Board of Education Meeting Recap

2025-26 Academic Standards

Executive Director of Academic Services Amy Engelkins shared the proposed 2025-26 Academic Standards for the VASD. All standards align with the Wisconsin State Academic Standards. The areas of Music, Career & Technical Education, and Social Emotional Learning were added this year, and Executive Director Engelkins noted that instruction in these content areas has historically been aligned to Wisconsin State Academic Standards, which is now reflected in the 2025-26 Academic Standards.

Vote on Human Growth & Development ad hoc Advisory Committee Next Steps

Relevant Policy: Operational Expectation (OE) 11: Instructional Program

Member Stier Christensen motioned to dissolve the Human Growth & Development Ad hoc Advisory Committee, recognizing that they have completed their charge, and send the curricular review process back to VASD administration. Member Medina seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Vote on 2025-26 Academic Standards

Relevant Policies: Results (R) 2: Academic Achievement, Operational Expectation (OE) 11: Instructional Program

Member Peguero motioned to approve the 2025-26 Academic Standards as presented. Member Hanes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Vote on Operational Expectation (OE) 3: Treatment of Community Stakeholders and Vote on Operational Expectation (OE) 3: Treatment of Community Stakeholders Indicator 3.2.2 Revision

Relevant Policy: Operational Expectation (OE) 3: Treatment of Community Stakeholders

Superintendent Dr. Tremayne Clardy presented the Operational Expectations (OE) 3: Treatment of Community Stakeholders Monitoring Report. OE 3 holds that the Superintendent shall maintain an organizational culture that treats parents and members of the community with respect, dignity, and courtesy. The full monitoring report is available by clicking this link.

The monitoring report focused on the following areas:

• OE 3.1: An investigation into a possible unauthorized release of confidential information is currently underway.

• OE 3.2.1: Evidence of compliance with having processes in place to receive and respond to complaints was presented and sufficient.

• OE 3.2.1 and 3.2.2: The BOE discussed a proposed update to how complaint resolution is measured, shifting from survey-based metrics to whether the Board receives complaints of non-responsiveness.

• OE 3.3: The district was found to provide multiple avenues for stakeholder engagement and to promote inclusive participation in public committees.

BOE members agreed that the current Indicator OE 3.2.2 language needed refinement to better reflect the spirit of the policy. Member Stier Christensen questioned how the BOE could meaningfully operationalize the statement, “The Board does not receive communication...” and Member Medina raised concerns about how data related to this would be gathered. In response, Dr. Clardy emphasized that when community members reach out directly to the BOE, BOE members should notify him so that concerns can be promptly addressed or corrected.

Member Murphy highlighted that the intent of the indicator should focus on responsiveness and engagement, rather than whether community members agree with the final decision. Member Hanes suggested that the indicator might need to go further, capturing whether the right individuals were included in the complaint process or if other important factors were considered. Member Medina expressed agreement, and Dr. Clardy clarified that timeliness and including the necessary staff members are embedded within the concept of responsiveness.

Member White asked whether OE 3.3 might be a better location for some of these broader considerations. Member Stier Christensen noted that it’s also important to have a way to recognize success, especially given Dr. Clardy’s strong leadership in this area, rather than focusing solely on problem identification. Member Peguero encouraged the BOE to view the complaint process through an equity lens, suggesting that the indicator should consider who has access to the complaint system and whether barriers exist for some community members.

To address the feedback, Hanes proposed revised language: “The Board does not receive communication of the Superintendent not effectively handling complaints.” Dr. Clardy affirmed the suggestion and offered this revision as the proposed update to Indicator 3.2.2.

Member Medina motioned to approve the indicator 3.2.2 as follows: The Board does not receive communication of the Superintendent not effectively handling complaints.” Member Peguero seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

The BOE addressed how to proceed in light of an ongoing investigation related to OE 3.1, which focuses on the potential release of confidential information. Dr. Clardy asked the BOE whether they preferred to delay a vote on the overall report until the investigation is complete. He recommended pausing the vote until the matter is fully resolved.

