Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District outlines staffing timeline; April nonrenewal notices, projected teacher counts to be presented April 2
Summary
District staff briefed the board on the 2025–26 staffing process, saying the timeline began in January with a staffing survey, that 91% of licensed staff reported intent to return, and that April 11 is the scheduled date to notify probationary staff of nonrenewal with an expected 20–30 teachers typically affected.
St. Cloud Public School District administrators presented the district’s staffing timeline for 2025–26 at the March 12 board meeting, detailing dates for teacher surveys, FTE projections and nonrenewal notifications.
Tracy Flynn Bow, Executive Director of Human Resources and Labor Relations, told the board the staffing process began in January with a staffing survey allowing teachers to indicate assignment and transfer requests, and that 91% of licensed staff reported they intend to return next year.
The district said administrators, principals and the executive team have been identifying priorities to guide FTE decisions. Assistant Superintendent Amy Scalarud and Flynn Bow will present projected changes in full‑time equivalents and departmental staffing at the April 2 board meeting, based on conservative enrollment forecasts and secondary course registrations.
Flynn Bow reminded the board that April 11 is the statutory notification date for probationary staff nonrenewals; she said the number is typically 20 to 30 teachers out of more than 900 licensed staff. The board will review a nonrenewal resolution at its April 16 meeting. Flynn Bow also said that nonrenewal notices can be reversed if positions reopen later in the spring or summer.
The presentation noted funding vulnerabilities tied to changes in compensatory aid, special education aid and concluding literacy funds; administrators said those funding shifts inform conservative staffing projections. Flynn Bow described the staffing work as intensive and iterative, including principal meetings in which placement decisions are reviewed at the individual teacher level.
Board members asked whether enrollment drives projections; administrators said both enrollment and secondary course registration drive staffing decisions. Superintendent Laurie Putnam and Assistant Superintendent Jason Harris participated in the discussion and will continue to present updates as the district finalizes the FY26 staffing plan.
