Superintendent Kirsten Rue presented an initial reading of a proposed Reduction in Force (RIF) resolution for board review. This resolution, which covers both certificated and classified staff, is being brought forward for formal consideration at the next scheduled board meeting.

Superintendent Rue emphasized that while the administration remains hopeful that staff reductions can be avoided, the resolution serves as a necessary contingency plan. The primary driver for this measure is uncertainty regarding the state budget, specifically the potential elimination of Transitional Kindergarten funding. If these state-level funding cuts are realized, the district anticipates the RIF resolution will be required to maintain fiscal stability.

Board Chair Hefton asked if there was any discussion or questions regarding this?

No further discussion was had, and she stated that's for our information, and it'll come back to us at our regular meeting for approval.

Superintendent Rue introduced a proposal to implement a $10 art fee for the upcoming school year to support a more robust visual arts program. Developed in collaboration with art teacher Mr. Fleming, the initiative aims to move the program away from a reliance on unpredictable grant funding and ensure students have the high-quality materials necessary for the curriculum to succeed.

The proposal addresses the district’s current deficit in Materials, Supplies, and Operating Costs (MSOCs) through two distinct models:

Elementary Level: Students will receive a "Griffin Art Kit" for use in the classroom throughout the year. At the conclusion of the school year, students will be permitted to take the kit home.

Middle School Level: The fee will subsidize the higher-level supplies required for age-appropriate, advanced projects. These finished works of art will also be taken home by the students.

While acknowledging a general reluctance to add student fees, Superintendent Rue noted that this structured approach ensures all students have access to the tools needed for a high-level artistic experience while offsetting rising supply costs. In accordance with state law, the district will establish a plan to waive or cover fees for all families who qualify for free and reduced-price meals. This recommendation will be brought to the board for formal approval at the School Board Meeting February 25, 2026.

Following the initial proposal, the Board discussed the implementation details and long-term sustainability of the $10 art fee and associated supply kits.

Superintendent Rue clarified that because art is a required component of the elementary curriculum, the fee would apply to all elementary students. In contrast, middle school students would only assessed the fee during years they are enrolled in an art elective.

Director Rose questioned regarding environmental sustainability and the potential for waste if students receive a new kit every year. Key points of the discussion included:

- Reuse vs. Replenishment: Director Rose suggested exploring a system where durable items (such as pouches) could be reused and only consumables replenished to reduce waste and potentially lower costs.

-Organizational Constraints: Superintendent Rue noted that art teacher Eric Fleming is designing the kits with specific dimensions to allow for labeled, organized storage within the classroom.

-Administrative Burden: Director Hefton and Director Rose noted that a tiered replenishment system—tracking which items individual students return versus what needs replacing—could create an "administrative nightmare" that outweighs the cost savings, given that the $10 fee already only partially covers the total cost of materials.

The Board reaffirmed that the district will clearly communicate and ensure that fees are covered for any student in need. Superintendent Rue committed to consulting with Mr. Fleming to review the feedback regarding sustainability while maintaining an efficient organizational system for the classroom.

Superintendent Rue provided an update on the upcoming Choice Transfer process, which is scheduled to open in mid-March. The presentation highlighted the timeline for applications and the significant impact transfer students have on the district’s health and programming.

Early Bird Window: The district will accept applications between March 15 and April 30.

Prioritization: All applications are timestamped upon receipt. The first round of acceptance notifications will be issued to families who apply within this initial window.

Superintendent Rue reiterated that transfer students are vital to the district's ability to maintain high-quality programming for all students. Key data points included:

-Enrollment: Over 20% of the current Griffin student body consists of transfer students.

-Fiscal Impact: Rather than creating a financial burden, these students contribute over $1.5 million to the district budget. This funding is essential for delivering robust programming that benefits both resident and non-resident students.

The district is working to enhance the onboarding experience for incoming students, particularly at the Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and Kindergarten levels:

-Child Find Participation: Teachers will be released from standard duties to attend Child Find meetings, allowing them to connect with incoming transfer students early in the process.

-Engagement: New applicants will be invited to "meet and greet" sessions to foster a welcoming transition into the district.

