, anytime you start adding categorical aids to certain things, you start to tie strings to it and then the money's got to come from somewhere. So, um, it's it's instead of general spendable

099aid, it's going to have very specific things you can spend it on. >> Mr. President. >> Yes. Megan. Um, and kind of this is sort of lumping six and eight together, but I I understand the neutral on the substance abuse disorder and the universal state covered meals. The issue for me is like when you're talking about these categorical aids, our per people funding is not where it needs to be. So now we're creating these different pockets of money that take more time for people to fill out paperwork. Whereas, if we were just funded at a way that kept up with inflation, schools could decide how they needed to spend this for their students. Um, instead of how many fund codes does Bonnie have to track, where the money, you know, it just gets so complicated.

100Instead of just funding the schools, instead of making up all these new categories is my problem with it. >> Absolutely. Um, you know, the the the next one is vocation transition for students with disabilities. You know, we've had uh children that are part of our uh transition program have been in to talk with the board and and uh talk about some of the wonderful things that we have going on. Uh supportive, we'd appreciate more support for our kids in our transition programs and making sure that, you know, as they transition to the next phase in their lives, uh that that they have those opportunities. And so I think it it would be uh supportive, but um it's more about being collaborative with the department of uh Voke Rehab, you know, as as you kind of

101work through it. Number eight, going back to what um Megan said, um you know, state legislation to establish a fund for a universal school meal program to cover the cost of all student meals not covered by federal programs. And so, uh, I mean, this is, I mean, I could be neutral to negative on it because you asked Brian, "How's that going in Minnesota?" And it's, >> you know, it's stabilized, Nick. >> Stabilized at what they thought it was going to be or slightly higher? >> No, slightly higher, Nick. Roughly double. Roughly double. Yeah, >> it costs double what they thought it would cost. And and part of that is is because it's not just looking at um it's not just looking at okay, how many more kids or how many more meals. You have kids

102that typically wouldn't eat. This happened during COVID uh that might bring their meals from home, but then they're like, well, if I'm getting it for free, I might as well I'll, you know, especially high school kids, I'll eat a school lunch and I'll eat the lunch my parents, you know, made for me at home. And so all of a sudden, the numbers start going through the roof. Um the reason why neutral to potentially not supportive is money's finite. we're already not funding as as Megan said um adequately for just general state aid for for school districts. And so, you know, if we don't have enough money to deal with class sizes and reading programs and things like that, yet there's already a federal program that has been established for folks that that meet the requirements

103that can't afford um food. It's kind of like let's let's get all of our other kind of ducks in a row first and if there's still money and things left over then I think we can start doing some of that. But um you know I had this conversation two years ago when I was on the WA board with the state superintendent. I said I'm just a little concerned you in your state budget proposal you have five times as much money uh you're you you want allocated for a school lunch program than you do for reading initiatives. And yet we already have a school lunch program through the federal government. um that's a little little alarming. So that wasn't met with a real um positive response, but um but I think there there's no doubt about

104it. 40 I think what people have to understand is 41% of our kids in the state of Wisconsin qualify for free reduced lunch under the federal program. Um that's you know what we consider the poverty level. Um you know Hudson we're in a little different boat. We're right around you know between 9 and 11% and so we are considered a a very affluent district. um as it as it goes through that and um I think the you know the the biggest challenge is I know there's a stigma associated with um you know sometimes people think there's a stigma associated with uh applying for this aid or or things like that and the thought is well if everybody just gets it free then that it eliminates that stigma which it doesn't it doesn't and and the

105other question is at what cost and what else are we giving up in in an effort to do that and so kind of >> I think we neutral >> I would go negative on this. Personally, first of all, when lunches were free, I had my kid get a free lunch every day because it's like, why am I going to make a sandwich when it's free? I don't need free lunch for my kids. So, it to me it's just like there are too many other issues. There are too many things that need funding. If there was a world with infinite money, sure, but we know that's not the situation. I think second right now with this current department of ed they are talking about moving away maybe going to these block grants but when you don't

106have students filling out their free and reduced price lunch applications then you don't know how many students qualify and then those schools can actually suffer in the amount of title one funds that they get. So you have these >> unintended consequences that can impact funding for the schools that need that federal funding that I think maybe people don't think all the way through. Um because it sounds good. It sounds good. Feed kids, right? Like yes, but I don't need taxpayer dollars to cover my kids food. I'd rather have higher per pupil revenue cap for schools so that teachers can be paid well. We can have smaller class sizes, whatever, etc. So I in this environment to me this is not a priority by any means. >> Mr. president. >> Um I agree with Megan on

107on I think we should be opposing that um or at least not supportive of it. Um mainly, you know, for various reasons. Not not all parents want their kids to have school lunch, whether it's free or not. They've got dietary restrictions. They've got um health concerns. Um and and truth be told, most kids, they pick what they want on their plate, what's in front of them. That's all they're going to eat. and the rest of it goes in the trash. So, I agree. We would be throwing money away. Um, and I think we do have good programs in place um for kids that um to ensure that they are getting meals and I don't want to see those programs go away because we don't want any kid being hungry at school. That's not a great

108way to learn um and be focused. So, I want to continue to be able to help those kids. But, I mean, everybody doesn't need a free lunch. I don't mean to say it in a negative way. I just I just don't believe that everybody needs that. And most families most families in this district, I think, would support not having to have a free lunch for their kids. >> Anybody else? >> All right. The public education endowment. >> Oh, >> I was just going to say I agree with with uh opposing this one. >> So, are we changing that then to not support it? uh the public uh education endowment fund. Um I don't know, Bonnie, maybe you know more about how this would work, but I to me it just seems like it would complicate

