Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enrollment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mill Valley board keeps current student-placement priorities, hears parents’ complaints about process
Summary
After a presentation from district leaders, the board kept existing open-enrollment priorities and heard public commenters urge retention of waitlists and neighborhood placement; a parent accused a district official of misleading families during the 2024–25 placement cycle.
The Mill Valley School Board on Nov. 14 received an information-only update on student enrollment and placement and said it would continue using the district’s existing priorities for placement while awaiting demographic study results. Dr. Kaufmann and Director Kate Sprague explained that placements will continue to follow special-education needs, programmatic placement (for example, high-school programs), siblings, children of district employees, parent preference (ranked choices) and proximity.
The presentation said the district expects to open enrollment in January, with a first-round closing in February, and that TK and kindergarten class openings will depend on demand; parent outreach events were scheduled for Dec. 5 to explain the process. ‘‘We are offering, in this case, we’ll ask families to make five choices and provide all five elementary schools in their rank order,’’ a district presenter stated during the briefing.
Public comment reflected strong concerns from families at high-demand schools. Jessa Kyles told trustees that removing the waitlist ‘‘would remove hope from people,’’ calling the single annual application window burdensome for families whose circumstances change. Parent Andrew Epstein said TK students are ‘‘not actually admitted’’ to the school where they attend and urged protections for neighborhood continuity at Tam Valley so families can keep siblings together.
A non-agenda commenter identified by the clerk as Jessica Iles asked the board to investigate Director Sprague’s actions during the 2024–25 placement cycle. Iles alleged Sprague ‘‘lied, misled, and obscured the truth’’ and blocked families from speaking with the superintendent; she also alleged Sprague told her she would take concerns to the board but did not do so. The board did not take disciplinary action at the meeting; those comments were submitted as public input and the commenter said she would file a written complaint.
Trustees emphasized that the board was not adopting any interim policy change at the meeting and said language shown in the agenda summary (the phrase ‘‘close proximity’’) was not being inserted into policy tonight. Several trustees urged patience for the demographic study and recommended more outreach to prospective parents so families understand enrollment rules before moving into the district. The board removed item E16 from consent for later consideration because rescinding a regulation required alignment with interdistrict policy.
The board did not take a vote changing placement priorities on Nov. 14; staff said they expect to bring enrollment policy adjustments back for consideration once demographic data and legal review are complete. The district also plans family outreach and additional consultations with the waitlist and affected families.
Next steps: staff will proceed with parent outreach, continue the demographic study and reconvene the board with policy language if any changes are proposed.
