Board members on the Resilient Schools proposal: development and ownership, or evaluation?

I mean, I think this makes a high degree of sense for these conditions … Our obligation really is to make sure we're taking care of our resident population. … looking at those slides, it really does send the message that our resident population … are really decreasing and we need to make sure we adapt to make sure to provide the best opportunity and experiences for those students.

Why it is responsive. The first move (Birch into Kohl) is endorsed as it is presented, before any public comment, and framed as the discharge of the board's own obligation. Mild on its own; it sets the pattern for the evening.

when we started this process last fall, last summer, you know, we there were a few slides and a big part of the presentation was on all the advantages of a three-round school. … in the spirit of kind of reminding people why that's advantageous, why that's our goal here, why we're aiming for 80% capacity and a three-round school. … Just as a reminder because that's how we started this process of kind of wanting to get to this place.

Why it is responsive. The proposal's two numerical targets (three rounds per grade, 80% utilisation) are described as the board's own goal, and the board as having started the process "wanting to get to this place." That is participation in setting the objective the plan was built to hit, not evaluation of whether the plan is right.

Yeah, we are not adjusting middle school attendance boundaries with the exception of the impacted middle PK8 area in Louisville Superior. Folks from Douglas have always had the wonkiest feeder boundaries. … but the boundaries themselves will not change. But as the community should be well aware, board policy JC does outline that attendance boundaries shall be adjusted or considered at least every five years …

Why it is responsive. A director (Unger) asked staff a question about the proposal's effect on middle school assignment. Rob Price began to answer, stopped, and said "I'm looking at President Rajpal on that. She corrected me" (1:37:30 in the transcript · video). The board president then answered for the proposal in the first person plural. Correcting the presenting staff member on what the proposal contains, and answering on its behalf, is the behaviour of someone who already knows the plan's contents, not someone hearing it for consideration.

Board members, I will say I am appreciative of the ability of the school district of staff members to move some of our choice and focus school programming out east to create access for more students throughout the district. … I know you heard that from the board members. I just want to say that I can see that you listen to that feedback and I really appreciate that maneuver for that sake.

Why it is responsive. States outright that a specific element of the proposal (relocating High Peaks to the Douglass building, "out east") was done in response to feedback from board members. That is a description of the board shaping the content of the proposal before it was presented.

Rob, I wanted to clarify something that you said just so the community is crystal clear on … it was the community-wide feedback of a preference over consolidating versus … taking a school community and redistributing its residents elsewhere. It wasn't the efforts of one community being extra vocal. … one school still has to close here. So, yes, the school is closing, but we're consolidating to the best we can.

Why it is responsive. Intervenes to pre-empt an anticipated community objection (that Flatirons is being closed rather than consolidated) and speaks for the plan as "we." Advocacy for the proposal's rationale rather than a question about it.

I concur that this is a definitely a change in the right direction. It is hard to wrap your brain around we need 10 schools, we have 16. I think the plan that's proposed really did a nice job of honoring the feedback we heard from our communities … We will have some flexibility moving forward with this. … I think that these maneuvers really do set us up, set the district up for success … looking at this slide brings home that we could have done more. We chose not to because we listened. We chose not to because it doesn't necessarily feel like today is the best day to do that.

Why it is responsive. The clearest ownership language of the evening. "We chose not to" attributes the central scoping decision for Boulder (closing four buildings rather than the six the utilisation model implies) to a "we" that includes the board, and gives the reasons for that choice. "I concur" is a verdict, delivered before public comment opened.

I think one of the board's other priorities is to do intense changes now so that we don't have to revisit them. … I also want to make sure that we, the changes that we're making are worth this, the juice is worth the squeeze as Dr. Anderson says, and that we have enough increased school size and classroom units to be able to get the extra services and the benefits that we're looking for.

Why it is responsive. Describes the scale of change as a board priority and the closures as "the changes that we're making." The rest of the remark is a genuine request for later analysis, so this is ownership of the direction rather than of the specific schools.

