The most pressing topic was the proposed operating levy, which aims to stabilize district funding, attract and retain quality teachers, and address a budget gap exacerbated by state funding not keeping pace with inflation. A community survey, conducted by Peter Le Pollster, revealed that the district’s financial management rating had dropped from 73% to 57%. Moreover, only 37% of respondents felt the district was adequately funded, down from previous figures. This sentiment has fueled apprehension about the district’s ability to maintain its educational standards without additional financial support.

While 65% of respondents expressed support, only 57% believed it would pass in the upcoming election, highlighting a gap between support and confidence in the levy’s success. Concerns about property tax increases amid inflation and rising living costs emerged as significant barriers, with 66% indicating this could lead them to oppose the levy. The board emphasized the need for effective communication to convey the potential consequences of a failed levy, such as teacher attrition and program cuts, to sway public opinion.

Another discussion focused on the district’s staffing challenges, particularly the structure of student support roles within schools. Participants emphasized the need for additional counselors, highlighting the current inadequacy of student support services. The existing model, where Deans juggle multiple responsibilities including discipline and teacher evaluations, was described as untenable, with Deans overwhelmed by their workloads. This has left students without adequate academic and emotional support, a situation exacerbated by post-pandemic behavioral and academic challenges.

The board explored proposals to increase counseling staff, suggesting the addition of one counselor per high school, bringing the total to four at each location. Middle schools were also identified as needing additional support, with a proposal to add three counselors to bolster student services. The estimated cost for these enhancements was discussed, with a focus on the necessity of differentiating the roles of counselors and Deans to ensure targeted support for students.

Behavioral specialists were another focal point, with the board contemplating a $1.1 million allocation to hire eight specialists to address rising behavioral issues across schools. The role of these specialists, whether as licensed teachers or paraprofessionals, was debated, with concerns raised about their impact on the broader student population. Discussions emphasized the importance of recruiting skilled individuals to ensure the effectiveness of behavioral interventions.

The board also addressed the district’s outdated curricula, noting it had not been updated in over two decades. This backlog of needs, coupled with the necessity for new educational materials, pointed to financial planning challenges. The board considered breaking funding requests into manageable segments, allowing the community to decide on levels of support, thereby balancing immediate needs with long-term planning.

Finally, the meeting explored potential funding strategies for school construction and operational needs, including proposals for new middle school staffing. The board recognized the importance of aligning community expectations with district goals, advocating for a transparent approach to financial planning. This included considering the implications of funding decisions on the district’s financial health and its ability to meet future educational demands.