109the funding that's already unbelievably complicated because um I I don't know. I I just I'm not 100% sure what >> um I have no comment on this one because I No, I mean this was I Yeah, I mean I this was a head scratcher. Um there I I don't have anything to add as far as um that's why you know talking is neutral because I don't see how it the pros or cons on this one. Um Mr. President, >> right? I was just going to say I we can be neutral on it, but we we've got one of these in Minnesota. It's got about a billion and a half dollars in assets in the fund, but we can only distribute the earnings of the fund every year. So So we've got a billion dollars sitting

110in a trust fund and we distribute about $30 million per year to all the school districts across the state of Minnesota. So, you know, if Hudson were in Minnesota, we'd be getting $2,000 a year or something like that out of the fund. And it's useless. It's a I'd much rather they raise revenue and add it to general ed formula. >> So, is that something we want to change as well? >> I'm down with that. >> Okay. Uh amendment to resolution early childhood education funding public private partnerships. Um, again, uh, supportive, um, and and, uh, really what it is is, you know, if if you're going to, it goes back to what Megan was asking about earlier, uh, all publicly funded 3K and 4K schools, including schools receiving voucher funding or funding through public agencies other

111than DPI, must have the same level of accountability, reporting, and transparency, standards, and requirements. Um, you know, it's kind of said, you know, if if people can do it better privately than we can do it publicly, playing by the exact same rules, then, you know, more power more power to them. But it's it's not fair if they don't have to play by the same rules. And so, um, you know, however, uh, we would like to, you know, limit resources being funded away from public schools. And this is goes back to the is it get kids ahead >> granted? get kids ready grant. Um, and the big concern is, you know, that's part of where the governor made the deal with the legislature and it eliminated some of our special education reimbursement funding uh to shift

112it towards reimbursements for 4K programs for private providers. Um, originally was supposed to be to help offset child care cost uh for people because it sounds really, you know, noble to do that. However, that's not what it's turning out to be. um it's showing a potential reimbursement at a much higher rate than what we could reimburse at for 4K uh and almost to a level higher than what we generate uh with with with 4K. And so, you know, supportive of holding people accountable and and keeping public private partnerships because I think we've had a very successful one uh over the last eight years, nine years as we've had that. Um but there's a little bit of a caution like to limit the resources being funneled away from the district. >> Mr. President. >> Yes. Megan

113or Erin. Sorry. >> That's okay. Um >> I I'm actually I I'm not super supportive of this for a couple of reasons. I I just want to dissect it just a little bit and um start with recognizing that um I support holding all public funded 3, four, 3K, 4K programs, public, private, voucher, all that to the same level. I have no issues with that. And that's why um I I like taking more of a neutral approach to this. um acknowledging that competition and choice can be healthy for families and communities and Wisconsin has a long history of mixed delivery 4K models. Um we have strong private and community based providers right here in Hudson and many of which end up at kindergarten here in our public schools. So I don't really believe that it's our

114role to imply that they shouldn't have access to funding simply because they are not operated by the district. I think that actually harms us if we're looking at keeping partnerships strong. Um, maintaining them, um, maintaining multiple prek delivery options also gives the district some breathing room, especially with spacing right now and staffing potential consolidation pressures and pulling all 4K under one single public model isn't really necessary to ser serve students that well. And in fact, doing so could really limit our flexibility at a time where we really need more flexibility, not less. So, there's that factor. And then lastly, um I kind of have I have an issue with the wording. I get we didn't put this wording in there. I just want to make that clear. Um but while DPI certified teachers are one

115pathway to quality instruction, many early childhood um educators are highly capable without that certification. Um we've become increasingly flexible with expectations for academic proficiency for students. But yet this rationale would um this resolution actually would remove flexibility in who can teach four year olds um potentially eliminating the labor pool and increasing costs unnecessarily at that prek level. So I personally I don't fully support the resolution as written, but I recognize its intent for sure and um I would just I would be more supportive of neutral stance. >> I have a question. because I didn't read it that way. So, um, right now with our community partners for 4K, the money comes through our district and goes to them. Right. >> That's currently what happens. But with this get ready kids, >> it can be completely

116disconnected. Correct. >> Right. So, it's I think it's not trying to take away from like >> the ability of our school district to work with St. Pats and Trinity, for example. It's just saying there should be those partnerships because that's how it has been traditionally is or it's all it's confusing. >> I'm I'm I'm not reading it the same way, but that's I mean that I just I'm um says all 4K programs should be funded through school districts with local flexibility and contract with P uh childare providers to provide 4K instruction as determined by the school board. >> Yeah. Uh so that's the model we currently have right now is it goes through the school district and then we pay the private providers um with our with our model. But um it wouldn't mean that

117all 4K or in-house 4K programs or anything like that because um it just it just means everything kind of flows through flow through the school district and each school district works and sets contracts with different providers for how much the reimbursement is. Um, and we're expected then to oversee that and provide oversight to make sure that it is a certified teacher in there and that it is um, you know, they are meeting all of those expectations. Right now, our community based 4K programs have certified teachers in them, >> all of them. Um, and you know, and that hasn't been an issue or a roadblock to having the programs. Um, because there's I think parents have kind of grown accustomed to that expectation >> in in the district here. Um because this actually kind of tags

118with something else that's in the agenda and it's just an observation that I noticed when I was reading through this um there's a job posting later on for um teachers that says DPI certified and I can completely understand why that would be important for kindergarten through 12 to have that. My question is if um our goal is that we would use 4K teachers and be able to pull them up into into um you know other roles versus I mean why do we really is it that big it's not that big of a deal that they have that certification is kind of my point. >> I mean we the language in here just says that that children deserve having that and that's kind of like my big issue. It's like what do you mean they deserve

119having that does it just downgrades teachers I think in general because there's a lot of great teachers there's a lot of people that are excellent they don't necessarily have that one you know this one special certification over here which is very important I understand that but doesn't it doesn't mean that other teachers are not equally as good or don't have that experience >> well I mean sense yeah I I mean I guess I would look at it it's it basically that certificate it's a license to teach right and So, you know, I kind of would equate it to, you know, are there certain medical areas that you don't think should have license versus others? You know, if somebody says, well, you know, maybe it's not as important for this area to have as much certification.

