Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Civic Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ISD 196 board holds first reading on adding two nonvoting student members, agrees to workshop
Summary
The board reviewed proposed revisions to policy 203 to add two nonvoting resident student members to the school board for open meetings; after public comment and extended board debate about representation and equity, members asked administration to prepare options and scheduled a workshop to refine implementation details with a target of January.
Administrators presented a first reading of proposed changes to policy 203 (school board organization) that would add two nonvoting resident student members to serve as ex officio participants in open school board meetings. The board did not take action; members asked administration to return with options and agreed to schedule a workshop for further discussion.
Eric Hansen introduced the draft revisions and said the change is intended to "allow an additional way for student voice and input as well as the opportunity to learn about policy, governance, and civic responsibility." He said administration would use Minnesota School Board Association guidance and, if the policy is approved, would draft administrative regulations covering the application and selection process, term length and responsibilities.
Former student and recent graduate Brady Sternberg addressed the board in public comment and said he supported the proposal as a way to strengthen civic education: "I rise tonight to voice my support for these proposed changes. I think... we have a crisis of civic education in this country, and in our state. And I think that this proposed action is a great way to kind of get ahead of that."
Board discussion was extensive and centered on representation and process. Several members—including Leah and Jackie—said they supported student voice but urged a design that would allow broader and more equitable representation than placing responsibility on just two students. Leah emphasized co-design with students: "Nothing about us without us," she said, arguing that students should help shape how they are represented. Jackie suggested creating a broader student leadership committee (drawing on models like Minneapolis) that could feed into a smaller group of student board members.
The board reached consensus to hold a workshop on the topic and asked administration to prepare multiple implementation options for consideration (for example, varying selection processes, term lengths, and links to school-level student leadership structures). Board members discussed a target timeline for students to begin participation in January to align with board organizational changes, while acknowledging practical timing and availability constraints for students.
Ending: No policy change was adopted at the meeting. The board requested follow-up materials and a workshop to refine potential models and next steps before a future reading and vote.
