Jeffco Public Schools |
---|
Jefferson County, Colorado |
District details |
# of school board members: 5 |
Website: Link |
Jeffco Public Schools is a school district in Colorado.
Click on the links below to learn more about the school district's...
This information is updated as we become aware of changes. Please contact us with any updates. |
Tracy Dorland is the superintendent of Jeffco Public Schools. Dorland was appointed superintendent on April 19, 2021. Dorland's previous career experience includes working as the deputy superintendent for Adams 12 Five Star Schools in Colorado, chief academic officer for Adams 12 Five Star Schools, and principal.[1]
The Jeffco Public Schools Board of Education consists of five members elected to four-year terms. Board members are elected to specific geographical districts in at-large elections.[6]
Office | Name | Date assumed office |
---|---|---|
Jeffco Board of Education District 1 | Brad Rupert | 2015 |
Jeffco Board of Education District 2 | Susan Harmon | 2015 |
Jeffco Board of Education District 3 | Stephanie Schooley | 2019 |
Jeffco Board of Education District 4 | Susan Miller | 2019 |
Jeffco Board of Education District 5 | Rick Rush | 2020 |
This officeholder information was last updated on April 23, 2021. Please contact us with any updates. |
Elections are held on a staggered basis in November of odd-numbered years.[7]
Three seats on the board were up for general election on November 2, 2021.
The Jeffco Public Schools Board of Education maintains the following policy on public testimony during board meetings:[8]
“ |
All regular and special meetings of the Board of Education shall be open to the public, but any person who disturbs good order may be required to leave. Because the Board desires to hear the viewpoints of citizens throughout the district, and also needs to conduct its business in an orderly and efficient manner, it shall schedule one or more periods during regular meetings for brief comments from the public. Citizens wishing to make formal presentation before the Board must make arrangements in advance with the superintendent to schedule such presentation on the agenda. At regular meetings, citizens can address the Board on any topic related to the operation of the schools. Only those topics which are on that particular agenda may be addressed at special meetings. Complaints involving the reputation of any person connected with the district will not be heard by the Board while sitting in public session. The president of the Board is responsible for recognizing all speakers, who shall properly identify themselves with name, address, city or as an employee, for maintaining proper order, and for adherence to time limits. Members of the public will not be recognized by the president as the Board conducts its official business except when the Board schedules an interim public discussion period on a particular item. The Board shall listen to the public but, at the same time, expects the public to listen and speak only when properly recognized. Eligibility to Address the Board The following persons are eligible to address the Board:
Hearing of Persons Anyone who would like to address the Board must sign the public comment roster (name, address, and topic) and are allowed to sign up only once per public comment portion of the agenda. Person(s) addressing the Board on an item on the agenda will be called on during the public comment part one portion of the agenda or when that particular item is discussed. Persons addressing the Board on an item(s) not on the agenda will be given the opportunity to do so under part two of the public comment portion of the agenda. The Board president will request that a large number of citizens who sign up as a group to speak on a single topic select speakers and comment for no more than ten (10) minutes. An individual speaker on a single topic will be given three (3) minutes to speak. If more than 20 individuals sign up to speak, individual speakers will be given two (2) minutes to speak and groups will be given five (5) minutes to speak. If more than 30 individuals sign up to speak, individual speakers will be given one (1) minute and groups given (3) minutes to address the Board. Undue interruption or other interference with the orderly conduct of the Board business cannot be allowed. Any person who disturbs good order may be required to leave. Defamatory or abusive remarks are always out of order. The presiding officer may terminate the speaker's privilege of address if, after being called to order, the speaker persists in improper conduct or remarks. Any personal approval or disapproval of action taken by the Board during the meeting may be indicated during the public comment period of a regular Board meeting, but it is requested that there be no applause or dissent during the meeting. All charges, complaints, or challenges are to be presented to the superintendent or Board in writing, signed by the complainant. All charges, if presented to the Board directly, are to be referred to the superintendent for investigation and report. Challenges of instructional materials used in the district will be handled in accordance with district policy KEC, Public Concerns/Complaints About Instructional Materials. To place an item on the agenda, written material must be filed with the superintendent. The written material should include the name of the person or persons making the request and the name of the organization or group represented, if any. Also contained in the request will be a statement of action requested by the Board and pertinent background information leading to the request. The superintendent, upon receipt of a properly executed request, may set a date for inclusion of the requested item on the Board agenda or may respond to the issue in another manner. If the item is considered, the superintendent will notify the individual or group of the time and place of the meeting at which the item will be considered.[9] |
” |
From 1993 to 2013, the Jeffco school district had an average of $688,382,524 in revenue and $739,948,810 in expenditures, according to the United States Census Bureau's survey of school system finances. The district had a yearly average of $556,292,714 in outstanding debt. The district retired $64,683,667 of its debt and issued $86,060,476 in new debt each year on average.[10]
The table below separates the district's revenue into the three sources identified by the agency: local, state, and federal.