120I I I think it's I think it's set up because we would expect that the level of training it takes to get the lure at DPI for 4K, it is a four-year college degree. They have been trained to work with kids at that age level, so it's age appropriate. Um, you know, one could argue we do have alternate pathways to certifications even in al in other grades. There's there's not an alternate pathway to certifications in the elementaryaries, but we do have some in career and technical education and some of the high school stuff. But, you know, the expectation is we would think that the instruction at 4K is just as important as the instruction at kindergarten. and to ensure that the level of instruction is going on is is just as is just as good

121um as what we provide. That's that's the rationale that's the rational behind it. Um not that somebody that that doesn't have a teaching degree can't do a good job, but you know, it's kind of like metal degree. If you don't have a degree, you can't practice medicine. Even you could know everything about it, but if you don't have the degree, you can't you can't do it. So this is just basically saying you got to you got to have a license to be a state run or provider. >> And I think that's to me I totally get what you're saying with the deserve it. It it rubs the wrong way but with this new get ready kit get kids ready. >> Um you're going to have private healthcare now that you brought up doctors private daycarees

122which are great. I sent my my kids have gone to private daycarees. They had fantastic teachers, right? Like, and you know, like my kids went to kindergarten here. It was awesome. People go to 4K kindergarten there. This wouldn't change their ability to have 4K, but if they're getting public funds, again, it's this and they're even getting more public dollars than we are for 4K. To me, it's not fair to give taxpayer money to private for-profit, which isn't necessarily bad, but a private for-profit business that does not have to meet the same standards we do. That to me is it's not a fair thing, right? Like, it just isn't fair. You go give more money to a different organization that doesn't need to meet the same standards than if our kids go to school at our

123school. And I I think that you >> but I'm looking I mean I'm looking at this that these are four year olds not not 11th graders you know I mean they're four year olds. I don't know how else to say that. >> Uh yeah I I I agree with Megan on the on the you know private do or you know public money going to private and again we have I try and be very understanding of the relationships we have. It's the model we have had. we were late to the game on 4K however many years ago it was and um you know this community made this decision this is what they would like us to do and and we have been doing it and um but uh so and then there are people in our

124community and now are saying why don't we gobble it all up and just take it back so there's that and and I don't want to put you know community providers that have been doing a great job over the years uh in jeopardy for that and um take business away. I think, you know, I'm I'm I'm fine with it the way it is, but I I do believe the expectation of our parents is that 4K is no different than than kindergarten or, you know, that they want they want quality and they and there are there are minimum standards to that and that's that's that's what I feel. Um, Marie, >> I was so I hadn't looked the standards up and I there's um there's a website and a document with core competencies for 4K teachers. Um,

125and there's 12 areas. It's um it'll be an interesting document to read. I think at in hearing the conversation, I I am supportive of the res resolution, but I I would actually be open to I do think the word deserving feels condescending and unnecessary in this statement. So would fully support taking it out. Um but I do I do believe if you're going to get public dollars, there are standards that are set. We have standards set for the public dollars we receive. And that's true for any organization, not not just education. You can take any entity that receives them. There are standards and requirements they have to follow, not just for reporting, but for being able to receive the funds and all sorts of things. So I think that feels fair and fine to me.

126But um yeah, we we could make it less condescending would be nice. >> Well, well, that's the resolution as it's written, so we can't we can't change a word. >> So, >> I mean that's >> But Brian could make an amendment. >> Brian could make a friendly amendment. >> He could make a friendly amendment. >> You stole my thunder. I was >> I'm sorry. I did it the past couple years. So, >> I just I believe just taking a neutral stance on it would allow for that conversation to even happen. Would would you actually the way that that conversation would happen would be if somebody made an amendment request and then that would go through that whole process, they would vote on that because that would actually get it talking instead. A neutral just makes

127more neutral. >> It doesn't it doesn't, you know, it kind of is like punt, >> right? Yeah. >> So, but if you really if you really want to address that word, that's the guy that can that can after after the legislative session, he'll he'll tell you >> Brian. >> And uh so just make sure it's a friendly friendly amendment. And I mean seriously though, that is >> the way to to to actually try and make a change, >> right? >> You know, our neutral vote just kicks us off the off the field basically. >> Okay. I feel like those last two sentences could be deleting. The lower the requirements in child care centers deserve fully DPI certified teachers. You just >> daycare providers have a hard enough time. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, I just I

128think we have 4K teachers in our district and uh I think what they do is very important. I think it does matter that they're certified. >> Well, that's why I was asking the question if that's like the goal for our district that we would use those 4K teachers and have them because like I had mentioned that job posting says DPI certified and that's our rationale for having that in there. >> I'll throw this to the admin team. Any anybody have any opinions they'd like to add on this that we're missing or >> You can say it. You can say it. You guys are blowing it. >> We do, like Nick just said. I mean, we do our 4K teachers are our licensed teachers often um with multiple lensure and lentures and DPI. Sometimes we have

129kindergarten teachers that then go into the 4K role. And I think it's been um fantastic to have that level of expertise in those positions. Um and I think you're seeing successes in the program. I would say that as a kindergarten teacher once the 4K program started up we saw a big difference in in kids coming in and our teachers per 4K they are trained in letters too so they go through all the same training as the rest of our teachers I was just going to quickly say too it's not necessarily standalone um license our 4K teachers are licensed up to third grade so we do have a lot of teachers that switch back and forth you know we're thinking of our special led teachers. Sometimes they service our three-year-olds, our 4K kids, and then they'll

