District 11 board backs Proposal B for revised high‑school graduation requirements

The Colorado Springs School District 11 board on Wednesday signaled support for “Proposal B,” a revised set of high‑school graduation requirements developed through a district design‑thinking lab and a school‑based task force. Board members said the district will move forward with the proposal as staff refine course coding, counselor training and communications ahead of a planned roll‑out for freshmen in 2025.

The proposals were drafted by a 23‑member task force of school‑based and central‑office staff that used design‑lab methods, co‑created a “how might we” statement and reduced four initial prototypes to a single recommended model. Staff presented two main options labeled A and B (a third “C” was discussed as a compromise), with differences in how many credits are required for core academic categories and how many are reserved as flexible “continuous learner” or pathway credits.

Why it matters: The changes affect the total number of credits students must complete (staff explained the district’s block schedule increases opportunities to earn credits) and how the district aligns graduation requirements with Colorado academic standards, higher‑education admission recommendations and career‑pathway planning. Board members repeatedly stressed that the proposals aim to preserve or raise academic rigor while increasing student agency and pathway options.

Task force presentation and key differences Staff described grounding the proposals in the district’s graduate profile and Colorado academic standards. Proposal A would require a larger number of rigidly assigned credits and shows 50 total credits in the block‑schedule model; Proposal B shifts some credits into a 15‑credit continuous‑learner column to support ICAP/pathway choices and increases required academic credits in math and social studies compared with the district’s current structure.

Staff noted the practical source of the total credits: under the older seven‑period day the district listed 46 required credits, while the new block schedule creates more opportunities (up to 64 credit opportunities across four years), which is why staff proposed higher total credit expectations. Presenters said the change is not state‑mandated but reflects local decisions about rigor and opportunity.

Quotes and board concerns Staff member Jennifer, who worked on the task force, described the process: "We embarked on the design thinking, co creating our how might we statement," and said the group continuously solicited feedback from students, teachers and families as prototypes were refined.

Board members raised several consistent questions: whether the proposals meet the Colorado higher‑education admission recommendations, how math sequencing would work (some members pushed to retain a stronger math requirement), where credits such as physical education and health would live under a more flexible model, and how the change would affect students with individualized education plans. Director Nelson said of Proposal B, "Proposal B meets those minimum requirements for students to enter a 4‑year college," and urged the board to identify a clear minimum bar for college‑bound students.

Board direction and implementation timeline After discussion, the board indicated support for Proposal B, with a counted show of support that left the board majority favoring B over A. Staff were assigned to take the next operational steps: draft policy language and a revised policy IKF, produce a course‑coding plan and counselor training, create a communications plan for students and families, and return recommended measurement metrics (attendance, course enrollments, credentialing and college‑admission alignment) before spring break.

Clarifying details from the presentation - Current district requirement: 46 credits under the previous seven‑period day; block schedule creates more opportunities and staff cited 50 total credits as the Proposal A model’s total. - Proposal B: presented as 35 required academic credits plus 15 continuous‑learner pathway credits (15 pathway credits are intended to be aligned to ICAP/postsecondary and workforce pathways). - Math: Proposal B as presented increased the recommended total math sequencing (disagreement on whether to require the equivalent of four years); a compromise “Proposal C” discussed would relax that to six math credits required while moving two credits into pathway options. - Timeline: staff said rollout/“refresh” for incoming freshmen is planned for 2025; sophomores could be included if alignment checks out for their earned credits.

What’s next Staff will return policy language and operational materials, including a measurement plan, and will provide further detail on how specific courses will be coded into the graduate‑profile buckets. The board asked staff to monitor impacts on special‑education students and to present data showing whether the proposal affects access to college‑admission minimums.

Ending The board’s support for Proposal B was presented as a directional decision to move the work forward for policy drafting and implementation planning; final policy adoption and any formal vote will follow staff’s draft policy IKF and the measurement plan.