Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Class Size topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Centennial SD board debates class-size limits, asks administration to start budget planning
Summary
Board members discussed changing K–1 class-size guidance to allow up to 26 students, debated tradeoffs with teacher costs and learning outcomes, and directed administration to return with planning and dates for a budget-focused committee meeting. No policy change was adopted.
The Centennial School District School Board Committee of the Whole discussed possible changes to class-size guidance and boundary planning at its March 25 meeting, focusing on whether to allow kindergarten and first-grade classes to reach 26 students in some circumstances and on steps to start budget planning for potential broader changes.
Board members said they wanted more information before any decision. The discussion centered on balancing potential savings from avoided late hires against classroom impacts, and on giving the public sufficient notice if boundaries or schedules were to be changed.
The conversation returned repeatedly to two points: (1) the district has had late enrollments that required adding teachers last year, and administration presented a scenario in which allowing K–1 classes to reach 26 in limited cases could reduce the need to hire additional staff; and (2) several board members said classroom conditions and current academic gains weigh against increasing class size without deeper study and first-hand observation.
District staff noted the financial tradeoffs. “The cost for 2 teachers, with salary benefits, average cost is $150,000 per teacher,” said Mr. Greenwood (district staff), explaining the budget pressure that motivates study of class-size guidance. Board members raised classroom and student-support concerns: “There is no way in this world I will ever change class size,” said Mrs. Lynch (board member), citing recent gains in test scores and classroom challenges with undiagnosed learning or behavioral needs.
Dr. Bennett (district staff) urged the board to begin a formal planning process rather than deciding immediately. “Going through the process doesn't mean you're going to do it, but that's the process so that you have something to consider,” he said, describing the need for planning, public hearings and alignment with the district’s four‑year policy cycle for boundary reviews. Administration reminded the board that the enrollment study projects additional elementary students — the presentation cited roughly 140 more elementary students over five years — and said early planning would be required to respond to projected growth if the board wanted that option available for future budget cycles.
Board members did not adopt any policy or administrative-change at the March 25 meeting. Instead the board asked administration to prepare comparative data (including surrounding-district class-size norms and updated enrollment projections), to return with recommended dates for a budget-focused Committee of the Whole meeting in April, and to outline the public‑engagement steps that would be required before any boundary or scheduling changes. Several board members emphasized that starting planning is not a decision to change class size, but a step so the board will have information in time for the next budget cycle.
Members who spoke in the discussion included Mr. Ginhardt (board member), Mr. Hartline (board member), Mrs. Lynch (board member), Mrs. Carlson (board member), Dr. Bennett (district staff), Mr. Greenwood (district staff), and others. The conversation lasted roughly 25 minutes within the meeting agenda and generated a request for administration to propose dates for a special budget planning session and to return with the materials requested.
The committee will consider the administration’s materials and any recommended timeline at an upcoming meeting; no deadline for a final decision on class-size guidance was set by the board at this session.