130service some second and third graders because that's that's their license. It's nice to have them that whole scope of the developmental uh process for the kiddo that we're working with. So, >> and I can appreciate the flexibility there that it gives the district to do that. So, that's why mentioned it the way that I did. >> Okay, Megan. Um I don't know. I think I mean do you just change the last sentence like the amendment is for publicly funded 4K students or you just strike the last sentence because is the rationale even in what goes to legislators then it's just in our book. How does that look Bob? >> Uh yeah it it does go to legislators. Okay it absolutely. So then I think you know if that if that word deserve is hitting Aaron

131like that it's going to hit other people that way. So I think that's a good thing to note >> you know and again so this is not a one-time thing where they're going to vote on it and then they're going to give it to the legisl and they're they're going to vote immediately on yay or nay. Um they like Nick said how many how many resolutions are sitting out there in a bucket? >> Hundreds. >> Yeah. Hundreds. So this resolution could come back. It could uh I mean there's a half cent sales tax or whatever is one sitting in a bucket out there that we'd like them to work on that they keep talking about. Should we bring it back? Well, they just brought it back for I think for the second time a year

132ago they said no, let's let's not push this. Let's try something else and give it a break and come back to it. Um so >> maybe just striking it to say something like 4K students deserve teachers to meet their educational needs and leave it at that or and or just striking that line totally that would >> Okay. Uh, Brian, can you note that? >> Yeah, I can note that. However, I I'm not sure I completely agree. >> Um, no, but it and I I agree as written there's kind of a I don't know a value statement there that I don't I don't think it it needs. Um, I think the language could be more neutral. However, in my opinion, I think if it's a publicly funded 4K program, I think we should at those centers

133have the same um standard, which is a certified teacher. So I I think that that's an important piece to the rationale here is saying that at these programs we want them to have level funding with the funding the school district is seeing and then that the quality of programming is at a at the same standard. >> Yeah. Publicly funded 4K programs should meet the same should all meet the same standards or something. It takes the um the judgment out of it, >> right? >> I like that values. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then stay stay with supportive. Are we in agreement on that? And here's again here's the thing is >> the more districts that come back with the supportive the the the bulk of that the understanding of that the the funding is that

134is supported. >> So okay. All right. Gez, I thought 11 was going to be the one. >> Uh, >> I got stuff on these two. >> So, uh, yeah. So, kind of neutral on the decoupling of of public and private school funding. And and the reason we say neutral on this, and Bonnie could probably speak to it better than I can, but essentially decoupling means instead of it coming out of the appropriations related to uh K12, it has its own standalone appropriation within the the budget process, which some people say, well, that'd be great because it won't be taken away from K12 anymore. But you got to remember, uh everything that's a standalone uh thing in the appropriation process um they're all in competition for one another, right? I mean, there's only so many dollars

135and at least the way it's set up right now is so when they let's say they take a hund00 million off to do or $200 million off to do vouchers, um they literally take that right from money that was supposed to go to K12 and then they allow districts to turn around and they have districts go ahead and levy for it. So basically, it just passes it straight on to property taxpayers. Um, and it used to be we used to be able to show how much that was and then they kind of pulled that out and won't let us uh won't let us do that anymore. Um, so if you pull it out as its own standalone appropriation, then you're not having that backfill piece, right? So you're not putting money on property taxpayers uh

136to backfill it. However, the downside of that is is now you have another thing that's getting funded within the state budget that's in competition with public K12. Um there are definitely pros and cons both sides. I don't know, Bonnie, if you have thoughts on it. >> I mean, I think that the biggest thing is if you're a district that is losing money, we we do not, but it's very transparent and right now it's not. So, people don't know that that money is going to private schools. I think there's been a big education push in the last month to get that out there. Um, but it's that transparency, but I agree with Nick is like having another entity that you're competing with isn't in our best interest. I mean, we compete about with everybody already. So,

137>> I have a question. So, let's say it's decoupled and then there's not enough money to fund at the per pupil revenue level, but you know, there's less there's less money that's going to the districts, not districts like ours where we don't have students using vouchers, but it was taken off the top. Then is our per pupil revenue just going to be less because we can't, >> right? I mean currently like Nick had said just if you do have this going you have the ability to pass that on to your taxpayers but our district that does not have that situation you just we have less state aid coming into our district. So that pot has gotten smaller districtwide or statewide. >> Okay. >> So there's two ways you get hit okay by it. So the

138one way as Bonnie was talking about, if you have vouchers within your district, they take that money from you and then they say to you, go ahead and and you know put it on your property taxpayers to recover that money. So you get it that way. But if you don't have kids in your district that are on vouchers, like Hudson doesn't have kids in the district on vouchers, you say, well look, it's not impacting Hudson at all because that number is zero. Well, it is because the overall choice programs are already taking state collectively taking state aid and reducing the amount of money that's in the pot. So, when we talk about um you know the re the revenue formula and everything else and how much state aid do we get general state aid and

139stuff like that, they've already taken that out of that pot. That means we're getting less that way also. >> Um so, the districts that have a lot of vouchers within their districts, they get hit twice. We're only kind of getting hit once. Um, and you know, it's >> and I think it's the value of the legislation. Like, do they value K12 education? If they do, you know, this would be great because then we'd get more money. But right now, they're funding the vouchers more than they're funding us. So, does that push more money into that? That's why we said >> that's what I'm really worried about. And then if the income caps come off, then we could start having more vouchers in theory. Well, districtwide, >> I know Nick wanted to throw or enjoyed throwing

