Shorewood board hears public frustration over teacher nonrenewals, district pledges clearer notices
Summary
Public commenters and board members pressed Shorewood School District leaders for clearer communication after recent notices of nonrenewal and part‑time reductions; superintendent said names can be published going forward and explained statutory timelines that constrained notice windows.
Public concern over recent notices of teacher nonrenewals and part‑time reductions dominated public comment and the superintendent's report at the Shorewood School District board meeting.
Several speakers said the district’s timeline and the lack of employee names in published materials left families and staff confused and anxious. “It quite frankly felt very dishonest, the way it was run,” said a public commenter who identified herself as a Shorewood resident, urging more transparent, earlier communication. Ian Skrowski of East Lake Boulevard also criticized the district’s response to emailed questions after the prior meeting, saying replies felt like “a form email.”
Superintendent Lori Burgos responded during her report that the district would provide more specific information going forward. Burgos said the district consulted legal counsel and concluded it can publish the names and positions of employees affected by notices of nonrenewal. “We can definitely do that moving forward. That would help clarify exactly what the board was voting on, because I think the lack of that specificity … painted a picture of … frustration,” Burgos said, adding that the district would put that information in future materials.
Burgos also explained the statutory timelines that govern teacher contract notifications. She said preliminary and final nonrenewal notices for teachers are constrained by an April 30–May 15 window; some changes that appear between the preliminary and final notices reflect resignations, private conferences with the board, licensure changes or other developments that can alter administrative recommendations. “When you issue a preliminary notice to an employee… they may choose to resign instead,” Burgos said, describing how such events can change what the board votes on at a later meeting.
Board members pressed the administration for clarity about exactly what was voted on at recent meetings. Board member Erin (last name not specified on the record) said she wanted to “revisit exactly what it is that this board voted on,” and emphasized the board did not vote to eliminate classes. Another board member said publishing the specific names and positions would reduce confusion.
Burgos said the district would update its FAQ and distribute it more widely — directly to people who provided contact information at public meetings and via the district newsletter — and would provide clearer, more consistent internal and external communications about the process and the legal constraints.
The discussion also touched on administrative nonrenewal timelines, which Burgos said follow a different statutory schedule (January/February) for administrators on multi‑year contracts. She said staff reductions typically begin with enrollment‑driven staffing decisions and that principals and administrative teams work to recruit additional students into courses when numbers are low before reductions are finalized.
Board members and the superintendent framed the decisions as driven by enrollment data and the district’s legal obligations, while acknowledging the community’s frustration and asking staff to improve how and when information is shared.
The meeting did not produce any vote on policy changes related to notices; Burgos said the district will begin publishing names/positions affected by nonrenewal votes in future materials and will send the FAQ link directly to community members who requested follow‑up.