Revenue by Source | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fiscal Year |
Local | State | Federal | Revenue Total | |||||||
Total | % of Revenue | Total | % of Revenue | Total | % of Revenue |
Click [show] on the right to display the revenue data for prior years. | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1993 | $236,464,000 | 51.59% | $211,012,000 | 46.03% | $10,916,000 | 2.38% | $458,392,000 | ||||
1994 | $239,718,000 | 52.35% | $206,516,000 | 45.10% | $11,709,000 | 2.56% | $457,943,000 | ||||
1995 | $239,038,000 | 51.51% | $211,108,000 | 45.49% | $13,947,000 | 3.01% | $464,093,000 | ||||
1996 | $255,725,000 | 52.58% | $217,825,000 | 44.79% | $12,779,000 | 2.63% | $486,329,000 | ||||
1997 | $259,163,000 | 51.61% | $230,027,000 | 45.81% | $12,944,000 | 2.58% | $502,134,000 | ||||
1998 | $295,741,000 | 53.79% | $238,697,000 | 43.42% | $15,338,000 | 2.79% | $549,776,000 | ||||
1999 | $313,676,000 | 53.88% | $252,223,000 | 43.32% | $16,316,000 | 2.80% | $582,215,000 | ||||
2000 | $356,128,000 | 56.07% | $259,010,000 | 40.78% | $20,001,000 | 3.15% | $635,139,000 | ||||
2001 | $367,753,000 | 56.20% | $264,779,000 | 40.46% | $21,852,000 | 3.34% | $654,384,000 | ||||
2002 | $375,821,000 | 54.71% | $284,648,000 | 41.44% | $26,481,000 | 3.85% | $686,950,000 | ||||
2003 | $380,052,000 | 53.11% | $305,314,000 | 42.67% | $30,195,000 | 4.22% | $715,561,000 | ||||
2004 | $383,825,000 | 52.68% | $311,825,000 | 42.80% | $32,986,000 | 4.53% | $728,636,000 | ||||
2005 | $437,056,000 | 55.37% | $319,635,000 | 40.49% | $32,654,000 | 4.14% | $789,345,000 | ||||
2006 | $440,943,000 | 54.63% | $328,874,000 | 40.75% | $37,259,000 | 4.62% | $807,076,000 | ||||
2007 | $442,447,000 | 53.62% | $341,225,000 | 41.35% | $41,486,000 | 5.03% | $825,158,000 | ||||
2008 | $471,137,000 | 54.89% | $346,754,000 | 40.40% | $40,484,000 | 4.72% | $858,375,000 | ||||
2009 | $451,382,000 | 52.91% | $361,080,000 | 42.33% | $40,579,000 | 4.76% | $853,041,000 |
2010 | $448,170,000 | 51.00% | $376,219,000 | 42.82% | $54,309,000 | 6.18% | $878,698,000 |
2011 | $445,595,000 | 51.99% | $334,813,000 | 39.06% | $76,726,000 | 8.95% | $857,134,000 |
2012 | $428,719,000 | 52.06% | $338,935,000 | 41.15% | $55,926,000 | 6.79% | $823,580,000 |
2013 | $448,457,000 | 53.26% | $339,822,000 | 40.36% | $53,795,000 | 6.39% | $842,074,000 |
Avg. | $367,476,667 | 53.32% | $289,540,048 | 42.42% | $31,365,810 | 4.26% | $688,382,524 |
The table below separates the district's expenditures into five categories identified by the agency:
Expenditures by Category | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fiscal Year |
Instruction | Support Services | Capital Spending | Debt & Gov. Payments | Other | Budget Total | |||||
Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget |
Click [show] on the right to display the expenditure data for prior years. | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1993 | $231,924,000 | 52.45% | $158,727,000 | 35.90% | $28,452,000 | 6.43% | $20,390,000 | 4.61% | $2,682,000 | 0.61% | $442,175,000 |
