Board debates nonnegotiable measures on staffing, suspensions and engagement; members call for metric rewrites

The school board reviewed its annual “nonnegotiables” report on July 9 and questioned how some measures are defined and measured—especially staffing targets, suspension‑demographic measures, and advanced‑course representation—asking the administration to revisit metric language and targets. Interim Superintendent Dr. James Pohl presented five nonnegotiables including curriculum alignment, staffing fill rates at identified schools, disciplinary disproportionality, equitable advanced‑course enrollment, and inclusive community engagement. For staffing, Pohl said 18 schools were not fully staffed on the first day and that targeted supplements at four Early Learning Centers (ELCs) achieved a 22.2% improvement for that progress measure after one school (Lindenwood) came off the list. Several board members challenged progress measures tied to demographic percentages. One member noted the Hispanic long‑term suspension percentage rose from 7% to a projection of 14.5 and said the measure, as worded, appeared to reward an increase. Pohl and others explained the intent: to reduce overall suspensions while bringing suspension rates closer to a school’s demographic composition. Members suggested adding explicit language to the metric—"while not increasing the total number of suspensions"—and to consider focusing specific measures on the subgroup of greatest disproportionality (for example, Black students) rather than aggregating all subgroups when that produces counterintuitive targets. On advanced‑course enrollment (nonnegotiable 3.2), board members said striving for demographic parity without also stating how overall enrollment should change can give the misleading impression of reducing some groups. Members pointed to the district’s gifted “emerging scholars” strategy as a precedent for targeted recruitment and said the nonnegotiables should be revised to emphasize increased enrollment of underrepresented subgroups while holding overall participation steady or growing. Regarding community engagement (nonnegotiable 4), the board noted inconsistent survey practices across departments in prior years and praised a new centralized process through the media team to ensure demographic questions and dual‑language availability on divisionwide surveys; the administration expects closer compliance and higher rates next year. Board members described the nonnegotiables as an iterative, first try: they praised the focus on data but asked administration to return with clarified metrics, revised language to avoid perverse incentives, and a plan tying measures to resources and accountability. No formal vote was taken; the discussion ended with direction to rework certain progress measures and to include clearer guardrails on counts vs. percentages.