School board uses structured impact-focused process to select 2026-2027 calendar

At the recent February 18 special board meeting, the school board used a structured, decision-making process to evaluate three possible school calendar options: a four-day calendar, a five-day calendar, and a flex calendar. The goal of the meeting was to determine which calendar option would best serve students and staff when considering a full range of district impacts.

The design of the meeting allowed board members to follow a step-by-step evaluation process which ensured focused and thoughtful discussion and deliberation. Throughout the process, each calendar option was evaluated across the same set of factors. The factors were determined by the board listing all things that could be impacted by the school calendar. The board then grouped the considerations into categories. The categories became the factors the board used to evaluate each calendar’s impact.

The factors and their considerations are as follows. The factors, in order of importance, are student achievement and learning, student and staff well-being, teacher recruitment, certified staff retention, classified staff retention, financial impact, and childcare. The student achievement and learning factor included, in no particular order, meeting state standards, grades, attendance, number of instructional days, special education, at risk students, enrichment, homework, post-secondary readiness, workforce readiness, and extracurriculars. Student and staff well-being included mental health of students, burnout/fatigue, teacher morale, family time, student appointments, student meals, consistent schedules, extracurriculars, and the day off for students to work. Teacher recruitment included recruiting teachers and securing certified teachers. Certified staff retention included teacher contract days, teacher morale, and the need for subs. Classified staff retention included classified staff hours and staff morale. Financial impact included transportation, parent mileage, tax payer approval, enrollment, snow days, and food service. Childcare included Coyote Club availability, safety of students, and unsupervised time for students.

The board then listed any evidence that had been collected relating to a school calendar’s impact on the defined factors. The evidence included parent, staff, and community survey responses, the mission statement, test scores and attendance comparison table, feedback from other districts, responses to the survey following the community meeting, Searchlight article, University of Oregon study, Mitchell Republic article, ASBSD current job openings, responses to the staff questionnaire, and a cost analysis.

For the evaluation process, the board identified what considerations were included in each factor, what evidence the board had to help evaluate how a calendar impacts each factor, and discussed how a four-day calendar, a five-day calendar, and a flex calendar would impact each specific consideration.

Following the discussion of each factor, board members independently rated how each calendar impacted each factor. The rating scale was from 1-5; 1 represented significant negative impact, 5 represented strong positive impact. Each board member also independently noted their level of confidence in each calendar rating based on the strength of available information and noted the potential risks if their rating assumptions proved incorrect. This process allowed members to weigh both evidence and uncertainty while maintaining a consistent method of evaluation. By reviewing one factor at a time and applying the same scoring framework to each calendar, the board gave equal consideration to all calendars and factors and allowed the impacts to be discussed openly.

After independently completing the evaluation, scores were averaged and members reviewed the ratings collectively. This summary view helped guide final discussion before the board made its decision.

During the final discussion, the board president emphasized that the intent of the process was to ensure the decision was centered on what is best for the district, not only to choose a calendar. Members discussed the pros and cons of each calendar and compared the number of instructional days. Additionally, members spoke about what Fridays would look like for the Flex and 4-day calendar, Coyote Club availability, strategies for advertising open positions, how “in-service days” may be utilized (for professional development, collaboration, curriculum planning, and staff meetings) and the number of 4-day weeks versus 5-day weeks in the Flex calendar.

Members acknowledged that no single option would perfectly meet every need, and that the decision would ultimately require balancing competing priorities while remaining focused on what would provide the greatest overall benefit to students.

The board’s final decision of selecting the Flex Calendar was based on its review of all factors together, the available evidence, and community input, with the understanding that no calendar option is without compromise. By using a structured framework, the board aimed to select the calendar that provided the strongest overall benefit for students while responsibly balancing academic priorities, staffing considerations, family needs, and fiscal responsibility.