The most significant item of the meeting was the approval of the collective bargaining agreement with the Burnsville Association of Educational Assistants (BAEA). The executive director of administrative services, Stacy Soine, presented the agreement, which affects 184 educational assistants. This new agreement includes several key changes such as the deletion of outdated language and the introduction of new provisions on sick leave and emergency closing time. Notably, the eligibility for insurance contributions will now require future educational assistants to work 30 hours instead of the previous 20 hours. The economic changes featured a 0% increase for the first year and an 8% increase for the second year, with adjustments to the family contribution for medical insurance. The total cost of the two-year agreement is approximately $1.27 million. The motion to approve this agreement was made, seconded, and passed unanimously by the board.

Another discussion centered around the Read Act. Amina Aadel, the director of curriculum instruction and assessment, provided an update on its components, including screening and assessment, instructional curriculum and materials, and professional development initiatives. A key highlight was the universal screening for K-3 students using FastBridge early reading assessments, which has been in use for five years. This year, first-grade students will also undergo individual assessments over two days, akin to the kindergarten process. This assessment window is scheduled from September 3 to September 27, with data intended to identify students needing intervention. The ongoing implementation of the Heggerty Bridge to Reading foundational skills program will now include grade three phonics work and introduce a morphology component for grades four and five. Teachers’ professional development will commence next week, focusing on grade two and three teachers to review implementation data and lesson planning.

During the board’s discussion, queries were raised regarding the categorization of grade six students’ training, whether it would fall under K-5 or secondary training. Amina clarified that guidance from the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) is awaited to determine the appropriate categorization. The current phase one training is tailored for K-3 teachers, with further clarity expected from MDE. Another board member expressed enthusiasm about the new first-grade assessments, noting that teachers have been advocating for such measures and will likely find them beneficial.

The board also approved several other significant items. Stacy Soine presented the board priorities for the 2025-2026 school year, which are part of an agreement with the Burnsville Education Association to protect staffing in the event of potential reductions. This motion passed unanimously without discussion. Dr. Brandon Low, the district assessment data and research coordinator, outlined a comprehensive standardized assessment program compliant with district policies. This motion also passed unanimously.

Dr. Kathy Funston, the director of strategic partnerships and pathways, introduced two contracts with Inver Hills Community College. The first is for a shared criminal justice course, designed to manage enrollment challenges by partnering with neighboring school districts to share costs. The board expressed support for this program, particularly in providing law enforcement opportunities for students. The second contract involved concurrent courses for students and both motions passed unanimously.

Lastly, the board approved the 2024-2025 board planning document. A director suggested adding clarity to the final budget adjustments process, proposing that a preliminary adjustment report be received in March, followed by a final report in early April. This motion passed unanimously after a brief discussion.

The board transitioned into a work session to review the superintendent evaluation tool, initiated by Director Worb. A director expressed appreciation for the streamlined format of the evaluation, noting its significant improvement. Concerns were raised about the option to select “other” in the evaluation process, which some felt skewed the results. The board members acknowledged the need for a more structured process for midyear and final evaluations, specifically regarding the vice chair’s responsibilities. It was proposed that one or two directors work together to create a process document to assist future vice chairs in navigating the evaluation procedures, aligning dates and milestones effectively.