The most contentious topic of the evening was the debate over the integration of the CASEL framework into the district’s educational practices. Some community members expressed concerns about the ideological implications of CASEL, fearing its potential to embed race and gender ideology into educational content. They highlighted the shift CASEL has made since 2016 towards “transformative social-emotional learning,” which they argued could lead to emotional analysis overshadowing rational thought and infringe on parental rights through data collection practices linked to student identification numbers.

One participant argued that CASEL’s mission to create inclusive and healthy schools might echo previously rejected equity initiatives. About three to four years ago, the board declined a proposal for an equity committee, opting instead for an “equal opportunities committee” that did not focus on race, ethnicity, or gender identity. This history was invoked to question the legitimacy and approval of cultural groups that had emerged since then, raising discomfort with CASEL’s influence in classrooms.

Despite these concerns, another board member defended the integration of CASEL, asserting that criticisms might be politically motivated and not entirely reflective of the district’s practices. They emphasized the importance of inclusivity and fostering personal and collective growth, particularly for underserved communities, aligning with CASEL’s mission statement.

Further discussions delved into specific SEL programs like the Second Step curriculum, which aims to prevent problem behaviors and promote self-regulation skills. The board noted significant improvements in discipline data, with a decrease in major incidents and out-of-school suspensions being highlighted as a “breakthrough” in behavior management. However, some members cautioned against attributing these improvements solely to the Second Step curriculum.

Concerns about the adequacy of teacher training and the appropriateness of teachers handling psychological aspects of student development without specific licenses were also prominent. The superintendent clarified that while they utilize resources from organizations like CASEL, there is no singular curriculum mandated for all teachers. Specific programs, such as the Second Step curriculum for elementary students and the Boy Town program for students with behavioral challenges, were mentioned as part of the district’s SEL initiatives.

The meeting also featured a review of the previous year’s performance metrics, with the superintendent highlighting that 24 out of 30 metrics showed strong or breakthrough growth. MCA (Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments) results in reading and math increased by 5.3% and 2.8%, respectively. The board discussed the summary of the superintendent’s evaluation, completed on August 26, 2024, noting strengths in visibility, approachability, and school safety.

Regarding logistical issues, the board addressed transportation concerns related to new routing software affecting bus schedules. The transportation department was working to provide accurate information to parents, and there was mention of spending to develop a script for better integration between the new routing software and the student management system, Infinite Campus.

Finally, the board grappled with the negotiation of a new contract for the superintendent. Due to the absence of a key committee member, the conversation shifted towards forming a new committee for the contract negotiations. A motion to enter negotiations resulted in a tie vote, leading to uncertainty about the next steps. Some members emphasized the importance of full board participation in notable decisions. A motion was made to place the discussion of negotiations on the next agenda.