I will say with JCCR I like the idea of providing a one-time preference. … I think it makes a great deal of sense to use our existing lottery in this way … So I do like this option. … So, I do like that one time, one year for non-charter schools only priority preference for any families that'll be impacted and displaced.

Why it is responsive. A conclusion on a policy component (the enrollment-preference change to policy JCCR) announced at the study stage, before the redline had been brought back. Evaluation with the verdict already given.

I think it's great that we are adjusting that enrollment window a little bit sooner, wrapping that up. … [2:32:09] … I think if we can keep that timeline moving forward even after this year … I am appreciative of the timeline change on those two items.

Why it is responsive. "We are adjusting" treats an operational decision inside the proposal (moving the open-enrollment deadline to December 18) as already made and as the board's own.

I'm gratified that we have done more consolidating of whole schools into one another so that friend groups that are transitioning into their new neighborhood school would be going together. … some degree of stuff focused at the families that's focused on the new schools that happen sooner rather than later will help inform open enrollment …

Why it is responsive. "We have done more consolidating" places the board inside the authorship of the plan's design choices, and "their new neighborhood school" assumes the outcome.

first I want to tell staff I really appreciate how thorough you've been. … you've worked really hard defining this proposal and hearing what the community wanted and what the board wanted. And while I'm sure not everyone will be thrilled, I do think that this meets many many of the needs. … I do hope that that can enable people to be supportive of the plan even though it will require change. … [2:38:03] I am so thrilled for students to have more resources and I look forward to supporting this plan. I know students are resilient in the face of change and these are changes for the better. I do believe.

Why it is responsive. A declaration of support for the plan, three and a half weeks before the vote and before the public comment meeting, and a statement that the proposal was built to "what the board wanted." Hoping the public will be "supportive of the plan" is advocacy, not evaluation.

when we get to Boulder, we reduce it from 37% to 32%. … if we need 10 schools and we have 16 and we're not quite bridging that gap, I'm curious about how we're going to bridge that gap in a prompt way, because that is something we committed to with community. … [2:39:50] I certainly think this proposal is really well thought out, but I do want to encourage the continued look at … the five points of decrease in that excess capacity in Boulder. Because I personally don't think it's quite enough, not because this proposal can't move forward, but can we keep looking I guess is the question.

Why it is responsive. The only board criticism of the proposal's substance on the night, and it runs the other way: the plan does not close enough in Boulder. "Something we committed to with community" describes the board as a party to the plan's promise, and "not because this proposal can't move forward" confirms the vote is not in question.

I look forward to the community input. I know there will be very strong feelings between now and September 22nd and after. … [2:42:09] I'm really hoping we're not exposing kids to more trauma and anxiety than we need to over the next year. And that's why I want to hope that we are celebrating the integrations of our new school communities. Why we are emphasizing the positive things that kids will experience because of this.

Why it is responsive. "Our new school communities" and "the positive things that kids will experience because of this" treat the consolidations as a coming fact. The comment period is framed as something to be managed for the sake of children's feelings rather than as input that could change the outcome. Mild, and Medler elsewhere asks the most detailed questions of the evening.

I think that that is also a great opportunity for us to really highlight a lot of the histories of the schools that we are looking to consolidate … creating space for sharing the stories of what has been in our BVSD schools.

Why it is responsive. The weakest entry: a single "we are looking to consolidate." The rest of her remarks (2:46:13 in the transcript · video) praise the process and the decision to pause on dual language, and ask "who are we still not hearing from?" That is closer to evaluation than any other director's comments.

I thought it was actually important for people to think about when we're thinking about schools in Boulder and in Lafayette to know that we did skip some schools. So maybe we're not done creating efficiencies in Boulder yet … [2:55:11] So, thank you for the tremendous work. I think it's incredibly thoughtful and, I think that it's going to be very successful and I hope the community supports it.

Why it is responsive. "We're not done creating efficiencies" makes the board the agent of the consolidations, with more to come. Predicting success and hoping the community "supports it" before the comment meeting is a settled position, not consideration.

