Anchorage School Board: 6/13/26 ASD School Board Meeting

It will, um, call this Saturday, June 13th, 2026, um, special board meeting to order. Um, today is Saturday, June 13th at 9:19 AM. Um, present in the boardroom are members Jacobs, Blakeslee, Higgins, McDonough, Lessis, and Wilson. Joining us online is member Bellamy. We've called ourselves to order and engaged in a roll call.

Member Wilson, would you lead us in the flag salute and then read the land acknowledgement, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We acknowledge that we gather here today on the traditional lands of the people of Upper Cook Inlet. For thousands of years, the Dena'ina people have been and continue to be the stewards of this land. ASD is committed to diversity and inclusion, and it is with honor and respect that we recognize all Indigenous people who live and learn in our community. Thank you, Wilson. Uh, we have an agenda in front of us for board members.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda as drafted? I move to approve the agenda as drafted. Is there a second? Second. Motion made by Member Wilson, seconded by Member Blakeslee.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none—. Hold on, um, oh no, sorry. Um, seeing none, is there any opposition to adopting our agenda as drafted? Seeing and hearing none, we have an agenda. My understanding is we don't have any public comment today, correct?

Okay, uh, our first and only action item is ASD Memorandum Number 178, BP6151, Class Size. This is in second reading. Is there a motion? I move to approve ASD Memorandum 178, um, with the S version attached describing the board policy for 6, 1, 5, 1. So the S version has been moved.

Is there a second? Second. Made by Member McDonough, seconded by Member Blakeslee. Member McDonough, any discussion? Um, yeah, this came up here now about 3 weeks ago in Governance Committee, uh, and really began back over a year ago when the legislature passed— and Kelly, you have to correct my number— HB 60.

57. It was originally written into HB 165, and actually the S version will need a modification to state that. But, and so in that House bill, the legislature, to my understanding, essentially put arbitrary maximum caps on class sizes where they're requiring boards in the state of a certain large school district size, which I think then only, you know, Peninsula, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. So the 4 large districts have to adopt some kind of maximum class size policy. Uh, the legislature's own maximums are here in the S version, where pre-kindergarten through grade 6, they are saying should have a maximum of 23.

Grades 7 through 12, they are saying should have a maximum of 30. This policy will then comply with the Alaska statute 14.03.065, which was implemented after that. But the S version here also achieves the discussions made in governance committee, and there were several comments and pieces of concern that committee members and board members raised. And I think this version with its red lines does a good job at achieving what we think is the proper means of coming up with class size averages through evidence-based analysis of the science, while still also acknowledging that our main job is to comply with state statute. So, um, yeah, I'm bringing this forward with its changes as a much more active version of governance.

Discussion. Sir, other discussion on the side? Member Higgins? I, I agree with that completely. I think, uh, the goal here is you got litigation going on in regards to what is, uh, adequate funding, and we don't want to do anything inconsistent with that.

We have been very vocal about this, I think, since 2014. It's probably when the first Pike's Island study was done. I remember that coming out and giving it to the legislature. So I think this gives a, a good reflection that we're not at odds with that study, and I think that's an important issue. Thank you, Member Higgins.

Other discussion? Member Lessans. Um, first of all, I really appreciate the work the Governance Committee has done on this policy and the conversations that I know took place there and in the following, um, school board meeting. I did, however, want to make a few technical corrections to this S version, so I would move to amend the S version of EP6151 via 4 or 5 specific changes in how you describe them, and I emailed them to Miss Sullivan. I'd like to present them in one amendment and just talk through each of the specific—.

Okay, um, changes. And you, you've sent the Word document with the changes to Miss Sullivan? Uh, it is a summary of the changes that I've So we'll call it Lessons Amendment 1. So you can move Lessons Amendment 1. Okay, I move— I would move Lessons Amendment 1.

Second. Good. And then would you like to describe it? Sure. And it would probably help if you just looked at the piece of paper.

So in the first paragraph, we need to strike 165 and replace it with 57 because it's House Bill 57 that was ultimately approved. House Bill 57 was approved, not House Bill 165, which was, I think, an initial vehicle for this legislative process. So that is just a technical correction. The second change is to add the word grade before 12. And so in the section relating to students, grade, right now it reads grade 4 through 12.