140uh Brian under the bus with Minnesota and I was going to throw Nick under the bus with Iowa. >> You know, look what's happening. How's that going down there, Nick? Yeah, it's it's it's it's it's turned into a a really tough situation for him down there because they don't have income restrictions down there. And uh they had a little bit of an ease in, but then it just it just well, as soon as they pulled any restrictions off, all of a sudden, you know, it goes back to it goes back to the whole food service program. >> Um you know, if you can afford to pay for your kids' food, why do you need the state government to step in? if you can afford afford to pay for your, you know, private education on top

141of what's what's offered, why do you need the state to step in? And and so, um, it's just it's it's interesting because you have two different sides on the voucher system model and the statewide food model. And both sides take opposite views, even though they're >> basically almost the same thing. you know, you're you're paying for services that people can already afford to pay for on their behalf. And um and in an environment where resources are finite and it's not as though we're all swimming in in dollars where it's like, okay, we have so much money, we don't know what to do with it. Now, let's see if we can throw some over here and throw some over there. So, the reason it's neutral is it it really comes to how do you track it?

142And >> yeah, this was supposed to be kind of the first the first meeting we had in resolutions committee meeting was this looked like a no-brainer, right? But then you get into the language of it and then to come back for your second meeting and then people brought up different questions about what you know what are the long-term ramifications of this and I think we've just gone over some of the same things that that you know it's fun to see you guys come up with the same things that brought up at the second meeting. So, and and again, that's why, you know, something like this is going to be it's going to be, you know, tossed around and looked at a lot. Um, and and um whether they vote to put it again to the

143to the legislature as as something to support or not, I I don't know. I I mean, me knowing that. And oh, and again, the municipalities are the ones that are doing the pushing now to get it on the tax bills to show what's going for vouchers. So that's not something hopefully that more municipalities are doing that. Um Green Bay I've mentioned um did it successfully and and and that's will drive I think more awareness of that. We we can talk about it every year. um doesn't seem to matter down in Madison. But uh >> I think to be consistent in my thinking as Nick noticed sometimes people you know like you're not using the same logic. I am opposed to the decoupling. So, I would say not supportive of 11 and supportive of 12 because

144I think what I would really like is for there to be some resolution that says the state has to tell you how much money your district is losing to the statewide voucher program, right? Like that's what I would like to see that there has to be a report like that. This decoupling, the more things that are in competition with each other, like you said, Nick, I think it is going to hurt public schools. it for and as the data nerd yeah it'd be a great data point to have but the risk I think of decoupling it is very high and then you go back and forth between administrations right maybe someone funds more in the makes me nervous >> and this and this was those opposing viewpoints that I mentioned earlier that's that's what this

145is >> so um do I mean the easy button is neutral, right, on both? But you're saying uh you're saying not support 11 and support 12? >> Yeah. >> Any anybody else have input on that? Um, so thinking about your comment earlier about what neutral means on this, there could be a strategy saying remain ne neutral to just kind of let this fizzle out and not actually move it forward for in discussion so that there can be more kind of noodling at a lower level to kind of figure this out and have conversations. But if the strategy is to say we really want to force a conversation, then I think yeah, I I would lean towards uh supporting the conversation from a point of opposing the decoupling um and keeping them linked for now. But

146no matter how you dice it, I it this is going to be the thing that we're going to continue to wrestle with whether it's decoupled or not and the impacts that are felt. I mean, we we are losing money because we don't qualify for enough state aid. Um, we did get dinged in that way for our public schools. Um, I I can go either way. I I can see the strategy to say just let this kind of fizzle and have more conversation over time at a lower level rather than pushing the conversation and and I could get behind it. So, sorry to be wishy-washy in my thinking. >> No, that's okay. And I think if it's neutral, you're just not voting for it, right? So, it might just fizzle out anyway. I >> Okay. And

147and really, Megan, it so I'm sorry now I'm because the logic is >> very hard to hold on to. Um, you you're advocating to support 12 >> or oppose 11? >> Both. Or at least oppose 11. I mean, >> well, what I'm getting to is is in reading the the bylaws that were sent to me about the amendment process, >> we'll consider 11 first. If 11 fails, >> or really 11's the >> risk >> where everything is, right? So, if we were going to do to do it, I think we would want to oppose 11 um and thus support 12, >> which I've been sitting over here waffling, but as I think about it more, I I think I agree with you. And it it to me it gets to that last sentence of the

148rationale of 12 about eroding tra transparency with with a fully separate funding stream going to really non-public entities. It's really it kind of goes back to the 4K discussion we just had that public dollars is tax dollars. No transparency, no standards. Um >> those schools should exist. They can exist but they should be private. This should be privately funded, not with our tax dollars. >> Are we good with that? >> Yep. >> Opposing 11. >> 11. >> I'm supporting 12. >> I like Bonnie. Nice Switzerland approach, but whatever. I'm just kidding. And as you discuss these things, as you can see, these aren't it's not an overly easy just like, hey, just go through this real quick and give us your take on it because you're trying to you're trying to navigate the landmines uh

149that could be uh the last one, encouraging schools to participate in WIA policym um neutral. Um here here's the thing. Uh I'm not a huge fan of the WIA. I don't make that uh I don't think anybody who knows me knows that that that's not a real out there opinion. Um the the reason why I worry about the WIA is it does have little oversight even though they say they're they're ru they're ruled by their membership, right? The problem is if you ever step outside the guidelines, they just basically excommunicate you. And so it's it's it's it's a challenge and and the WA is different than WSB or or WADA or WASBO or any of these other ones because all the other organizations in the state have no oversight of our kids. They don't they

150don't imply rule, you know, they don't put rules. They don't do any of this stuff. But the WIA does it has complete oversight of our kids. And they're going to say, well, it's not mandated that you're part of it. However, what they do is they say to all their other organizations, you can't participate with any school that doesn't do it. So therefore, you don't have any ability to do anything other than be a part of it. And then if you're part of it, you have no ability to do anything other than follow the rules. And and there's not the same level of oversight that we that we have. And so, you know, as you read through this, um I I don't know. I mean, they're going to be uh WASBY encourages its member schools to