Member Hanes asserted that annual reporting always carries a risk of reflecting events that are no longer current but emphasized that any noncompliance should be accompanied by reflection, corrective action, and leadership decisions. Member Hanes expressed some discomfort with voting on the report while an investigation is still ongoing.

Ultimately, there was agreement to hold off on taking action until the investigation concludes, ensuring the BOE has full information before making a decision on the monitoring report.

Member Stier Christensen motioned to table a vote on the OE 3: Treatment of Community Stakeholders Monitoring Report until an investigation related to Indicator 3.1.1 is completed. Member Hanes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

The purpose of a Board Workshop is to provide a publicly available venue in which the BOE discusses current issues. While no BOE action is taken during a workshop, the conversation may impact future BOE decisions.

BOE members engaged in an in-depth discussion about a proposed redesign of the BOE’s Results policies, referencing this Results Final Draft based on previous work at Board Workshops. The conversation focused on how the revised structure could more effectively capture the full range of student experiences, outcomes, and district priorities through a clearer, more cohesive monitoring framework.

BOE members expressed strong support for the Results Final Draft structure, which organizes indicators into four overarching areas: Core Academics, Exploration Academics, Special Academics, and the Journey of a Lifelong Learner (JLL), (see pages 14 - 21 of the Strategic Framework) with a separate category for the Strategic Framework. Members Hanes and Murphy noted the comprehensive and intentional organization of the proposed indicators, with Member Murphy adding that the section titles and consistent language help establish a solid structure for future monitoring. Member Medina emphasized that framing the indicators as “I-can” style questions encourages meaningful dialogue and supports deeper, values-aligned conversations among the BOE and leadership.

Several BOE members, including Members Stier Christensen and Porco, appreciated how the new structure moves beyond surface-level metrics like participation counts and encourages more insightful, meaningful data collection. Member Porco added that the language leaves space for administrators to share additional data of interest, not just data that is strictly required.

The JLL and Strategic Framework sections generated robust dialogue. Executive Director Engelkins expressed caution about how these areas could be authentically represented without becoming redundant, especially when overlapping with behavior and content area data. Members Murphy and Porco acknowledged this interplay and expressed hope that thoughtful planning and calendar alignment could allow for integrated “mega” monitoring reports, rather than a burdensome total of 24 separate updates. BOE members agreed that some reports could be naturally combined, while others, such as the JLL, might be presented in a more qualitative, celebratory format.

The group also discussed how to handle indicators that span both Operational Expectations (OEs) and Results policies. Members Hanes and Stier Christensen suggested shifting certain OE indicators, especially in OE 10 and OE 11, into the JLL or Strategic Framework areas, which they felt were more aligned. Dr. Clardy supported this idea, noting that several existing OE indicators feel more Results-oriented in practice.

There was consensus that the JLL and Strategic Framework categories should stand independently, distinct from both OE and Results designations, as dynamic and qualitative narratives that help connect technical data to student stories. Member Medina and others agreed that this structure would make the information more accessible and meaningful to the broader community.

Member Porco concluded that removing the word “Results” as the sole organizing principle may create a stronger, more holistic framework for BOE work and onboarding. He emphasized the need to design a structure that not only supports robust monitoring but also enables clearer understanding and action by the BOE and the public alike.

Member Murphy framed the discussion as a first reading of the proposed changes and invited feedback before the second reading scheduled for July 21, 2025. The conversation reflected a shared commitment to telling a more complete, equitable, and student-centered story through BOE monitoring.

Click this link for the most recent expanded agenda/past agendas/minutes

Directions to access agendas and minutes:

• Click the link above

• Select "meetings"

• On the left-hand side, you will see a display of all of the meetings

• Select your desired meeting

• Once you have selected the meeting, select "view agenda"