Teachers and parents urge Saint Louis Park schools to abandon proposed 5.5 teaching schedule and cuts to specialists

Dozens of Saint Louis Park teachers and parents pressed the school board on March 25, 2025, to drop a proposed shift that would have secondary teachers teach 5.5 out of 7 periods and reduce specialist time at elementary schools. Speakers said the changes would significantly increase teacher workload and reduce students’ access to physical education, library and other specialist instruction.

The speakers’ concerns centered on a proposed “transition year” in which some secondary teachers would teach six classes for one semester instead of the current five instructional classes plus a supervision/prep period. “We have been informed that we will be teaching 5.5 sections out of 7 next year … This means that for 1 semester of the year, we would be teaching 6 classes out of 7 periods daily,” said Keisha Peel, who identified herself as a Saint Louis Park resident, parent and high school teacher and as a teachers-union representative. Peel and other teachers said the change would be unusually heavy compared with neighboring districts and would sharply reduce prep and student support time.

Why it matters: parents and teachers said increased classroom loads would reduce teachers’ ability to provide individual help, advise clubs or coach sports, and would cut time for specialist classes that families said are essential to child development and curriculum breadth.

High-school teachers emphasized the human cost. “That schedule change puts in jeopardy our ability to have close relationships with students, provide them with high levels of support while holding high expectations,” Peel said. Several other teachers and parents described personal and professional strain from similar past experiences. “The added workload impacted the quality of my teaching, my relationships at home, and my overall health,” said Anson Opara, who identified himself as a resident, high-school math teacher and varsity soccer coach.

Parents described being blindsided by the timeline and said they had not seen notices explaining the rationale. Several speakers said elementary changes would sharply reduce the frequency of gym classes and library time. “Reducing the frequency of the gym classes so dramatically — daily to one to two times per week — is something parents really appreciate and choose Saint Louis Park for,” said Laura Kipers, who identified herself as a parent of a third grader at Park Spanish Immersion. Another parent estimated library visits would move to an “every eight days” rotation, a roughly 48% reduction from the current schedule.

Speakers repeatedly urged the board and administration to pursue alternate budget reductions and to include teachers and families in planning. “If there is a need to go forward with a block schedule … please meet that with a high level of communication and support to our families,” parent Robert Ankel said.

District response and context: Superintendent Carla Hines said the district proposed schedule changes to address “low academic achievement and the $2,000,000 budget reduction that was projected and announced in October of 2024,” and asserted the changes were intended to increase core instructional time while preserving specialist access. Hines said the district had sought input through listening sessions, surveys and design-team recommendations and noted recommended increases in “movement throughout the school day,” additional teacher professional development on mindful movement, flexible classroom furniture and a 10-minute recess increase at elementary schools. She said principals and teachers would continue to be involved in finalizing middle- and high-school block schedules.

Speakers asked for specifics about how the district measured benefits and how schedule changes were communicated. Several parents said they could not find prior notice of the proposed changes in strategic plan surveys or focus-group invitations and called for additional community consultation before implementation.

What was not decided: The board did not vote on schedule changes at the March 25 meeting. The speakers’ remarks occurred during the public comment portion of the meeting; the board heard testimony but took no formal action on the schedule item that night.

Ending: Parents and teachers requested more detailed data, clearer communication and alternatives that would preserve specialist time and teacher prep. Multiple speakers said they would consider enrollment decisions based on the outcome. The district’s next formal steps on scheduling were not finalized at the meeting; board members and principals were described as continuing to work with teachers to determine final schedules.