Board committee members reviewed multiple high‑school scheduling models and emphasized the exercise is exploratory, driven partly by fiscal realities and a desire to evaluate instructional time and elective access.

Shane, who presented the schedule options, described the four common models: a 4×4 block (current model, highest elective ceiling in some variants), a 2×7 (extended year‑long classes with fewer electives), a 3×5 (trimester‑style with about 3,808 instructional minutes in the presenter’s example) and a 3×6 (presenter cited about 3,136 instructional minutes). The committee walked trustees through tradeoffs: some models produce longer individual class periods but fewer total instructional minutes for core courses, while others increase elective access at the cost of different instructional rhythms.

Trustees noted the review is not solely instructional: several members described the impetus as fiscal. “It definitely is financial,” one trustee said as part of the discussion of staffing and course offerings. Board members flagged that reducing elective offerings under some schedules could make it harder to staff courses and that a schedule change could create the possibility of staffing reductions depending on course offerings.

Committee members recommended further outreach to staff and families and suggested an approach that would allow for a decision timeline that gives staff and families adequate notice (the conversation noted a possible implementation in the 2027–28 school year if a change were approved). The committee also reported parallel work on K–5 math curriculum review: forming a review team (staff, director of teaching and learning, administrators and parent volunteers), running teacher surveys and targeting a spring timeline for initial recommendations.

No formal schedule change was adopted; trustees directed staff to continue analysis, collect input and return with more details and implementation planning before any vote.