151participate and engage in WA uh WIAA uh policy process when necessary and appropriate. Um it's kind of like I don't even know how it made it through here. Maybe Bob has an idea, but I mean it's like a it's like a feel-good sentence. I don't know. I mean >> I was gonna say why is this even something on the table? And the first rational statement is WASBY has a practice of avoiding adopting resolutions in attempt to dictate WIA policy. So why are we even having this as a potential resolution? >> It was late. >> Sure. >> Got it. >> Um, no. I mean, again, like Nick, Nick's not the only one that has, you know, >> with WIA stuff. I mean, I I I think there's there's a little bit of a struggle there going

152on for you know, control and re reence relevance relevance. Um, I honestly didn't didn't see either way, you know, I mean, so I I honestly I'm fine with neutral. I don't know I don't see really reason to oppose it, you know, but I don't see any gain from it either. So, um, but that's just again and and once I don't, you know, I'm not part of a team that writes the resolutions down at these meetings. We get them brought to us and we determine which ones are worthy of moving forward. >> So, >> Oh, yeah. >> I'll call. >> Um, so >> is that a spelling error in the last >> Yeah, it should say WSB instead of WS. >> WPS. Okay. Just checking. I think this is a really strange resolution because they don't

153seem to go together. The repealing of 3.96 and then the weird encouragement, but that they seem like odd bedfellows. >> What they're what they're basically trying to say is instead of having a specific specific resolution related to performance-enhancing drugs and training methods, just eliminate that specific resolution that's been around since 200 and 19 or whatever it is and just have it say uh encourage school member schools to just participate in the rule making process. So I don't know who came I don't know what district came up with this resolution or where it what the impetus behind it was. I it's the reason we I put neutral on it is I don't for the same reason Bob >> I think we should be a thumbs down because it's so poorly written and what is it going

154to do? >> Spelling. >> It was AI. It was AI probably. I I still think it's goofy. >> I think I think I'd prefer I guess neutral just so and not probably not supportive, but the existing one is kind of ridiculous. That's the only policy. >> We're going from ridiculous to ridiculous. So, does it matter? Well, Brian, after the 4hour legislative session you're going to sit in with 100 people, I'd like you to really hone in on this one. What the discussion >> you're going to want to run to bring that back to us, >> the flavor of it. >> So, I' I'd advocate neutral on this one, >> you'll be done by this point. >> Yeah, >> that's fine. And just note that they'll tell you not to bring up like grammatical like I

155think you're missing a comma after this word, but people are gonna do it. >> So So I'm ready to call the question on this one. Are we all in agreement? We're we're done on that. >> Please, please. Thank you. Um >> that was fun. >> That was the longest we've ever taken to go over policy resolutions in the 11 years. >> You know what? New new some new board members, right? So, >> by 30 times longer. >> Aren't you glad we care? Why are the new board members being thrown under the bus? >> Yeah, Bob's throwing Tony under the bus. >> I was throwing Iowa under the bus. But anyway, um because the stuff coming out of the policy committee was so >> moving on to long-term debt with debt, which is very exciting. Uh

156Bonnie, let's talk. >> Sure. So, we have some good news to report. Um, we did go out on January 7th and we did refinance our long-term debt. Um, that we had estimated the savings to be about 2.6 million when Brian Brewer was here and it actually came in at over $3 million. So, that was good news. Um, we locked in. So, we our rates went from 4% down to 2.81%. >> So, >> and Bonnie, just a reminder, that's savings. It's not an actual reduction that happens right now, but it just means money that we will not be asking the taxpayers for in the future. Long-term savings of our debt payments savings. Thank you. >> Good news. And then uh open enrollment space determination. >> Yes. So this is the presentation or the memo that we

157had during the work session. Um no no modifications to the recommendation with respect to uh the basic open enrollment um recommendation is that they that all of the u that there's unlimited space available with the caveat that then there's the special education determination >> and you're seeing the same thing that you saw at the work session in the world of special education there'd be zero spaces for open enrollment. Mr. President. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I make a motion to approve the 2026 27 open enrollment recommendation. >> Second from Brian. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Hearing none. Passes. >> Moving on. First reading of 200 series. Oh, wait. Yep. 200 series and teacher job descriptions with Andrea. >> Yes. So this again we have talked about this a couple different work sessions

158about the 200 series. Very few modifications but they are reflected in this document. Um and so our recommendation is to proceed with the first reading of the 200 series and then also the teacher job description which is just primarily um being updated um pursuant to policy to reflect a more modern approach to the teacher job description than what we have currently. Okay. Uh, nothing necessary at this time and we'll hear about that again at >> we'll need a motion to the first reading. >> Okay. Motion to approve first reading. >> Mr. President, >> yes m >> I move that we approve the first reading of the 200 series and the teacher job uh description as presented. >> I second. >> Second from Maria. All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed say.

159>> Motion passes. Yes sir. >> Um so the on page eight it talks about the annual performance evaluation um for the superintendent and that it should occur prior to newly elected board members taking oath office in April. So my question is um when are we scheduling to do that? like I mean is there a certain month that we can schedule to do that? And then um I'm I'm asking that because the last time we did that was after the election. >> So I wanted I mean do we need to schedule that before this April election is my question. And we also discussed potential um discussed um redising contract things. I don't know how to word this without saying too much or not enough or however, but um >> when did we do it? In December?

