Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Class Size Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects motion to remove contested class-size policy from agenda; members split over committee language and statutory deadline
Summary
Board members debated ASD Memorandum 178 (BP 6151), with governance chair Member Mcdana saying the attached draft did not reflect the committee’s direction and administration and others saying removing it risks missing a statutory deadline. The motion to strike failed and the agenda was adopted.
The Anchorage School District board considered removing ASD Memorandum 178, the draft of board policy BP 6151 on class size, after Member Mcdana said the policy attached to the agenda did not match what the governance committee had approved.
"This is too far outside of the direction provided," Member Mcdana said, arguing the version posted publicly mischaracterized committee instructions and that her name should not appear endorsing that text. She moved to remove the memorandum from the non-action agenda so the document could be corrected.
Administration and several board members opposed removal, saying the item is time-sensitive. "We have a statutory obligation to approve by the end of June," Dr. Bryant said, citing the legal timeline for adopting a maximum-class-size policy under state law. Members Bellamy and Blakesley warned that removing the item now would likely delay adoption and could prevent the district from meeting the deadline.
Board members debated whether a substitute memorandum should be attached for the next action meeting or whether the committee should reconvene; Member Bellamy urged keeping the non-action placement to preserve a spot on the calendar. After a voice vote, the motion to remove ASD Memorandum 178 failed by two to four, and the agenda was adopted as drafted.
Why it matters: The discussion centers on how the board will reconcile statutory compliance and committee intent. Governance had cited research-based targets (Picus study) that differ from the statutory thresholds referenced in the administration’s draft; several members said the board must align process and language before a final vote at a later action meeting.
What’s next: Board members were told they can propose amendments when the item appears as an action item (the superintendent and president said the board retreat is a likely venue). Dr. Brown and Dr. Bryant advised that the district must finalize a compliant policy by the statutory deadline or pursue a special meeting.