In response to an inquiry from Director Hefton regarding the criteria for declining a transfer request, Superintendent Rue outlined the specific conditions under which the district may deny an application. These grounds are aligned with both district policy and state law. The district may decline a Choice Transfer application if any of the following conditions are met:

-Financial Hardship: If the student’s enrollment would create an undue financial burden on the district.

-Program Availability: If the district does not currently offer the specific educational programming or specialized services required by the student.

-Disciplinary History: If the applicant has a documented history of violent, disruptive, or gang-related behavior at a previous school.

-Suspension/Expelled Status: If the student has a record of expulsion or a suspension lasting more than 10 consecutive days.

Superintendent Rue noted that these parameters ensure the district can maintain a safe and fiscally responsible learning environment for all students.

The Superintendent confirmed that the district denies transfer requests when a specific grade level or course section has reached its maximum capacity. The primary goal is to accommodate students without creating unnecessary "overloads" or requiring additional staffing.

Current Grade-Level Trends: 

-7th Grade: This remains a uniquely large cohort, resulting in existing overloads that limit further transfer opportunities.

-3rd Grade: Although the total number of students is smaller, capacity is constrained because the grade level currently only operates with two sections (teachers).

Superintendent Rue noted that each transfer request is carefully vetted against these specific class-size and scheduling limits to ensure a balanced learning environment for all students.

Superintendent Rue addressed an inquiry from Director Rose regarding the potential for transfer students to incur higher-than-average costs for the district. She clarified that this was not the case, noting that the district maintained the right to decline transfers if the required programming was unavailable or if the district had reached capacity. She explained the careful fiscal analysis used when evaluating transfer applications:

-Cost-Benefit Analysis: She noted that she and Principal Keiser would occasionally approve a transfer even if it resulted in a teacher overload (overage). This decision was based on whether the revenue generated by the student significantly outweighed the cost of the overload stipend.

-Specialized Services: Acceptance was contingent on the student not requiring expensive specialized services that the district could not currently provide.

Ultimately, Superintendent Rue stated that she was comfortable with minor overloads in situations where the student’s enrollment remained fiscally advantageous for the district.

AI Subcommittee Presentation

Assistant Principal Hagen presented the findings and recommendations of the AI Subcommittee, which was established at the request of Superintendent Rue. The subcommittee, composed of Hagen, Kyle Nixon, and Anneka Brown, was tasked with researching school data storage systems and secure AI platforms to replace the current Panorama suite.

The subcommittee’s research focused on finding secure, "closed" AI systems to ensure data privacy and digital citizenship. AI access had previously been disabled across the district pending this security review. The team evaluated vendor proposals, stakeholder feedback, and educational research to identify systems that would reduce the manual labor currently required for data entry and reporting.

The subcommittee recommended implementing two targeted systems rather than renewing the full Panorama suite:

1. Homeroom (SchoolData.net): A data storage and MTSS (Multi-Tiered Systems of Support) reporting tool.

-Features: Automated nightly syncing with Skyward and Clever; centralized "Whole Child" dashboards (attendance, behavior, academics); and an early warning system to flag students for intervention.

-Compliance: Includes custom reporting for state compliance and specialized screenings, such as dyslexia.

2. School AI: A secure, closed AI platform designed exclusively for K-12 education.

-Security: Features automated data scrubbing to ensure FERPA and COPPA compliance.

-Educator Tools: Provides modules for lesson planning, differentiation, and IEP/504 support to save teacher time.

-Policy Support: The company assists in drafting district Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) for AI.

-Survey Integration: Includes a "Spaces" feature for customized climate surveys, eliminating the need for a separate, paid survey platform.

The subcommittee emphasized that these recommendations align with the district’s goal of strong fiscal stewardship. They proposed a potential start date in March or April. The transition would move the district away from manual spreadsheets—which currently require significant labor for nearly 600 students—to automated, real-time data tracking.

Superintendent Rue followed the subcommittee’s presentation with an administrative analysis of the district's current three-year partnership with Panorama. She requested board guidance regarding future expectations for climate and Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) surveys, specifically focusing on fiscal responsibility and data accuracy. Superintendent Rue noted several limitations with the existing Panorama suite:

-Cost vs. Value: The current cost is approximately $10,000 per year solely for survey capabilities. The Superintendent characterized the platform as "fairly overpriced" relative to the district's actual needs.