160>> No, we did that right after >> uh you guys did the superintendent evaluation. It was in August. >> Yeah, it was the I think it's the August. >> We have to do it annually. So, it always will fall after an election in some way, right? But this reads specifically that the board member is taking oath in office in April. So I'm asking the question because that's not how if I don't know if this changed because I wasn't a board member at the time. So if it wasn't done in April, I understand that it's annually but then this doesn't match what we are doing. >> Is that correct, Andrea? it. This language has not changed um with our recommendation here than what it was prior. I think the practices have changed, but I'll certainly defer

161to Bob and Nick on that. >> So, I'm Mr. President. >> Yes, Molly. >> It just occurs to me that it is prior to an election and new people being elected. It just it's all it's prior to this year's election >> and it really should be done before any new board members come on. So the evaluation is within the thing. I don't think it's really fair for new board members to come on and evaluate somebody who hasn't worked with them. >> So you're saying I think in the cycle technically it's correct. >> That's correct. >> But that's not the language in here and that's what I'm asking. Like I'm I'm fine with the approving all that. I'm not asking to go back on it, but the language is very specific in here on page eight.

162And so I'm asking are we following page eight or are we following like oh we moved it to August and so now it's annually in August then I guess technically then this language would be at whatever annual renewal is picked. >> I think I understand what you're saying. Yeah, I understand what you're saying. It's like a new board member wouldn't have enough time under their belt to maybe understand the whole picture of it. Like it would be helpful to have had at least a, you know, a year's time. So having it in March maybe would be better because you'd have all that 11 months of time is what you're saying. No, the language that's used in here says that it is appropriate to do so prior to newly elected board members taking the oath of

163office in April when applicable, board members can provide written summaries, blah blah blah. But it also talks about in here that if it hasn't happened annually that the superintendent acknowledges that and then you just schedule. I'm not saying that what happened was wrong or incorrect. I'm just asking like what's the plan for this because it says April in here right now. >> It's just talking about taking the oath of office in April. It's not saying it has to be in April. So it doesn't matter. It it >> So it could be in August, could be in September, could be in October, could be November, could be December. Anytime before that election with the current board. It just Do you want it closer to the election? like um >> well I mean I don't again I

164don't really know if this is like the time to have this conversation necessarily because I don't mean to put you on the spot but do you want people evaluating you that have worked with you or do you want newly people coming in evaluating I think it's a good question I mean it's it's a I mean personally if I were if I were >> I'm just sitting here and if people were evaluating me I would like them to have at least worked with me for a short amount of time before they're like hey you this is what I've seen instead of this is what I know. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah, I think I work >> especially with HR, but this is like that just seems very strange to me. >> If we're doing

165it in August, that's kind of a dead time. That may be why it's then that's what I'm kind of thinking. Maybe that's just come become tradition, >> but it really is like you haven't had a ton of meetings if you're a new board member. So, I think that's a good point to say that, you know, maybe January or February would be better before I think it you could potentially get into some really busy times. >> Um, >> but I think we should talk about that. >> I do think the um you're in compliance with the board policy assuming that it occurs within that particular school year, right? So whether it's August or February, it's still um within that calendar year or that school year. Uh that's applicable. Um, it's just I think the specificity of

166it was not to have it occur right after the election with new board members, >> but not defining what the actual time period that you have to wait after that general election or after the board member election is. So, I would say if your practice is to do it in August, September, October, that would be consistent with this language because it's not occurring right after. But I agree it's not really defined. Um my my presumption is the intent of the language was not to have brand new board members be doing that evaluation when they haven't yet done the work. >> I agree with that and that's that's the language that that's how I was interpreting it but but my my question I don't think I was being super clear on this. So, it reads on

167the last line here, um, first first line of the last paragraph, the board shall take action on contract and compensation changes when appropriate to do so prior to newly elected board members taking open office in April. And there there was some discussion that that might happen. So, I'm curious if we are scheduling that to happen. There was conversation that what might that we might do a superintendent evaluation right after an election. I I'm sorry. I'm trying to track. >> Sure. >> Just I don't I'm not overly comfortable talking about >> things that could be close session, not close session. I'm not very well versed on that. So, I just >> I'm good with that. >> Okay. And yeah, let's have we'll have a conversation. >> I mean, that seeing that it's in April just >>

168makes kind of a little bit of sense. >> Okay, sounds good. So, >> last item, school closure and transition planning. Um, so really the there's not a whole lot to talk about today uh tonight. Uh the conversation is really going to be tomorrow night with the boundary piece. um you know the different working groups uh have been meeting looking at staffing needs looking at logistics as it as it goes with moving buildings and moving furniture and all those other components and things along those lines. Um I know they've been the principles have been analyzing the feedback from the staff engagement surveys. Um and again you remember the the uh not staff engagement the staff placement surveys. So this is people saying I want to be in this building. I want to teach at this grade

169level. It's not feedback on a process or anything along those lines. I know there were some questions about that in the past. Uh tomorrow night at six o'clock, um we are having our first of two boundary meetings. MGT uh will be leading that meeting uh completely. They have four consultants coming to lead that meeting. Um there's going to they're going to be spending some time giving some background information, background data. you know, a lot of it is things that the board has seen already, but um want to make sure everybody is operating with the same level of information. Um and then they're going to be going through and presenting three different plans or three different options related to reboundering process. Um you know, and they're going to be looking for feedback. There's going to be

170a poll anywhere uh that has 12 different questions on it. Uh that is talking about what do you like about this option? What do you not like? What would you like to see changed? of the three options, is there any that you absolutely think is the best option? Are there any that you absolutely couldn't live with? Start to look at that stuff. So, if all of a sudden all the feedback we get is, hey, the blue option is 90% of the people that respond to that said, please do not move forward with the blue option, then we wouldn't continue to bring the blue option forward, but maybe there would be two versions of a green option, you know, type of thing as we as we work through it. Um, they will take all that feedback.