1994 | $225,064,000 | 43.97% | $158,355,000 | 30.94% | $95,793,000 | 18.72% | $29,726,000 | 5.81% | $2,885,000 | 0.56% | $511,823,000 |
1995 | $238,919,000 | 40.43% | $177,682,000 | 30.07% | $148,629,000 | 25.15% | $25,338,000 | 4.29% | $348,000 | 0.06% | $590,916,000 |
1996 | $261,594,000 | 45.99% | $151,444,000 | 26.63% | $124,532,000 | 21.89% | $24,423,000 | 4.29% | $6,783,000 | 1.19% | $568,776,000 |
1997 | $279,472,000 | 52.22% | $164,266,000 | 30.69% | $59,982,000 | 11.21% | $23,447,000 | 4.38% | $8,066,000 | 1.51% | $535,233,000 |
1998 | $276,773,000 | 45.09% | $277,004,000 | 45.12% | $28,755,000 | 4.68% | $22,013,000 | 3.59% | $9,330,000 | 1.52% | $613,875,000 |
1999 | $289,023,000 | 43.83% | $284,074,000 | 43.08% | $36,172,000 | 5.49% | $40,779,000 | 6.18% | $9,339,000 | 1.42% | $659,387,000 |
2000 | $294,197,000 | 37.59% | $299,492,000 | 38.27% | $143,065,000 | 18.28% | $36,396,000 | 4.65% | $9,472,000 | 1.21% | $782,622,000 |
2001 | $326,295,000 | 41.50% | $316,843,000 | 40.29% | $98,021,000 | 12.47% | $35,587,000 | 4.53% | $9,595,000 | 1.22% | $786,341,000 |
2002 | $349,189,000 | 43.50% | $329,328,000 | 41.03% | $78,690,000 | 9.80% | $33,600,000 | 4.19% | $11,854,000 | 1.48% | $802,661,000 |
2003 | $375,997,000 | 45.46% | $347,050,000 | 41.96% | $51,841,000 | 6.27% | $39,748,000 | 4.81% | $12,403,000 | 1.50% | $827,039,000 |
2004 | $361,616,000 | 46.79% | $320,961,000 | 41.53% | $46,529,000 | 6.02% | $31,069,000 | 4.02% | $12,672,000 | 1.64% | $772,847,000 |
2005 | $366,688,000 | 46.69% | $317,755,000 | 40.46% | $45,270,000 | 5.76% | $42,051,000 | 5.35% | $13,660,000 | 1.74% | $785,424,000 |
2006 | $385,478,000 | 44.43% | $331,280,000 | 38.18% | $94,601,000 | 10.90% | $41,775,000 | 4.81% | $14,508,000 | 1.67% | $867,642,000 |
2007 | $421,281,000 | 47.50% | $276,086,000 | 31.13% | $137,231,000 | 15.47% | $41,242,000 | 4.65% | $11,033,000 | 1.24% | $886,873,000 |
2008 | $421,576,000 | 47.82% | $281,019,000 | 31.87% | $127,281,000 | 14.44% | $39,850,000 | 4.52% | $11,916,000 | 1.35% | $881,642,000 |
2009 | $432,195,000 | 49.49% | $294,912,000 | 33.77% | $97,211,000 | 11.13% | $37,058,000 | 4.24% | $12,005,000 | 1.37% | $873,381,000 |
2010 | $444,277,000 | 49.83% | $307,690,000 | 34.51% | $58,155,000 | 6.52% | $69,081,000 | 7.75% | $12,434,000 | 1.39% | $891,637,000 |
2011 | $439,041,000 | 52.67% | $307,715,000 | 36.92% | $43,889,000 | 5.27% | $31,488,000 | 3.78% | $11,358,000 | 1.36% | $833,491,000 |
2012 | $416,885,000 | 52.74% | $296,589,000 | 37.52% | $39,187,000 | 4.96% | $27,115,000 | 3.43% | $10,696,000 | 1.35% | $790,472,000 |
2013 | $415,384,000 | 49.77% | $302,072,000 | 36.19% | $65,306,000 | 7.82% | $40,563,000 | 4.86% | $11,343,000 | 1.36% | $834,668,000 |
Avg. | $345,374,667 | 46.65% | $271,444,952 | 36.48% | $78,504,381 | 10.89% | $34,892,333 | 4.70% | $9,732,476 | 1.27% | $739,948,810 |
The table below shows the amount of debt retired, issued, and outstanding in the district for each year.
