Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Calendar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stanfield SD 61 board adopts 2026–27 calendar after survey-driven draft; one trustee opposed
Summary
The Stanfield SD 61 Board of Directors voted to adopt a 2026–27 calendar built from staff surveys and community input, while agreeing to follow-up outreach; one board member recorded opposition during the voice vote.
Get email alerts on the Calendar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Stanfield SD 61 Board of Directors adopted the district's recommended 2026'17 calendar after trustees discussed survey results and scheduling tradeoffs.
Staff member (Speaker 1) said the proposed calendar reflects the highest vote-getting options from two staff surveys and was built to "maximize the number of student days" while meeting the contractual requirement of 174 paid staff days. The staff member provided attendance data to support timing choices, noting 79 absences during Sept. 28'Oct. 4 in one sample week and lower attendance immediately after some breaks.
Trustees debated how the schedule affects athletics and family time. Board member (Speaker 5), who led a discussion of athletic constraints, described efforts to avoid key tournament dates and to limit practices during certain breaks. "We try to stay off of that whole first week of the Christmas break, and we stay off the second half of spring break," Speaker 5 said.
Chair (Speaker 2) and Speaker 1 agreed the calendar was the product of transparent survey feedback and adjustments made after the first round. The motion to adopt passed by voice vote; during the roll call for opposition, Board member (Speaker 3) voiced a dissenting opinion. The board agreed to conduct further community outreach and a listening session to review the draft and gather questions for the next cycle.
The calendar as adopted shifts conference dates and testing days to address staff feedback and keeps student-day totals similar to an earlier extended-calendar proposal, staff said. Additional public engagement on the proposal was requested before broader implementation planning.