I would just add the word grade before the number 12. And also redact the additional 25 students. That's duplicative. So it should just read— so it would read grade 4 through grade 12, 25 students. I would strongly recommend— it's not a technical change, but at the end of the implementation paragraph, which is says implementation of these targets, I would add the following sentence.

Add administrative regulations may be difficult to ensure that the board and key stakeholders receive this information prior to and/or after annual package of the district's budget. To the end of implementation paragraph. So I'll read that again. Administrative regulations may be developed to ensure that the board and key stakeholders receive this information prior to and/or after annual passage of the district's budget. And then in the final paragraph, I would add the words, the targets established in to the sentence that reads, "Therein, if the prior school year's averages were not in compliance with this policy." So it would read, "Therein, the prior school year's averages were not compliant with the targets established in this policy." And then it's a technical correction that member McDonough just caught.

I would also add the word pre- with a hyphen before the word kindergarten later in that long sentence, because earlier in the document, the, um, the States— the States' own language says pre-K through grade 6, 23 students. So this conforms. So let's say pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. Cool. It would also— I would also add the word grade before the number 12.

But you have grade already. Oh, you're right. You're right. Okay. Yeah, right.

Thank you. So we're already good. Okay. Sorry, this is being edited in real time. So I will pause there.

Is the language of your amendment still correct? I think that the language is still correct. Yeah, there's nothing additional. Go to Member Blakeslee. I first, I like all of the changes that were originally incorporated into the S version.

I think it definitely better represents what we discussed in the Governance Committee. So I appreciate the work that was done on that by the committee members, and also appreciate Member Lessens' additions and revisions. So very supportive of all of this in this, um, Lessens Amendment 1, so we're calling it. Uh, but my only question is, what— can you explain more about this added sentence administrative regulations may be developed, like what you're aiming to get there, but that's supposed to—. So that is coming from two things.

Number one, it is to the best of my understanding, having watched the Governance Committee meeting this morning, really early on, my sense is that there was a conversation that administrative regulations could be developed to better spell out how information will be disseminated. And I'm paraphrasing here. The, I think that the critical, right, President Jacobs said in that meeting, I want to send the legislature a bill, right? And this gives the administration space to develop its own guidelines for pushing effectively, for pushing at the bill for the delta for the class sizes that we have not been able to attain for a very, very long time and don't appear to be able to attain in the near future. And so coming from that conversation, and it's also coming from language that is already in Board Policy 5040.

Which is something that we worked on a while ago. And that was our big wellness policy. And at that point in time, when 5040 was adopted— I'm reading here from Section F in 5040. It says administrative regulations may be developed to ensure that information will be gathered to assist the school board and district in evaluating implementation of this policy. And to ensure that necessary documentation is maintained in preparation for the triennial administrative review conducted by the Child Nutrition Programs, Department of Education, Early Development.

Anyways, there were robust ARs that the administration developed to implement an overhaul of 5040 at that time. And I guess the third thing that this really speaks to is my intent when I drafted an initial version of a class size policy. There was a lot of detail that I conceptualized and I recognize is more in the administration's lane than the board's lane. We don't necessarily want to have all of that in a board policy. But if the administration can develop, um, ARs kind of governing the communication strategy, I think that would be Council.

Thank you, Member Higgins. I'm still confused about it. If administration regulations may or may not be developed, and then it may or may not be done before or after, or may never be done, I just don't see that as a policy type of statement to include in anything. Policy is kind of defining, you must do this, you must do that. They have the authority to do administrative regulations that are not in violation of the policy anyway.

And so I don't see this achieving anything, and it just makes it sound confusing. And so I, for that reason, like I said, it is no timeframe and there's no requirement or no limitation on what they do. This is something they have within their power anyway, if we don't have a policy prohibiting it. And it is, like I said, no timeframe here before or after. That's kind of interesting.

It may be done or may not, and it may be before or it may be after. It just— I just don't see it achieving anything. The question is why then? Yeah. What's the necessity?

Thank you for that question. I wouldn't be opposed to the word shall instead of may because I think that the communication about what we— why we can't implement either an evidence-based or the state's own policy is imperative. And I think that there is value to communicating why we can't up class sizes at the state's own level or the evidence-based level prior to the passage of our budget. And also, I think it's important to push out after we adopt the budget. So I guess I, and I'm also creating this in, frankly, real time.