-Lack of Customization: Panorama does not allow for customized survey questions, which limits the district's ability to target specific local concerns or align surveys with the Griffin Strategic Plan.

-Inaccurate Norming: Survey results for the middle school are currently normed against a Grades 6–12 bracket. This compares Griffin’s middle schoolers to high school students, which the administration identified as an ineffective and potentially misleading metric.

The Superintendent presented two potential paths forward to improve fiscal stewardship:

-Strategic Survey Design: Using the previously mentioned School AI platform to create targeted, customized survey "spaces" driven by the district’s Strategic Plan. This would be a significantly more cost-effective option.

-Regional Partnerships: Exploring a Washington-based company that offers survey services at roughly half the cost of Panorama, noting that Homeroom is also a local Washington vendor.

Superintendent Rue asked the Board for their "navigational beacons" regarding these changes. She acknowledged that moving away from Panorama would mean:

-Moving away from a research-based system adopted three years ago.

-The necessity of establishing new data baselines, as changing systems would make it difficult to compare new results directly with the past three years of Panorama data.

The Superintendent concluded by reiterating her commitment to making fiscally responsible decisions without disrupting the Board’s long-term data goals or unexpectedly removing established systems.

Director Osterberg responded to the Superintendent’s analysis by seeking clarification on the logistics and potential "pain points" of transitioning between data systems. Her inquiry focused on three primary areas.

Director Osterberg questioned what might be lost during a migration and whether the district could maintain a meaningful comparison between historical Panorama data and new data generated by a different system. She expressed a desire to ensure the district would not have to "turn its back" on previous insights, but rather find a way to make sense of existing data within a new framework. While acknowledging the risks of changing systems, Director Osterberg noted that the proposed alternatives appeared to offer superior tools, increased options, and a more favorable cost structure.

Superintendent Rue clarified that the proposed Homeroom system served a fundamentally different purpose than the district’s current manual processes. She noted that staff members were currently spending excessive time aggregating data into spreadsheets, which was an inefficient use of personnel. By the time data was collected and sorted, the opportunity to implement timely student interventions was often lost.

The Superintendent stated that moving toward an automated system like Homeroom was a necessary investment in efficiency. She emphasized that this transition was particularly critical given upcoming changes to special education laws effective in 2028. Under these new regulations, any special education referral will require documented evidence of prior interventions attempted through a high-functioning Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS).

Consequently, Superintendent Rue argued that the district must establish a robust and efficient MTSS framework now to ensure legal compliance and better student outcomes well before the 2028 deadline.

Assistant Principal Hagen provided additional context regarding the potential cost of retaining Panorama for survey purposes only. She noted that even if the district chose to maintain Panorama for surveys while simultaneously adopting the other two proposed programs (Homeroom and School AI), the combined cost of all three specialized systems would still be lower than the total price of the full Panorama suite.

While she acknowledged that managing three separate platforms would be slightly less convenient than a single-suite solution, the overall financial savings and improved functionality would be significant.

Director Osterberg requested further clarification on the operational structure and costs associated with the proposed systems. Assistant Principal Hagen explained that Homeroom functions as a centralized "data warehouse," but its primary value lies in its ability to communicate across the district’s existing digital infrastructure.

Assistant Principal Hagen highlighted that Homeroom utilizes the Clever single sign-on platform to bridge various data sources. Because students and teachers already use Clever to access curricula like iReady, Homeroom can automatically pull that information into a single, accessible location. In addition to classroom-level data, the system is designed to integrate the following:

-State Testing: Homeroom automatically imports SBAC data directly from the state.

-Behavioral Tracking: The vendor committed to building a custom integration for the district's PBIS Rewards program. This ensures that behavioral data is housed alongside academic and attendance records for a complete view of student progress.

By automating these connections, the district moves away from manual data entry and ensures that all information—from state scores to daily behavior—is synchronized nightly without additional staff labor.

Technology Coordinator Kyle Nixon provided further technical detail regarding the integration of behavioral data into the new system. He explained that the district would maintain flexibility in how information from PBIS Rewards is transferred into the Homeroom data warehouse.

