Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board ratifies Partners in School Innovation contract after heated public comment and trustee objection
Summary
After a community speaker criticized Partners in School Innovation (PSI) as divisive, the Franklin-McKinley board debated the vendor’s training and ratified a one-year contract for 2025–26 with four votes in favor and one abstention.
The Franklin-McKinley School District Board ratified a 2025–26 contract with Partners in School Innovation (PSI) after a public commenter criticized the organization and one trustee said he would not vote without further review.
A community member who identified herself as Angie spoke during the meeting’s public comment period about consent item 9.06, urging the board to remove the item from consent and characterizing PSI’s equity training as harmful and wasteful. She told the board, "PSI training is a direct insult to teachers and waste of taxpayers money," and said the $20,000 program encourages teachers to "confess their hidden white supremacy characteristics." The comment prompted trustees to pull the consent item for separate consideration.
Trustee Cooper said he had seen quotations on PSI’s website that concerned him and stated, "I'm not going to vote for this tonight," asking for more time to review the materials. Superintendent Cruz disputed the commenter’s portrayal of the work and told the board, "I can tell you that this organization works with our schools in developing best practices around instruction," saying the vendor’s work supports curriculum and instruction rather than attacking staff. Trustee Rodriguez strongly challenged the claims, saying of the objections, "He is lying. It's a complete lie," and defended the district’s previous partnership with PSI.
The board moved the ratification to action as item 11.04. After discussion and motions, the trustees voted to ratify the contract with PSI for Sylvendale; the motion passed with four yes votes and one abstention. The board did not adopt additional conditions at the time of ratification.
The meeting record shows the item was removed from the consent agenda at the request of trustees following the public comment and later approved as a standalone action item. The board’s public materials list the contract under the 2025–26 agreements for school partnerships.