I was working on it this morning. So if, if the board sees value in some version of this, that would be great. I'm certainly open to suggestions. That's what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting if we want this, and let's say you, you, it needs to be done.

We do want to know information about this at some point. I mean, and we meet, it's beneficial., and I don't think the administration would probably have a problem with this at all. So I just think it would be beneficial to make it really, uh, I'm going to jump in the queue really quick. We got member Les then member, member, so then member, um, I see member Higgins' point. I actually like changing may to shall, um, because I do think— I appreciate, uh, both I appreciate all of the changes, including a member McDonough's changes on behalf of the Governance Committee, which accurately capture the committee's intent.

Member Lessa's improvements. And I do appreciate that administration should develop recommendations, which would help facilitate the intent of the board. And so I'm in favor of changing may to shall, which I think helps address Member Higgins' feedback. I won't make the motion, but I hope someone else does. We'll go to Member Wilson.

So I also appreciate this policy in part because I understand that the legislature would like to see certain class sizes. We don't have the budget for that. I also absolutely would love to see the lower class sizes, which our students need and deserve. Again, we don't have the budget for that, but I don't think the general public or even the legislature really has an understanding from year to year because they, they're not in, in the mix of every day of the nuts and bolts of how things are structured. And had many conversations with many folks in the general public, even people who have kids in schools that don't necessarily understand the association between the money we're receiving from the state and how we can allocate that, plus the increase in costs over the years.

So I do like the concept of repeating every year. This is what the legislature would like to see. This is—. These are the class sizes we would like to see. This is what we can afford.

And so just the repetitive nature of continuing to communicate that particular message, I think, is awesome because For many reasons, that message is not received. And so just to kind of put that, prioritize that in the messaging that needs to be in what I'll call the basic messaging. But basic messaging is really important for those legislators and for our community to understand that we cannot have smaller class sizes because we cannot afford to have that. And the overall details of all of our budget issues is overwhelming to communicate. So the small, basic, really impactful statements to continue to repeat, I think, are really important.

Okay, I'll go to Madam— yeah, while we're on the, um, amended Kelly Lessons 1 amendment, I'll keep my comments to that, and I do appreciate, shall, that is something while we'll get to an amendment of the amendment, I think that would capture my will. I also just wanted to point out the reading through the board policies many times over the last few months. We have 3 ways of directing the district in our policy wording. One, some of our policies say the superintendent shall, and some of them say the district shall, and more recent ones say that administrative regulations shall. And I think effectively they mean the same thing because the board understands it can only direct the superintendent, but the, the, it kind of went from, um, we're telling, we're assuming that Dr. Bryant will get it done all by himself, which is like the older archaic versions of our policies.

And now we're writing it as in it's a collective district effort. I just want to be intentional about that now. If we're going to be drafting, do we want it to read administrative regulations shall, or do we want it to go back to the more stock standard policy language that would just say that the superintendent shall? I don't know if that is particularly material, but it will also help us know in the future how this board wants to write these things. And the second addition I would ask to consider, as we have one more modification opportunity to amend this, is to put a timeframe on this.

So, Dr. Bryant, do you think a 60-day window after the passage of the budget is adequate for your team to do this pricing? 60 Days after the board adopts in late February. Yeah, yeah, yes, that's—. I like that. I have a question, actually, really, for a formal meeting.

Part of the intention and thinking about communication prior to and after the passage of the budget is to give the legislature actionable information. I'm a little bit worried if we pass a budget at the end of February, 60 days is no longer in the realm of actionable. The, the, it should be frankly March 1st, right? If our budget is due, we should have a sense of how much it costs to implement those target class sizes by March 1st. Right, if our budget is due to the assembly at the end of February, I want the legislature, 40 members of whom turn over every 2 years, You know, every member of the House is up for election and therefore perhaps needs additional education on a biannual basis.

Biannual. So I guess I don't know where we're at as far as amending things or conceptualizing. Yeah, I think, I mean, Carl, is it— can I kind of go a little loose without—. I mean, I, I think so. Procedurally, it sounds like we want to make at least one minor change.

Um, if we want to change may to shall, and if the maker of the amendments and the seconder agree, we can make that change. Okay. Okay. So is there consensus there? Yes.