Initially, the process would likely involve a CSV file export and upload, which could be managed manually a few times a week or nightly to ensure data remains current. However, Nixon noted that the vendor has the capability to build a more sophisticated backend integration. This development would automate the data transfer, further reducing the administrative burden on staff and ensuring that behavioral insights are synchronized with academic records without manual intervention.

Director Rose requested clarification on whether the integration of behavioral data would still require human intervention. Mr. Nixon stated for PBIS, they don't have a current integration.

Assistant Principal Hagen clarified that the backend integration of behavioral data would not incur an additional cost beyond the initial agreement. While the setup requires a brief period of manual processing to finalize the connection, the vendor’s support for this integration is included in the base pricing.

Financial Breakdown for Homeroom (SchoolData.net)

-Year One Setup: $3,000 (covers initial setup and backend integrations).

-Annual Licensing: $4,000.

-Annual Maintenance: $1,500.

Assistant Principal Hagen also detailed the benefits of the School AI platform, noting that it was the most cost-effective option researched by the subcommittee.

-Support Model: Extensive professional development and technical support are built into the base price, a feature that distinguishes it from other vendors who charge extra for these services.

-Licensing Structure: While licensing is calculated per student, the system remains teacher-focused. Educators will have a dedicated, forward-facing interface to manage student interactions, lesson planning, and AI-driven data insights.

Librarian Anneka Brown provided a detailed explanation of the administrative  controls within the School AI platform. She compared the system's structure to Google Classroom, emphasizing that it is designed to provide a safe, supervised environment rather than unrestricted access to artificial intelligence.

Regarding account management, Brown noted that students do not create independent accounts. Instead, access is managed entirely through teacher accounts. Educators add students to their digital classroom environment, which maintains central oversight.

This structure prevents students from having free-range access to AI. The system is designed so that AI interaction only occurs within the parameters of specific assignments or modules initiated by the teacher. This allows educators to directly control how the technology is utilized during instructional time, ensuring that AI use remains focused on specific learning objectives and ethical digital citizenship.

Assistant Principal Hagen highlighted the built-in safeguards of School AI, distinguishing it from general-use platforms like ChatGPT. She noted that because the system was designed specifically for education, it effectively redirected students toward academic integrity. For instance, if a student prompted the AI to write an essay for them, the system would flag the attempt and decline the request. Instead of completing the work, the AI would offer to assist the student with an outline based on their existing research.

These security features provide teachers with real-time oversight and ensure that the AI acts as a tutor rather than a shortcut. Unlike non-secure, public AI models, School AI operates within a secure environment tailored for K-12 needs.

Regarding the cost of this platform, Erin Hagen confirmed the following:

-Per-Student Cost: $4.50 annually.

-Security Standards: The platform maintains closed security to ensure data is not shared with the broader world, unlike public-facing AI models.

Technology Coordinator Kyle Nixon explained the financial and strategic reasoning behind the subcommittee’s proposed timeline. He provided the Board with two distinct budget scenarios: one for a standard rollout starting the following academic year, and another for an immediate start in March.

The subcommittee specifically requested prorated pricing and discounts from the vendors to allow for a soft launch during the current school year. The administration's goal in "jumping in now" was to provide staff with an introductory period to explore the platforms. By allowing teachers and administrators to familiarize themselves with the tools in a low-stakes environment this spring, the district could conduct more targeted and meaningful professional development sessions in August.

Kyle Nixon emphasized that this proactive approach would ensure that the district is fully operational and efficient by the start of the new school year, rather than spending the first few weeks of the term troubleshooting and learning the basic interface.

Director Hefton questioned whether the subcommittee had researched the programs currently used by Capital High School. She emphasized the importance of ensuring a smooth transition for Griffin students moving to the high school level and asked if the administration had considered how the proposed systems might impact that continuity.

Superintendent Rue responded to Director Hefton’s inquiry regarding high school alignment. She confirmed that she had held a private discussion with the secondary Assistant Superintendent from OSD to assess their current stance on artificial intelligence.