Debt | |||
---|---|---|---|
Fiscal Year |
Retired | Issued | Outstanding |
Click [show] on the right to display the debt data for prior years. | |||
---|---|---|---|
1993 | $4,780,000 | $325,000,000 | $449,015,000 |
1994 | $115,600,000 | $110,325,000 | $443,740,000 |
1995 | $12,671,000 | $111,880,000 | $471,963,000 |
1996 | $15,262,000 | $0 | $456,701,000 |
1997 | $16,440,000 | $0 | $440,261,000 |
1998 | $332,420,000 | $574,885,000 | $682,726,000 |
1999 | $49,498,000 | $0 | $633,228,000 |
2000 | $30,590,000 | $0 | $602,638,000 |
2001 | $27,780,000 | $0 | $570,929,000 |
2002 | $33,484,000 | $0 | $537,445,000 |
2003 | $86,495,000 | $57,857,000 | $508,807,000 |
2004 | $45,602,000 | $14,701,000 | $480,393,000 |
2005 | $145,849,000 | $390,276,000 | $724,820,000 |
2006 | $44,299,000 | $0 | $664,553,000 |
2007 | $51,722,000 | $105,470,000 | $718,301,000 |
2008 | $82,116,000 | $0 | $651,955,000 |
2009 | $49,950,000 | $0 | $609,570,000 |
2010 | $55,855,000 | $0 | $553,715,000 |
2011 | $57,150,000 | $0 | $502,790,000 |
2012 | $57,106,000 | $11,000 | $452,710,000 |
2013 | $43,688,000 | $116,865,000 | $525,887,000 |
Avg. | $64,683,667 | $86,060,476 | $556,292,714 |
The following salary information was pulled from the district's teacher salary schedule. A salary schedule is a list of expected compensations based on variables such as position, years employed, and education level. It may not reflect actual teacher salaries in the district.
Year | Minimum | Maximum |
---|---|---|
2020-2021[11] | $42,014 | $90,696 |
2019-2020[12] | $42,014 | $90,696 |
2018-2019[13] | $40,989 | $88,484 |
2017-2018[14] | $38,760 | $83,673 |
Each year, state and local education agencies use tests and other standards to assess student proficiency. Although the data below was published by the U.S. Department of Education, proficiency measurements are established by the states. As a result, proficiency levels are not comparable between different states and year-over-year proficiency levels within a district may not be comparable because states may change their proficiency measurements.[15]
The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:[16]
School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) |
Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) |
Two or More Races (%) |
White (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018-2019 | 41 | 58 | 17 | 21 | 20-24 | 43 | 48 |
2017-2018 | 42 | 58 | 18 | 21 | 25-29 | 42 | 49 |
2016-2017 | 40 | 55 | 19 | 21 | 20-24 | 41 | 48 |
2015-2016 | 40 | 56 | 18 | 21 | 20-24 | 42 | 47 |
2014-2015 | 39 | 53 | 15 | 20 | 20-24 | 39 | 45 |
2013-2014 | 63 | 75 | 33 | 43 | 41 | 63 | 70 |
2012-2013 | 63 | 75 | 36 | 44 | 45 | 64 | 70 |
2011-2012 | 62 | 74 | 35 | 44 | 43 | 62 | 69 |
2010-2011 | 88 | 92 | 70 | 78 | 79 | N/A | 91 |
The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:[16]
School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) |
Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) |
Two or More Races (%) |
White (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018-2019 | 54 | 65 | 32 | 34 | 25-29 | 56 | 61 |
2017-2018 | 51 | 62 | 30 | 32 | 30-34 | 52 | 59 |
2016-2017 | 49 | 60 | 28 | 31 | 30-34 | 52 | 56 |
2015-2016 | 46 | 57 | 25 | 28 | 25-29 | 50 | 53 |
2014-2015 | 49 | 58 | 30 | 29 | 32 | 51 | 56 |
2013-2014 | 76 | 81 | 57 | 60 | 62 | 78 | 83 |
2012-2013 | 77 | 81 | 57 | 61 | 63 | 80 | 83 |
2011-2012 | 76 | 79 | 57 | 60 | 62 | 79 | 82 |
2010-2011 | 94 | 94 | 85 | 88 | 89 | N/A | 96 |
The following table shows the graduation rate of district students each school year:[16][17]
School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) |
Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) |
Two or More Races (%) |
White (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017-2018 | 85 | ≥95 | 70-74 | 76 | 70-79 | 90-94 | 88 |
2016-2017 | 83 | 90-94 | 75-79 | 75 | 70-79 | 80-84 | 86 |
2015-2016 | 83 | 90-94 | 75-79 | 75 | 60-69 | 85-89 | 85 |
2014-2015 | 83 | 90-94 | 80-84 | 74 | 80-89 | 85-89 | 85 |
2013-2014 | 83 | 90-94 | 70-74 | 74 | 70-79 | 80-84 | 86 |
2012-2013 | 81 | 90-94 | 65-69 | 71 | 65-69 | 80-84 | 85 |
2011-2012 | 81 | 90-94 | 70-74 | 69 | 65-69 | 80-84 | 85 |
2010-2011 | 79 | 85-89 | 70-74 | 65 | 60-69 | N/A | 83 |
Year[18] | Enrollment | Year-to-year change (%) |
---|---|---|
2018-2019 | 84,631 | -1.7 |
2017-2018 | 86,131 | -0.3 |
2016-2017 | 86,361 | -0.4 |
2015-2016 | 86,721 | 0.2 |
2014-2015 | 86,571 | 0.7 |
2013-2014 | 86,011 | 0.5 |
2012-2013 | 85,542 | -0.3 |
2011-2012 | 85,793 | -0.2 |
2010-2011 | 85,971 | -0.4 |
2009-2010 | 86,282 | 0.5 |
2008-2009 | 85,876 | -0.3 |
2007-2008 | 86,168 | 0.0 |
2006-2007 | 86,154 | -0.2 |
2005-2006 | 86,332 | -0.6 |
2004-2005 | 86,868 | -0.3 |
2003-2004 | 87,172 | -0.9 |
2002-2003 | 87,925 | -0.6 |
2001-2002 | 88,437 | 0.8 |
2000-2001 | 87,703 | -1.0 |
1999-2000 | 88,579 | -0.1 |
1998-1999 | 88,654 | 0.7 |
1997-1998 | 88,006 | 1.5 |
1996-1997 | 86,670 | 1.5 |
1995-1996 | 85,392 | 1.6 |
1994-1995 | 84,018 | 1.5 |
1993-1994 | 82,760 | 1.8 |
1992-1993 | 81,311 | 2.6 |
1991-1992 | 79,244 | 3.9 |
1990-1991 | 76,275 | 1.5 |
1989-1990 | 75,164 | -0.2 |
1988-1989 | 75,316 | 0.0 |
1987-1988 | 75,337 | -0.5 |
1986-1987 | 75,745 | - |
During the 2018-2019 school year, 31.0% of the district's students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 5.8% were English language learners.[20][21]
Racial Demographics, 2018-2019 | ||
---|---|---|
Race | Jeffco Public Schools (%) | Colorado K-12 students (%) |
American Indian/Alaska Native | 0.7 | 0.7 |
Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander | 3.1 | 3.2 |
Black | 1.3 | 4.5 |
Hispanic | 22.9 | 33.6 |
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | N/A | 0.3 |
Two or More Races | 4.0 | 4.4 |
White | 67.8 | 53.4 |
Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.
