The meeting opened with an acknowledgment of the absence of a board member due to a family death, and the subsequent nomination and approval of a presiding officer for the session. The board then moved swiftly into more matters, starting with the heated topic of the district’s assessment strategy, particularly the effects of midterms and finals on student grades.

Preliminary data suggested that 92% of student grades remained the same or improved following midterms, a statistic that was met with skepticism from the student body. Luke Targan, a student representative, articulated the collective disappointment with what was seen as a lack of transparency on the matter. Samantha Forrest, another student, continued this narrative with survey results from 163 upperclassmen who largely felt that the exams did not contribute to long-term learning, and criticized the adequacy of pre-exam review sessions. Michael Fox also challenged the accuracy of the reported grade improvements and criticized the board’s responsiveness to student concerns.

These concerns were not isolated to student academic performance but extended to the broader implications on student well-being. The board discussed the mental impact of large exams, the effectiveness of study guides, and the availability of extra help sessions. The need for a comprehensive dataset to guide decisions was emphasized, as was the importance of aligning assessments with student needs and research-based best practices.

In addition to assessment issues, the board tackled topics related to teacher evaluation, departmental metrics, and curriculum development. The Kim Marshall system of teacher evaluation, which emphasizes coaching and collaborative improvement, was highlighted as a method yielding consistently effective ratings. The board examined metrics and assessment practices across various departments, including the successful acquisition of the Seal of Biliteracy by World Language students and the implementation of common assessments in the Science department.

Facility analysis and referendum planning were also key points of discussion. The board presented a detailed roadmap for the analysis process, which included identifying district space needs and desired programs, as well as enrollment implications and curricular offerings. A potential referendum vote date was set for December 2027, with a plan for preparing and submitting proposals to the Department of Education for approval.

The board addressed concerns regarding the mathematics department’s geometry-first approach. Similarly, the Social Studies department’s focus on strengthening students’ critical thinking and historical analytical skills was discussed, alongside plans to introduce the DBQ Project and continue regional curriculum integration.

A particularly issue arose around the proposed merger of the Hills and Valley theater programs due to auditorium construction and the theater director’s sudden resignation. Parents expressed fears about the potential disruption to the program’s diversity and the impact of schedule changes on students’ participation in sports and other extracurricular activities. The board expressed its willingness to explore alternative solutions and the importance of maintaining student participation in the theater program.

The conversation also touched on the promotion of trade jobs and the stigma associated with non-college career paths. The possibility of reestablishing a committee focused on trade job promotion was debated, with board members advocating for support for students pursuing various post-secondary options.

Finally, the meeting covered the upcoming election for open board seats and addressed a public comment regarding changes in special education services for autistic students during the summer break. The board assured that a representative from Region 2 would follow up on the concerns.