The meeting opened with a detailed presentation by Director Magnus regarding the district’s budget forecast and enrollment projections. It was highlighted that 67% of the district’s revenue comes from state aid, emphasizing the importance of the ongoing legislative session. Current funding formulas, set at $7,465 per student, were discussed with concerns raised about the historical failure to keep pace with inflation. If adjusted for inflation, the district could potentially receive approximately $8,600 per student, representing a $5 million annual shortfall.

Attention shifted to discussions on student representation within the School Board. A new proposal suggested involving student representatives from grades 9 through 12, serving one-year terms with the option to reapply. This initiative aims to ensure that student voices are included in the decision-making process, particularly through feedback from high school and middle school students. The board agreed on a total of 22 board sessions, combining regular and study meetings, to accommodate student involvement.

The application process for student representatives was also outlined, assigning the Vice Chair the task of designing the administrative aspects and launching a campaign to attract applicants. The deadline for applications was set for April 4th, with the first meeting for student representatives planned for August. The board stressed the importance of marketing this opportunity effectively to students.

The board then delved into policy development, with a focus on revising attendance and cell phone usage policies. A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to refining the language around attendance, particularly the definition of absences. Concerns were raised about students being marked “absent present,” which refers to students being on campus but not attending classes, and the potential legal implications of such designations.

A noteworthy discussion point was the strict policy that if a student fails to report an absence within 24 hours, it would remain unexcused without exceptions. This raised questions about students who might be late due to legitimate reasons, such as meetings with counselors or support staff.

Policy 524, concerning cell phone usage in schools, also garnered attention. This policy, influenced by a legislative mandate, incorporated recommendations from the Minnesota School Boards Association. The discussion expanded to include other electronic devices like smartwatches, acknowledging the evolving nature of technology. The board expressed the need for clear guidelines to manage behavioral incidents involving these devices, particularly those occurring outside school hours yet impacting the school environment.

The board debated the responsibility of schools in informing parents about incidents involving their child’s device and the approach of requesting evidence from students rather than searching phones without consent. Concerns about students using devices to record inappropriate content or engage in bullying were highlighted, with the policy prohibiting such behaviors. The board underscored the importance of educating students and staff on the ethical use of technology and protecting privacy.

The conversation also addressed potential challenges in cases where parents might refuse to allow their child to cooperate with an investigation involving their phone. While encouraging cooperation was deemed ideal, the board acknowledged possible consequences for non-compliance.

Throughout these discussions, board members emphasized the importance of proactive education on digital footprints and responsible technology use. The challenges of monitoring student communication and content sharing were noted, complicating incident investigations.