Superintendent Rue reported that OSD has not yet "bought into" or implemented any specific school-based AI platforms. Consequently, while Griffin would be moving forward with its own secure system, there is currently no specific high school model to align with, as their administration has not yet formalized a choice in this area.

Superintendent Rue noted that based on her attendance at AI-focused events and conversations with other district leaders, School AI is rapidly gaining traction as a preferred, secure solution for schools.

Director Rose pivoted the discussion back to the district’s survey strategy, expressing a desire to simplify the transition and protect the historical data momentum gained through Panorama. She acknowledged that while Panorama has been a crucial tool for understanding school climate over time, the district needs to ensure they aren't starting from scratch when switching systems.

Superintendent Rue framed the transition as a strategic shift toward more modern and meaningful data analysis rather than a simple cost-saving measure. She noted that while Panorama has been the "Cadillac" of survey systems, many districts were shifting toward AI tools to support their data needs. She observed that the district was currently paying approximately $10,000 annually for Panorama features that were not being fully utilized.

The Superintendent highlighted the benefits of AI-integrated platforms, specifically the ability to process qualitative data. She recalled how the district used similar tools during its strategic planning to analyze large volumes of written feedback for specific themes. She argued that moving beyond quantitative "multiple choice" answers to analyze student and staff sentiment through natural language would provide more depth to district insights.

Ms. Rue expressed strong hesitation regarding Panorama’s typical three-year contract commitment. Given the rapid pace of technological change, she stated that locking the district into a long-term, high-cost contract was likely not a fiscally sound move. She questioned the necessity of a single "umbrella" suite, suggesting that several specialized, lower-cost tools could provide the same quality of product for less money.

For board members committed to research-based climate surveys, she proposed the Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE) as a viable Washington-based alternative. She noted that while the first-year setup cost would be comparable to Panorama, the annual fee thereafter would be roughly 50% less.

Superintendent Rue concluded by stating she intended to recommend these shifts, though she welcomed further feedback from the Board. She acknowledged that climate data was a high priority when she was hired and emphasized that the goal was to maintain that focus while improving efficiency and modernizing the district's toolkit.

Director Rose clarified that the district's goal of collecting climate data was more important than the specific tool used, especially given current fiscal realities. Her main concern was how to "bridge" legacy Panorama data to a new system to avoid starting from scratch.

While she noted that a lack of direct continuity wouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker, she urged the administration to ask vendors for strategies to migrate or benchmark previous datasets. She emphasized that having a clear plan for this transition was essential for the Board to continue interpreting district progress meaningfully.

Director Rose shifted the discussion toward the specific features of School AI, expressing a need for caution despite the platform's potential. She acknowledged the speed of the current technological paradigm shift but raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of AI for certain age groups.

Director Rose noted that while School AI includes a student-facing component, early research suggested that AI exposure may not be beneficial for elementary-aged students. She urged the administration to be "gut-level" thoughtful about implementation, noting that even for middle schoolers, strict guardrails are necessary. While she appreciated that the platform was designed specifically for education, she cautioned that the history of educational technology is "fraught" with systems designed to make themselves indispensable or difficult to leave.

She addressed the impact of AI on professional staff. She cited recent studies indicating that while AI can initially increase efficiency, it often leads to an over-reliance on the tools and eventually "fuller plates" as the capacity for more work increases.

Technology Coordinator Kyle Nixon addressed Director Rose’s concerns by highlighting the restrictive access controls within School AI. He explained that the platform’s design allowed elementary teachers to utilize AI for professional collaboration and lesson planning without ever granting students access to the technology.

Nixon emphasized that the system did not function as an open app that students could independently launch; instead, student interaction was only possible if a teacher intentionally shared a specific entry point, such as a link through Google Classroom. This structure ensured that educators remained the gatekeepers of the technology, allowing them to benefit from administrative efficiencies while keeping the student experience traditional. He noted that the vendor was being exceptionally mindful, vetting every step of their development before expanding any student-facing features.

Director Rose acknowledged the diverse attitudes among staff regarding new technology, noting that while some educators were eager to experiment with AI, others remained hesitant or preferred not to use these tools at all.