Okay. Um, are there any other changes to Less's Amendment 1 that we're discussing at this We're debating the amount of days to time so that the administrative regulation has a specific due date. My suggestion would be not to put it in the board policy, uh, but to, uh, amend the memorandum which expresses the intent of the board, um, add a sentence to the memorandum, um, which then wouldn't live forever in policy necessarily because it wouldn't be relevant forever. Um, so I think also, um, if there's— and Dr. Brown, correct me if I'm wrong— if, um, there's clear consensus without adding language to the memorandum from the board that it's our intent for these regulations to be done within a certain time frame, you wouldn't require we explicitly state in the memorandum to honor that. Is that correct?

That's correct. I just let you know when the board would like the information. Okay, so Dr. Brown, our superintendent, on record is indicating that we don't necessarily need to put it in writing, that if we clearly articulate that there's clear verbal consensus that he's comfortable just meeting that deadline. Um, so either way, uh, Member, Member Dunno, do you have anything else before we move on to Member Higgins? Oh, we also—.

Yeah, well, we're still on the amended item. Okay, so then we'll go to Member Bellamy, then Member Higgins.

Actually, I'm good. I had a question about, um, the, uh, all of my questions from the S version. Thanks, Paul, for that. Thank everybody. This has been a work in progress for several months now, and I think we're getting where we really want to be and where the Governance Committee actually landed at its last meeting.

So, but most of my questions have been already addressed. I do think we need a timeline, but I'm not comfortable putting it in policy, but finding another way to establish that timeline. And I am fine with the shall. Thank you. Then we'll go to Member Higgins and Member Lessens.

I appreciate the comment about administration being assigned something because we only assign something to one person, that's the superintendent. And, and you use the superintendent or designee when it's a receiving situation. Somebody has a complaint, you may go to the superintendent or someone who's designated. But if we want something brought to us, it's always going to be the superintendent. He can delegate it, but he's the one responsible for it.

So normally we just say the superintendent shall. So like when we say here, the superintendent or designee shall establish or make available to the public the public have it. If we're only talking about the superintendent, it's not going to be a designate— designee. We're not— we don't have the authority, we shouldn't exercise it, to assign something to someone underneath the superintendent. Um, so I, I like the language just simply saying the superintendent shall establish, uh, how he wants to do it and whether he wants to delegate.

That is his responsibility, but he's the one accountable and responsible for doing it. So I, that the whole issue of administration shall is really is a superintendent is the only one that we delegate, we assign things to. And unless there is a specific receiving kind of situation, like I said, somebody receiving a complaint, superintendent is not here to designate, that's fine. But as far as executing something like this, I think we don't assign it to a designee. Assigned to the superintendent if he chooses to do it.

Does he need— that's his own decision. Um, I just want to note that our meeting is noticed until 9:45, so can we have a motion to extend for 15 minutes? Second. Made by Lessans, seconded by Wilson. Is there any objection?

We're extended for 15 minutes. Um, we'll go to member Lessans. I wanted to, based on the feedback just now, conceptually get support or opposition to a potential substitution of the administrative relation— regulation section. What if instead the text, the new text, read, the superintendent shall ensure that key stakeholders receive this information within 1 week following the board's annual passage of the district's budget?

Budget. Um, so, and I can email that. That can be an amendment to your amendment. That would be an amendment to my amendment. So if you would send that to Miss Sullivan.

And, um, if you're making that motion, the amendment— is there a second? Member Higgins, want a second? That's fine.

Yes. So motion amendment to the amendment was made by Lesson, seconded by Higgins. Um, I don't know that there's much discussion. It sounds like we're just addressing the feedback that's already been said. Are there other comments?

Um, just one. It's the one week. To me, what may happen is, you know, until the budget's passed, it— whatever the recommended drafts are could wildly change the day of. How, how do we feel about that one week? Yeah, that, that's a really great question.

We're gonna, um, because theoretically I would have a sense as to what the proposed PTR would be way earlier than that date. However, to your point, if the board were to change class— the PTR last minute, then that would mean that we'd have to do those calculations pretty quickly. Um, historically, we haven't made wild investments in PTR last minute because that's quite a large cost. It's not very practical. So I would imagine I would actually provide this information ahead of schedule rather than running against the deadline, if that makes sense.