The Jeffco Board of Education unanimously appointed Dr. Jason Glass as superintendent of the district on May 16, 2017. He started serving in the role on July 1, 2017.[2]
Glass replaced former Superintendent Dan McMinimee, who served the district from May 2014 to March 2017. He continued to serve in an advisory role in the district until June 30, 2017, while Terry Elliott served as interim superintendent until Glass took over the position. McMinimee transitioned to the advisory role as part of a mutual agreement with the board. His contract was adjusted so that he could serve the district in the new role until it expired on June 30, 2017.[22]
Prior to the November 2015 general and recall elections, the governing majority of the Jeffco Board of Education was John Newkirk, Julie Williams and Ken Witt, who ran together and won as a conservative slate in the 2013 school board election. Lesley Dahlkemper and Jill Fellman were the minority bloc on the board.[23] All new members were elected to the board on November 3, 2015.[24]
Along with the general election, a recall election for three of the district's five board members was on the ballot on November 3, 2015. District 1 representative Julie Williams, District 2 representative John Newkirk, and District 5 representative Ken Witt, the former majority bloc on the board, were named in the recall petitions.[25] All three members were successfully recalled.[24]
District 3 candidate Ali Lasell and District 4 candidate Amanda Stevens came out in support of the recall. They ran as a slate with three candidates who sought to replace the board members included in the recall effort. Brad Rupert ran for Williams' seat, Susan Harmon ran to unseat Newkirk, and Ron Mitchell sought Witt's seat.[26] Rupert, Harmon and Mitchell, all members of the Clean Slate, were elected to replace the recalled board members.[24]
Kim Johnson and Tori Merritts, who ran against Lasell and Stevens in District 3 and 4, respectively, did not support the recall. Johnson said the recall “increases the level of influence of special interest groups in politics.”[26]
Ballotpedia's Senior Elections Analyst, Brittany Clingen, recaps the results of the historic Jeffco Public Schools elections and recall elections. |
A group called Jeffco United for Action filed the petitions against Williams, Witt, and Newkirk in the summer of 2015. All three members said they had no intentions of resigning from the board.[27] Jeffco United for Action filed more than double the number of signatures needed to put the recall on the ballot. "Everybody's really worried about the direction that JeffCo Schools is headed in and this is their answer to helping stop that change that isn't good change," said campaign organizer Lynea Hansen.[28]
Jeffco United for Action accused the three board members of attempting to censor AP U.S. history classes, pushing out over 700 district educators due to their new policies, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars, violating open meeting laws, limiting public input at board meetings, bullying students and parents, and releasing private student information without consent.[29] In response, all three board members stated that their policies raised teacher salaries, made union negotiations transparent, provided free full-day kindergarten to families in need, and brought greater equality in how the district funded its schools.[30]
The AP U.S. History curriculum was revised for the 2014-2015 school year by the College Board, which develops and administers the Advanced Placement exams. The changes concerned board member Julie Williams. “It’s our constitutional obligation to look at what we are teaching our kids,” Williams said. “The college board owns that framework. I only wanted to review it. It’s important for parents, community members and our stakeholders to see what we are teaching students.”[31] Williams proposed the creation of a nine-member "Board Committee for Curriculum Review" in a special meeting of the board on September 18, 2014. Her proposal described the purpose of the committee as follows:
“ |
The charge to the committee is to review curricular choices for conformity to JeffCo academic standards, accuracy and omissions, and to inform the board of any objectionable materials. The committee shall regularly review texts and curriculum according to priorities that it establishes, however, at any time, the Board may add items to the list for review. The committee shall report all comments (majority and minority) to the board in writing on a weekly basis as items are reviewed. Board members may move for discussion or action on items reported when matters warrant public discussion or action. The committee’s initial projects will be a review of the AP US History curriculum and elementary health curriculum. Review criteria shall include the following: instructional materials should present the most current factual information accurately and objectively. Theories should be distinguished from fact. Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage. Content pertaining to political and social movements in history should present balanced and factual treatment of the positions.[9] |
” |
—Julie Williams (2014)[32] |
Williams also suggested that each board member be allowed to nominate three candidates for the committee and that the board as a whole then vote on which nine people to appoint. In that same meeting, board member John Newkirk submitted a revised draft of the proposal reducing the number of nominees to two candidates per member, removing the elementary health curriculum as an initial project, and eliminating the second paragraph of the original proposal. This limited the committee's initial projects to only a review of the Advanced Placement U.S. History curriculum. The board delayed voting on the initial proposals during the meeting. [33]