Kyle Nixon shared that the subcommittee had already conducted a preliminary survey of district staff to gauge their readiness and current engagement with AI. The survey consisted of approximately a dozen targeted questions designed to map the district's internal landscape.

Director Rose warned against a fragmented adoption of AI, noting that a "patchwork" of varying classroom policies would be confusing for students. She emphasized that student expectations should not depend solely on an individual teacher's personal comfort level with technology.

Assistant Principal Hagen clarified the distinction between establishing administrative guidelines and formal board policy regarding AI. She noted that because the technology was changing so rapidly, it would be impractical to rely solely on board policies that required frequent, formal votes throughout the year.

Director Osterberg asked for clarification if students had access to AI right now. Mrs. Hagen confirmed only the Future Tech class did, and Mr. Nixon commented that it is very limited.

Superintendent Rue provided a brief overview of proposed revisions to Policy 1310, specifically highlighting a new paragraph regarding policy implementation. These updates originated from WSSDA recommendations and served as necessary cross-references to the extensive policy updates the Board approved in December and January.

Ms. Rue explained that the amendment explicitly required all district procedures to prioritize student safety, privacy, and access to basic education. She noted that these changes were prompted by the rapid pace of global and technological shifts, ensuring the district's foundational governance remained focused on protecting student interests regardless of external changes.

Policy 1310 will be on the agenda for a voted update on February 25, 2026.

Superintendent Rue presented proposed updates to Policy 2104, which governs federal and state-funded special instructional programs. She noted that the current policy had not been significantly revised since 2000 and required alignment with modern WSSDA recommendations. Rue specifically questioned the efficiency of a legacy requirement stating that formal Board approval must be obtained before the district can submit applications for funding, such as Title I or LAP grants.

Suggesting that this requirement could create unnecessary delays in securing supplemental funds, Rue proposed eliminating or modifying the sentence to streamline the application process. She asked the Board for feedback on whether they preferred to maintain this strict approval authority or if they would find it more efficient to be notified of applications after the fact, ensuring that grant-seeking efforts are not hindered by the timing of Board meetings.

Director Hefton agreed with Superintendent Rue, noting that the current policy likely resulted in technical non-compliance because grant deadlines rarely align with the Board's meeting schedule. She argued that rigid approval requirements could obstruct the district's ability to secure funding on time. Hefton clarified that while the Board should maintain an understanding of new program development, the responsibility of finding and applying for the necessary funding should rest with the administration. She concluded that she felt no need for the Board to formally approve grant applications, as their focus should be on the strategic vision rather than the administrative pursuit of dollars.

Superintendent Rue suggested revising the policy to state that formal Board approval would only be required if a grant application resulted in a major change to district programming.

The Board reached a consensus to eliminate the formal approval requirement for grant applications, agreeing that such oversight was "too in the weeds" and hindered efficiency. Directors decided that a formal vote was unnecessary for the administrative pursuit of funding.

Instead, they favored a notification-based approach, where new funding and program developments would be shared through the Superintendent’s regular reports. This ensures the Board remains informed of significant programming shifts without delaying the district's ability to meet grant deadlines.

Superintendent Rue proposed removing a sentence in the third paragraph regarding "equivalence among schools" in staffing and resources. She explained that the language was intended for multi-school districts to ensure grant funding didn't create inequities between different buildings.

Since Griffin is a single-school district, Ms. Rue noted that the requirement to ensure equivalence between schools is a moot point. The Board agreed that eliminating this redundant language would clarify the policy and better reflect the district's actual structure. With these final adjustments, Superintendent Rue concluded her recommendations for the modernization of Policy 2104.

Superintendent Rue introduced updates to Policy 3220, which defines the parameters of student freedom of expression. She noted that the current policy from 2000 is outdated and needs to reflect the modern reality of "student voice" within the Griffin community.

The Superintendent explained that these revisions—highlighted in yellow—align with the staff-facing expression policy recently reviewed by the Board. While the core intent remains consistent with the 2000 version, the updated language provides clearer definitions for protected expression. Ms. Rue emphasized that this update is particularly timely as the district intentionally creates more platforms for students to share their perspectives, ensuring a consistent framework for engagement across all grade levels.