So I, I think practically speaking, having gone through this process 4 times, I don't see it being an issue because I've got a pretty sense as to what the PTR would be, probably, um, in February, early February. Is there any other discussion on the amendment to the amendment? Seeing none, we need to vote on the amendment to the amendment. Uh, Lis, Um, Member Higgins? Yes.

Member Lessens? Yes. Member Wilson? I'll say yes. Member McDermott?

Yes. Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Bellamy? Yes.

President Jacobs? Yes. The amendment is adopted 7-0. On the, uh, amended Lessons Amendment 1. Is there other discussion?

Seeing none, we have a voice vote on, um, Lessons Amendment 1 as amended.

Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Bellamy? Yes. Member McDonough?

Yes. Member Lessens? Yes. Member Higgins? Yes.

Member Wilson? Yes. President Jacobs? Yes. This is number 1, is adopted by a vote of 7 to 0.

We're on the underlying board memorandum 178, which is BP 6191 class size. As amended, is there additional discussion? Just a quick— like, broadly speaking, um, the— one of the larger intents here is that we don't unintentionally endorse the legislative position on class sizes. Um, I think people in this room especially know Alaska has local defined in our state constitution. And I actually was a critic of the HB 165, but then it's, it's movement into other bills, uh, because the state can recommend whatever it wants, but it's up to us to actually determine what is our standard.

And the original reading, using only the state's numbers, I felt was basically just passively giving them the ability to dictate our class size targets. And we know our district best, and we would have access to analyzing literature of school districts that most closely resemble ours. So I like— I appreciate the board's intent in this policy where we have basically two tiers. Um, I'll make a, a note for the record that the way this reads in the Intention of Governance Committee, seems that the, the top 2 numbers are indeed the maximum compliance thresholds, and we're, we're still not in compliance with those. But the second numbers are the scientific evidence-based numbers, and where this policy will likely come in some future case, if we have another governor tenure, much like our current governor, is we bring a lawsuit forward that says there is inadequate funding, the state is not meeting its constitutional commitments.

And this policy makes it clear that the science is that they're inadequately funding our district. If we do not have the, the Pikus Oden numbers, which can be amended by a future governance committee and then a future board, if the science changes. Um, but if we don't have them in here, it makes our ability to raise a lawsuit a lot more unclear and a lot more, um, like we've already surrendered that we think the maximum adequate preschool class is 23 students. So I appreciate having this in two tiers so that we still get to have control over our own opinion and scientifically correct. So that's all.

I hope this, this passes the, the whole board. Um, is it the board's will to get the financial delta for both class size targets, both the one in the bill as well as the Pikus Avenue? I'm assuming so. I just wanted to clarify. Yeah, great.

And then have we settled a proposed deadline for administration? We're going to verbally acknowledge that we need to establish that. Dr. Bryant, how long for the administrative regulations do you think you need? Is that separate from the week deadline? Isn't that—.

We—. I mean, we haven't directed when the draft ARs even need to be built. I don't know if we need a deadline on that. Okay, my misunderstanding. I thought there was interest from the board in having a timeline for when the ARs will be developed by.

Is that not an interest? Oh no, I think we want the price tag. Understood. Okay, great. Sounds like we've addressed that then.

Okay, um, is there any other discussion on this item before we move to our voice vote? I just—. Just one comment. As we go around here, we're making changes to— I, I have to reflect on things when I speak at a college. When had 5 people in the room and everybody changed one little guy's memo telling County, but at the end it was great.

So I appreciate the, the, the everybody paying careful attention to the details in this one because it is important, and I like that type of approach. So just, just, um, I appreciate the, the, the changes and I appreciate the comments and the voice. Okay, we can proceed to a voice vote on ASD Memorandum Number 178, D-251, 5-1 class size, as of And it's the S version.

Um, Member Bellamy? Yes. Member Higgins? Yes. Member Lessens?

Yes. Member Wilson? Yes. Member Blakeslee? Yes.

Member McDonough? Yes. President Jacobs? Yes. That motion is adopted by a vote of 7 to 0.

That was our only action item for today. Um, that completes our agenda, and we would move to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Motion to adjourn made by McDullough, seconded by Higgins. We adjourn at 9:54 AM.

Thank you, everyone.