I'm a little bit concerned about the timeline … because I want to ensure that our programs are robust and we are not allowing our students to delay the benefits that some of our the consolidations will happen in these other schools. … [2:59:24] So I implore us to move as quickly as is reasonable to ensure our students … have the robust educational experiences that we are hoping to attain in closing and consolidating schools … that are predominantly English speaking.

Why it is responsive. Speaking about the dual-language hold, she treats the English-language consolidations as decided ("will happen") and as "our consolidations," and wants the bilingual schools to get the same treatment sooner. The concern is that the plan does not go fast enough, which presupposes its adoption.

I want to start by saying thank you to the administrative staff for the work you've done. And I think it's been a really hard work and I appreciate how thoughtful you've been in your approach and putting us in a better position for 5 years from now from where we are today even though some tough issues remain.

Why it is responsive. Accepts the proposal's premise as an accomplished fact. Mild; the balance of his remarks is about dual-language programs and is substantive evaluation.

I want to thank staff again for all the work that you've put in, not only over the summer to develop these plans, but for the past few years to come up with a process. … [3:02:19] … to put forth this resilient schools plan in a way that our BVSD community expects. You did listen, you iterated, you took feedback. … [3:02:52] … as we work through what will become a move from a process to a plan to a reality. And so I just immense amount of gratitude for the thoughtfulness that has gone into the first discussion up until making sure our students are settled into their new schools at the start of next year and beyond.

Why it is responsive. The closing remarks describe the outcome as settled: the proposal "will become … a reality" and students will be "settled into their new schools." Delivered four weeks before the vote and before the first public comment meeting. "You iterated, you took feedback" also describes a proposal developed through rounds of feedback, which on this record includes the board's.

It was some of the information that allowed us to sort of pivot from what people recall as the red and yellow schools on the maps to saying, "Okay, we do need to shift direction. We do need to think about this problem more holistically and take a systemwide approach, not a site-by-site approach." … [0:26:52] And so again about a year ago as the superintendent was mentioning, we realized, you know, the board came back to leadership and said we think that there needs to be a more substantial plan.

Why it is responsive. The board initiated the plan. She describes the board, not staff, deciding to abandon the school-by-school approach and directing leadership to produce "a more substantial plan." Barber's and Anderson's accounts agree (see staff statements below).

And so there were a lot of changes at our sites that … also helped the board make this decision that okay, we need to do something and now we can't continue to let our schools stay small at this point anymore because it really was having significant impacts on the student and the teacher experiences.

Why it is responsive. Describes a board decision already made: that schools cannot stay small and something must be done. The proposal is the instrument of that decision.

Yeah, from the outset of these conversations, the board was really clear that we cannot allow our schools to remain as small as they are. That we really do need to make sure we have schools that have at least two rounds, if not three rounds in them, to make sure that we are meeting those goals …

Why it is responsive. Barber sets this up as the tool "the board chose that we could not do" (0:31:06 in the transcript · video), meaning the board removed the status quo from the option set and fixed the plan's core constraint (a minimum of two rounds per grade). Every closure in the proposal follows from that constraint. This is the board setting the terms of the answer before the question went to the public.

We have far more capacity than we do students attending our schools. And some of the goals at the outset were really to get to two round schools, three round schools to decrease the amount of open seats. … [0:46:44] … that's 1100 seats that we will be potentially be removing from the city of Boulder and then an extra 800 seats from the rest of the district. That's almost 2,000 empty seats that we will be potentially taking out of the mix. That is a lot of capacity we're reducing … And at some we had to find a way to start decreasing capacity somewhere.

Why it is responsive. "We're reducing," "we will be removing," "we had to find a way": the plan's capacity reductions are described as the board's own action, and their justification is argued to the audience. Attribution checked against the video: the camera is on Rajpal from about 0:46:26 to the end of the passage.

I was just going to add that walkability is something that we did that was looked at and the schools that were prioritized to remain open really were the pockets of our community where we had the most resident students and … the largest number of students who were within that walkable range also. So while some people may not be able to walk to school anymore, we are making a concerted effort to ensure to maximize the number of students who remain walkable in some of these decisions.

