Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum And Calendars topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears proposed 2025–27 calendars and district-wide K–3 reading professional development plan
Summary
Superintendent and administrators proposed school calendars for 2025–26 and 2026–27 that include districtwide 2-hour delayed starts for multiple days to provide professional learning time for a planned K–3 reading program and high‑school PLC time; board members asked for more options and moved the calendar to a first reading.
Superintendent-led staff presented proposed school calendars for 2025–26 and 2026–27 and recommended districtwide professional learning time to support a new K–3 structured reading program and required classroom moves.
The draft 2025–26 calendar adds multiple districtwide two-hour delayed-start days (PLC/PD days) intended to give teachers roughly 40 hours of sustained professional development in the new reading program, and it also includes half‑day allowances to accommodate phased building moves connected with ongoing facilities work. Superintendent staff said the K–3 literacy rollout requires substantial in‑classroom training and collaboration across grade levels and that ongoing, periodic PD is a research-supported approach to implementing curricular change.
Administrators proposed shifting some regular high‑school professional learning community (PLC) time to Monday mornings so teachers could plan and then implement strategies over the week. The proposal would effectively apply the delayed-start PLC model to all grades on the selected dates so elementary teachers could receive concentrated support for the reading program while middle- and high‑school staff used the time for other collaboration (for example MTSS work), administrators said.
Board members welcomed the need for implementation time but raised practical concerns about districtwide two‑hour delays: working parents’ schedules, daycare impacts, cafeterias’ revenue effects, and logistics for younger students. Several members requested alternatives — for example front‑loading professional development before the school year, using targeted release days only for elementary staff, or swapping early dismissals for delayed starts — and asked staff to provide a comparison of options and associated budget impacts.
The calendar and PD proposal was moved forward as a first reading so staff could return on June 10 with answers to additional questions and comparative options; board members signaled a desire to discuss timing (Monday vs. Friday PLCs), mitigation for families affected by delayed openings, and the expected food-service revenue loss tied to delayed-start days.
Ending: Administrators agreed to provide a more detailed comparison of alternative PD models (front‑loading, targeted grade-level days, early dismissal vs. delayed start), data on cafeteria revenue impacts, and an explicit timeline for any multi‑year rollout to the board at the next meeting.
