Miss Marr, the Culver School District director of community engagement, presented three draft 2026-27 academic calendars and outlined the public feedback process, saying the district will share the drafts with teacher and parent groups and launch an online survey.

The drafts reflect state and district requirements that the school year include 180 student instructional days and 190 staff work days. "There are 3 that must be listed on the calendar. There are a total of 4 professional development days that must be included," Marr said, describing the non-negotiable elements staff built into every option. She also explained that as an approved e-learning district the calendar must record e-learning as a make-up option and that election day must be listed as a holiday in even-numbered years.

The differences among the three drafts are mainly timing and placement of intersessions and holidays. Draft A preserves the district's modified balanced calendar: an August 3 start, a fall intercession, traditional three-day Thanksgiving break, a two-week winter break, a February intercession, Good Friday (March 26) as a professional development day, spring break, and a last day of school of May 28, which would put the district out before Memorial Day. "It gives us the August 3 start date. It keeps that fall intercession," Marr said of Draft A.

Draft B removes the February intercession to produce the earliest possible end date: May 24. It retains the August 3 start, the fall intercession and a two-week winter break; Good Friday is again proposed as a staff professional development day. Draft C shortens the fall intercession to create a full week off at Thanksgiving, keeps the August 3 start and a February intercession, and moves the last day of school to June 1. Marr noted Draft C includes a teacher workday on Oct. 7 and two student/staff holidays in October, shifting time to expand Thanksgiving.

Marr outlined the district's feedback and decision timeline: the three drafts will be presented to the teacher forum on Oct. 15 and the parent advisory group on Oct. 16, will be shared with district leadership later in the month, and an online survey will be launched the day after the meeting. "We will compile all this information and share it with you so that you will be prepared to make a decision next month," she said.

Board members raised scheduling questions tied to graduation and regional coordination. Ginger, a board member, asked if graduation dates would change under the drafts; Marr said Draft C’s end date places graduation in June, while Draft B would put graduation on Monday, May 24. Marr also said that four York County superintendents have discussed regional scheduling with colleges and other districts to try to avoid conflicts for traditional Thursday graduations.

Board members asked about the reasoning behind removing the February intercession in Draft B. Marr said the intent was primarily to "get out as early as possible," and other board members noted staffing and instructional-rhythm considerations: elementary teachers described February as a difficult month for returning students to re-establish routines after the winter break.

The presentation emphasized constraints the district cannot change (required day counts, required professional development days, and legal holidays) and offered stakeholders multiple trade-offs to weigh: earlier summers (Draft B), a full Thanksgiving week (Draft C) or preserving the familiar modified balanced calendar (Draft A). The board will receive compiled feedback before voting at the next meeting.

Less-critical details: Marr said the calendar drafts are very different from one another compared with past years when calendars showed little variation; she also noted Good Friday has in recent years been used for prom at some schools, which factored into discussion of using the day for staff development rather than student attendance.

Questions from the public were invited; none were recorded in the meeting transcript during the work session.