171There's also open-ended questions that they'll be collecting all that feedback. There's also going to be um uh survey uh portal for anybody that cannot attend the meeting tomorrow night. Uh it will be broadcast uh and recorded put on our website and they'll have till Friday to be able to submit feedback through uh through a document portal. We'll have that up on our website and make sure we have that out. And then the the consultants will take that information from both tomorrow night and any online feedback they've gotten through Friday. Uh they'll synthesize that, make adjustments to boundaries and things like that. We'll meet with them towards the end of next week. Um and then uh be ready for, you know, kind of round two saying, "Okay, here are the adjustments that have been made based

172on the feedback." There'll be a little bit of review of data. Um, so those folks that have can only make one or the other boundary meeting, they're able to to get some of that feedback or that data. Um, and then make some adjustments, get feedback again, and then get some final um final boundaries for the board to, you know, and a recommendation to the board moving forward into February. So, um, tomorrow night it'll be right here at the middle school, starts at six o'clock. We will have child care available. Um, I believe Tracy has it on our website. you can RSVP if you need that child care availability. Um, and so we will we will have that uh we'll have that ready to go. >> Mr. President, >> uh, Tracy, I just want to I

173bet you you have this in the hopper, but I just want to be after tomorrow night's presentation, can we send a note out to everybody like this is available so you can fill it out and the deadline and all that fun jazz? >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> I have one other question related to school closure transition plan that I should know the answer to but I forgot. >> Um >> when are the So we're going to set the boundaries and then you've done the staffing surveys and when are the staffing decisions? When is that hoping to be done? Uh we were just meeting about that today and um at this time uh our goal assuming the board's able to approve the boundaries on February 9th I I think that is um we'll have that communication

174that last week of February. >> That's great. Thank you. >> And support staff as well. That'll still continue into March and April. >> Okay. Um that brings this part of the meeting to >> one more question. Sorry. on the MGT. Uh we've gotten a couple emails, so I'm just wondering if you can clarify this um talking about um maps and graphics on page 6,7 and 23 that include data for not just five K through five students. They're saying that it actually is for all grade levels, including middle and high school students. And that change in the population at the high school and middle school is impacting the data shown on the pages. and they're talking about since the boundaries would be redrawn uh for only elementary students, that's a significant um they see that as

175an issue. So, I'm wondering if you can address that. >> What which pages would you like me to address it on? >> Um they're talking about page 6, 7, and 23 that include data for not just um it includes data for not just five K through five students. It's showing all grade levels. including middle and high school students. >> Yep. Um that's in the map is what it's showing, but it is also showing. It does break it down by grade level and I believe it does break it down by building as well on the lefth hand side. Um so it's not we're not none of the decisions that we've been making have been looking at our K our K12 enrollment in totality. They've all been based on K5 numbers. Um when you go to um

176uh student density uh the student density map on on slide seven, this is from the December 8th meeting. Um that shows we're overall where our kids are um and and the density of our kids. It's a heat map, you know, as it it situates when you get into the let's see what was the other one 20 something 23. Um on page uh 23 or slide 23. Okay. Again, slide 23 is just it's a it's a graph a graphic representation of where we're increasing students, where we're declining students. Um, and it does it does specifically talk about um in in their new presentation, it will specifically talk about uh the elementaryaries, middle school and high school when they think they're going to stabilize and the different the different enrollment numbers. I will say that the um

177all of the other all of the other documents or all the other numbers I mean for example on slide 22 the one right before it it it breaks down the five and 10 year forecast based on K5 68 912 in and K12. Um and so when we've been looking at uh and it even gives a narrative uh saying that we'll initially decline eventually stabilizing by 2030 with with elementary kids. So I think um I don't think there's any concern that we don't have data breaking out broken out by elementary, middle school, and high school. Um, I do know the email you're you're you're talking about um that a constituent had um but the conversations we've had about closing buildings or um have been very specific to the elementarymentaries and the decline in elementary enrollment and

178we've been always comparing our elementary enrollment to our elementary capacities. We haven't been looking at overall district capacity, overall district enrollment. Now the overall district enrollment does put pressure financially on the on the district. However, um everything around this, you know, the the forecasting related to building closures has been related to K5 and I think we I think they've separated that out throughout the process. >> I think that's great. Are there Can I ask if there's any other questions, community questions anyone maybe had that we should be talking about before tomorrow? uh >> at anyone else's hearing. >> I I think that I saw the similar amu that you referenced. I I I wasn't terribly concerned when I went back and looked at these because you can see the progression through the presentation of what

179they're doing. And yes, there are slides where sometimes it's just elementary and sometimes slides where they give you the full picture, but it's in the context of the full presentation. So for me, when I saw that, I was like, the data still holds true. And now we're going to see a presentation where they're focusing on the elementaryaries. In terms of other questions, I can't speak for the other board members. I have not gotten any. >> All right. Uh then moving on. Now the board will go to close session. We will be reconvening to take action on information from the close session, but I would uh accept a motion to go into close session. >> Mr. President, >> I'd like to make a motion that the board uh will convene in close section pursuant to Wisconsin

180statute um 19.85 PN1 PNC C to consider employment promotion compensation or performance evaluation data of a public employee. >> Do I have a second? >> Second from Brian. >> We'll do a roll call vote. >> Doll. >> Garza. >> Oh no, no Garza tonight. Gerlock >> I. Powers >> I >> Rosowski >> I >> Rudy >> I >> Bowman I we are now in close session. Um, we are back in open session. Um, I would like to a motion to remove the the term interim from from our interim chief academic officer, Shannon Sexy, and replace and offer a new contract as chief academic officer. Do I have a motion? >> I make that motion. I'll second that motion. >> Second from Aaron. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed, nay.

181>> Motion passes. And now I'll accept a motion to >> motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Those opposed? Nay. We are adjourned. >> I see a lot of