In an interview with The Denver Post, board member Lesley Dahlkemper stated she was troubled by the proposal, saying, "It's unclear to me what problem this resolution is attempting to solve—other than pushing through a political agenda."[23]
In the week following the board meeting, teachers and students began protesting the proposals, arguing they would censor student's history education.[34] On September 22, 2014, Evergreen High School students protested Williams' proposal by staging a walkout from their classes.[35] The next day, hundreds of district students from at least five different high schools staged similar walkouts.[36][37] Jack Shefrin, one of the students involved in organizing the protest, stated that the protests were entirely the work of students. An article by The Denver Post noted that several students attending the protests had been told by their teachers that they would not be punished for leaving their classes.[38]
In response to walkouts by students and teachers in the district, board president Ken Witt criticized the protests. He stated, "It is never OK to use kids as pawns, and it’s exactly what I think is happening here. And I’m disappointed in the actors in this — the union message coming down through the teachers to get kids to deliberately get out and protest something they don’t have any facts about whatsoever."[23]
Jefferson County Education Association President John Ford characterized Witt's claim that students were being misled by their teachers on the debate as insulting. Ford added that the board committee would be redundant due to the existence of the resource review committee, which included both residents and educators appointed by the district's chief academic officer.[23][39]
A group of roughly 20 students responded to Witt's accusation of being pawns of the teacher's union at the school board meeting on November 6, 2014. The students protested the curriculum review by interrupting the meeting. In addition to 12 students reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, approximately 10 students stood up and read about prominent civil disobedience figures from history. According to Chalkbeat Colorado, the students made the following demands of the board: "a public apology from the school board’s conservative majority for referring to students as 'union pawns;' a reversal of an earlier decision to amend content review policies; proof from the board that they listen and act on community input instead of what students called an 'ideological' agenda; and more resources for classroom instruction." The students left together without any arrests being made.[40]
The AP U.S. History curriculum was revised for the 2014-2015 school year by the College Board, which develops and administers the Advanced Placement exams. Discussions and proposals in response to changes to the AP U.S. history curriculum were not limited to Jeffco Public Schools. The New Hanover County Board of Education in North Carolina objected to the curriculum at an August 2014 board meeting. Additionally, criticism has been an issue for state boards of education in Texas, South Carolina and Alabama.[41][42][43]
The College Board issued a general statement in response to its critics. "At the root of current objections to this highly regarded process is a blatant disregard for the facts. Despite the principled engagement and unwavering cooperation of the College Board in addressing concerns, the most vocal critics have prioritized their own agenda above the best interests of teachers, students, and their families."[44][45]
On September 26, 2014, the College Board issued a statement in support of Jeffco Public Schools student and teacher who were protesting the proposed curriculum review committee. It said, "These students recognize that the social order can—and sometimes must—be disrupted in the pursuit of liberty and justice."[46]
In a meeting on October 2, 2014, the board voted 3-2 to revise the district's procedures for handling curriculum reviews using a compromise proposal developed by Superintendent Dan McMinimee. Williams, Newkirk, and Witt voted in favor of the proposal and both Dahlkemper and Fellman voted against it. The approved proposal did not specifically refer to the AP U.S. History course or order a review of its curriculum.[47] According to The Denver Post, the plan "would reorganize existing curriculum review groups in the district to involve more student, teacher and community voices." Reporter John Aguilar noted that Dahlkemper and Fellman did not say they were opposed to McMinimee's compromise but that they wanted more time to review the proposal.[48]
On July 30, 2015, the College Board announced that it had reviewed the AP history curriculum and made updates to the existing guidelines. According to the College Board, the resulting framework "is a clearer and more balanced approach to the teaching of American history that remains faithful to the requirements that colleges and universities set for academic credit."[49]
According to the College Board's website, the areas that received the greatest attention as a result of public commentary were as follows:[49]
“ |
|
” |
—College Board (July 30, 2015)[49] |
Williams told the local media outlet The Complete Colorado that she was pleased with the changes. "It shows what was missing and what needed to be added back," she said.[31]
Prior to Julie Williams' curriculum committee review proposal, district teachers were considering staging a sickout in protest of the district's teacher evaluations being used to implement a merit pay systems. A sickout is a form of protest that involves teachers calling in sick the night before a school day in order to make it more difficult for administrators to find substitute instructors.