Why it is responsive. Explains the criteria by which schools were chosen to stay open, in the first person, as a participant in "these decisions." This is the most direct statement in either recording of a board member speaking as a party to the selection of schools. Attribution checked against the video (camera on Rajpal from 0:53:38).

state demographer through 2050, we're showing declines. And as the school board member, our job is to make sure we're good stewards of our facilities and our budget and we need to make some choices now … knowing that things ahead could potentially change, but the forecast doesn't look good for some time.

Why it is responsive. Frames the closures as choices the board must make now. Mild; consistent with the rest.

I think it was the right thing to do to engage our community early before we talked about specific schools to understand what was needed … and then have this plan to support families after this transition is made. … [1:12:08] I feel for the families that will potentially be displaced and I know we need fewer schools than we have today and we need to do what we can to get to that. … as he shared, this is the one plan coming before the board. … [1:12:46] I do anticipate, my colleagues anticipate, after we get through this period of change, which is difficult, … we're better equipped to provide those learning opportunities …

Why it is responsive. "After this transition is made," "we need fewer schools … and we need to do what we can to get to that," and an outcome anticipated on behalf of "my colleagues": the board president describing the result as known, on the district's own broadcast, a week before the public comment meeting.

I want to thank the board for the clarity that you provided throughout this process in June on the task at hand, which has shaped the proposal you'll see this evening.

Today is about making sure that our students have the right level of resources and our board of education has made that very clear as we went through the process and spent the last two months together.

Following our June 9th presentation of the community engagement findings, the board provided additional direction and emphasized the need for a long-term approach … These were the outcomes we used to evaluate our potential recommendations that we're bringing forward tonight.

Superintendent Anderson and former Deputy Superintendent Da Cruz and board members met with elementary school principals and educators to better understand how they see declining enrollment affecting the experiences of students and staff.

When we've showed these slides to the board, they've been in alphabetical order. Now, we've done them from low to high, right? And one of the board's goals was when we started this process is we want to see sustainable two round schools. So, as we focused on this, you're going to see a lot of these schools that are on the lower end in our proposal tonight.

We've strengthened grade level cohorts and we've allowed the district to use its facilities and resources more efficiently … all priorities set by the board early on in this process as discussed early in this presentation.

Oftentimes governance teams don't have the courage to act early enough on things that are as hard as school consolidation and school closure. But by acting now, by acting today, the dollars that we recover, we can reinvest in schools …

I did want to just again talk about the high level goals that were set as part of this out of the prompting that we had from the board … [0:31:06] There was one, however, that the board chose that we could not do. Nicole, tell me a little bit about that.

As we decided how to move forward, we came forward with one proposal that the board will take action on on September 22nd. There's not a plan B. This is the proposal. … there's one proposal to respond to.

The proposal that we have presented, we feel like is the best solution given what our community has asked us to do and our board has asked us to do.

I also just want to clarify again the board hasn't acted on this. … So, it's still a proposal. … until the board takes action on whether it's the policy change or the decision on what we're going to do with the schools, there's going to be a lot of unanswered questions because we can't provide a lot of these answers till we know what the board is going to do.

You're welcome to attend in person. You're welcome to tune in online, share your feedback. We are listening.

As a reminder, today's work session is for us to present our proposal and for discussion with the board. There will be no action taken on this subject today.

We'll be presenting our resilient schools proposal today for the board's consideration.

What would happen to that projected capacity if we did not consider the PK5 portion of that really big Monarch PK8 campus? … I don't want the community to think we're going to have all this excess capacity. (A genuine data question, followed up twice; staff undertook to come back with an answer.)

How many of its current students are from the surrounding neighborhood … ? … What is the nature of those extra services that we get from larger school size with the two small schools still sharing the Aurora 7 campus? (Two of roughly a dozen substantive questions Medler put to staff; see also 1:54:14 in the transcript · video and 1:50:50 in the transcript · video.)

I would want to make sure any changes to our open enrollment policy like the one board member Medler is presenting … the math could work out that that's not feasible. (Pushback on a colleague's policy proposal.)

Can we keep looking, I guess is the question. (A request for more, framed as a question.)