Superintendent Rue introduced updates to Policy 3510, governing Associated Student Body (ASB) funds. She noted that the current policy had not been updated since 2000 and required substantial changes to align with the current WSSDA model and state financial regulations. A major shift in the new language clarifies how the ASB handles funds for non-student body purposes. The policy now explicitly defines the process for "holding funds in trust," which allows students to fundraise for specific charitable causes, such as a local food bank.

Under this updated framework, the ASB is authorized to:

-Act as a Custodian: Hold money specifically earmarked for outside charitable organizations.

-Conduct Targeted Fundraisers: Organize events with the express intent of donating proceeds.

-Streamline Disbursements: Ensure that funds raised for specific causes are distributed as planned while maintaining rigorous accounting standards.

Superintendent Rue emphasized that these updates provide students with a clear, legal pathway to engage in community service and philanthropy through their school organizations.

Superintendent Rue presented updates to Policy 4040, modernizing public records access rules that had been stagnant since 2000. The primary change aligns the policy with a board resolution passed last year, which exempts the district from the burdensome requirement of maintaining a comprehensive index of every public record.

Ms. Rue noted that maintaining such an index would be "crazy" from an administrative standpoint. The revised policy formally codifies this exemption, ensuring the district remains in legal compliance with state transparency laws while protecting staff from unrealistic cataloging demands.

Superintendent Rue recommended the formal removal of Policy 1810. Although passed in July 2024, it has been rendered redundant by the Board’s adoption of Policy 1820, a newer WSSDA model that covers the same requirements.

Ms. Rue advised striking the older version to maintain a streamlined and efficient policy manual, preventing confusion between the two similar entries. This "cleanup" aligns with the district's ongoing efforts to modernize and simplify its governance framework.

Student Board Representatives

Superintendent Rue announced plans to establish a process for appointing student representatives to the Board for the next school year. She requested that Board Chair Trish identify one or two members to join a planning committee to develop the selection process. The goal is to begin scheduling meetings soon to ensure the framework is ready for the upcoming term.

Relocation of Formal Board Meetings 

The district plans to move formal Board meetings from the library to the cafeteria to improve professionalism and public accessibility. While study sessions will remain in the library, the cafeteria offers a larger screen, better spacing for presentations (such as band performances), and dedicated areas for public comment.

Key logistical considerations discussed included:

-Tech Upgrades: The district is investing capital funds in wired microphones to resolve audio echo issues and ensure reliable accessibility.

-Scheduling: Staff will coordinate with the Boys and Girls Club and other groups to minimize conflicts.

-Space Quality: The move is part of a broader effort to utilize the cafeteria as a high-quality professional development and community space.

Community Highlights 

The Superintendent noted the overwhelming success of the Elementary PTO "Glow Dance." The event was so popular that it sold out, leading the PTO to look into expanding capacity for future events to meet high community demand.

Director Baker commended Superintendent Kirsten Rue for her exceptional delivery during a recent "State of the District" presentation. She specifically noted that the information provided was "user-friendly" and highly informative for the community.

Baker also praised Ms. Rue’s performance during the subsequent Q&A session, highlighting her ability to handle unpredictable questions with poise and clarity. She emphasized that this transparency and communication style are deeply appreciated by the board and the community at large.

Director Rose echoed Director Baker’s praise, emphasizing that Superintendent Rue’s transparency is a cornerstone of her leadership. She noted that Rue’s willingness to share difficult news alongside successes is vital for establishing and maintaining community trust. Rose concluded that this honest approach demonstrates strong, effective leadership for the district.

Director Rose reported on regional successes, noting that neighboring districts Olympia and Shelton successfully passed their levies. While the state budget outlook remains difficult, she highlighted progress on two priority bills concerning unfunded mandates and MSOCs.

A virtual town hall with 35th District representatives is scheduled for Tuesday at 6:25 PM. Director Rose encouraged the Board to participate, submit questions on Transitional Kindergarten and funding, and identify themselves as Griffin School District representatives to maintain visibility.

Following her attendance at "Advocacy Day," Rose emphasized the importance of using the district's streamlined tools to contact legislators during this busy short session. She noted that active involvement in state politics is essential for ensuring the district’s voice is heard on critical educational issues.