Negotiations between the school board and the Jefferson County Education Association over teacher salaries were deadlocked in the first half of 2014, leading to the union and the board hiring a third party to review the issues stalling the negotiation. At the center of the stalemate was the proposal to tie salary increases to a four-step teacher evaluation system: highly effective, effective, partially effective, and ineffective. The teacher's union argued that teachers with a rating of partially effective or above should move up one step in the salary schedule; the district argued that teachers with a rating of effective or above should move up one step.[50]
The third-party review, published on August 26, 2014, said the teacher evaluation system was unreliable and recommended that the district give a step increase to teachers rated as partially effective until the evaluation system became more reliable.[50]
The school board did not implement the recommendation. Instead, the board approved a new pay system that granted a 4.25 percent raise to teachers who were rated highly effective, a 2.43 percent raise to teachers who were rated effective, and a 1 percent raise to probationary teachers who were rated partially effective. The plan also raised the minimum salary for all teachers to $38,000. A press release outlining the plan was published by the district on September 5, 2014, and stated, "Recognizing that Jeffco teachers took salary reductions and furlough days in the last few years, the board felt that this plan would benefit more teachers than a traditional 'step' increase."[51]
In response, district teachers planned a sickout that forced the closure of two high schools on September 19, 2014. A second teacher sickout occurred on September 29, 2014, also resulting in the closure of two schools. After the second sickout, Superintendent Dan McMinimee announced that he was considering disciplinary action for the teachers involved. McMinimee indicated that teachers were violating district policy and their collective bargaining agreement by not giving sufficient notice for their personal days. Although the exact form the discipline was not certain, he suggested that the teachers involved might lose a day's worth of pay.[52]
Prior to his appointment, Superintendent Dan McMinimee served as an assistant superintendent with the Douglas County School District (DCSD) in Colorado. The Jeffco school board voted 3-2 in favor of his appointment in May 2014, with Williams, Newkirk and Witt in favor and Dahlkemper and Fellman opposed.[53]
Reactions to McMinimee's hiring were mixed due to his background with the DCSD, whose conservative school board implemented school choice and eliminated collective bargaining.[54][55][56]
At the time of his appointment, some community members voiced concerns that the new superintendent would bring reforms in the vein of DCSD to Jeffco Public Schools. According to The Denver Post, "Most of the commentary from the public trended against McMinimee" during the board meeting where he was officially hired.[57][58] Board member John Newkirk defended McMinimee from these claims, stating "The fact he was at Douglas County for years and then for years after this new board (was elected in Douglas County) demonstrates he can work with a wide variety of constituents."[59]
After 12 years as the district superintendent, Cindy Stevenson announced plans to resign from the district shortly after the 2013 school board election. Stevenson left the district to work with the Colorado Association of School Executives. During a board meeting on February 8, 2013, the outgoing superintendent noted that the board at the time wanted changes in district leadership and she felt a lack of respect from new board members John Newkirk, Julie Williams and Ken Witt.[60]
Stevenson's speech drew cheers from supporters in the audience and boos for board members. Williams countered that Stevenson had not attempted to work with the board, citing her intention to leave the district shortly after the election. The board worked with district officials to handle day-to-day affairs through the remainder of the school year rather than appointing an interim superintendent. They later appointed Dan McMinimee as the new superintendent.[61]
Jeffco Public Schools
1829 Denver West Dr. #27
Golden, CO 80401
Phone: 303-982-6500
Colorado | School Board Elections | News and Analysis |
---|---|---|
|
<ref>
tag; name "glass" defined multiple times with different content
State of Colorado Denver (capital) | |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |