April School Accountability Committee (SAC) Meeting Recap

Written By Greg D

Reminder: Independent parent group — not affiliated with or endorsed by FASD.

TL;DR

  • Attendance was small: 5 SAC members and 3 members of the public.

  • SAC bylaws are still not finalized. SAC members said the draft has come back from legal review, more work is needed, and a smaller working group will workshop them in early May before a Board vote later in the month.

  • Most of the meeting focused on surveys. Denver Families, a Denver education nonprofit, is administering the DPS-style charter survey this year, and SAC discussed a few modest changes.

  • SAC is not currently planning a broader parent/community survey beyond that Denver Families survey.

  • Administration shared preliminary staffing and budget information, including plans to add more Teacher Assistant roles and increase mental health and nurse staffing.

  • A teacher raised the issue that local teachers appear to be at a compensation disadvantage relative to visiting teachers. Kathy said she was open to exploring additional supports for local teachers.

  • No time was set aside for community comment.

Parent Recap (What Happened)

Attendance was modest. There were only five SAC members present, plus three members of the public.

The SAC bylaws remain unfinished. SAC members shared that the draft bylaws have come back from legal review, but that more work is needed. The current plan is for a smaller working group — two SAC members and two Board members — to workshop them in early May, with a Board vote expected later in May.

A large portion of the meeting was spent on surveys. Denver Families, a Denver education nonprofit, is administering the charter-school version of the DPS-style survey this year, and SAC talked through a few minor changes they would like to make. At the moment, SAC is not planning to field a broader community or family survey beyond that instrument. The stated goal was to get an overall survey strategy in place.

The meeting also included some preliminary discussion of the 2026–27 budget and staffing. Administration shared that the school is planning to add more Teacher Assistant roles as well as additional mental health and nurse staffing.

One of the teacher members raised a notable point about support for local teachers. As it was described in the meeting, visiting teachers may effectively receive significantly more compensation than local teachers because of the French wages they receive, and there may also be tax-related implications. Kathy said she was open to exploring ways to better support local teachers, including possibilities like longevity bonuses.

Notably, no time was allotted for community comment.

The “Since You’re Here…” Section

Unofficial reflections — offered in good faith (and with a grain of salt)

I want to be explicit: the section above is my attempt to keep things factual and balanced. This section is my personal perspective.

1. It is remarkable that SAC bylaws are still being revised

At some point, this stops being a drafting exercise and starts becoming a governance problem.

It is hard not to wonder: why are we still revising SAC bylaws in spring 2026? Why didn’t we adopt the bylaws we told DPS we had? And perhaps more importantly, what exactly is changing now?

That last question matters because bylaws are not just paperwork. They determine whether SAC is family-friendly, transparent, and independent — or whether it becomes a tightly managed body with limited practical influence.

Maybe the final product will be strong. I hope it is. But the extended delay makes me nervous that the eventual version may narrow SAC’s role rather than strengthen it.

2. Survey strategy should start with the decision, not the questionnaire

The meeting spent a lot of time on surveys, but I kept coming back to a simpler strategic question:

What decisions does the school need to make, and what information would help it make those decisions well?

That seems like the right place to start. Instead, the conversation felt more focused on the mechanics of the survey instrument than on the strategic purpose of the survey itself. That feels like a missed opportunity.

At a minimum, a meaningful parent survey could help answer some basic, important questions:

  • Why do families choose FASD?

  • Why do they stay?

  • What do they value most?

  • What changes would concern them?

  • Where is there trust, and where is there drift?

Those are not abstract questions. They go directly to enrollment, retention, culture, and strategy.

Last year’s survey was not meaningfully shared back with the community. It would be disappointing if this year’s process again generated data without creating genuine transparency or strategic clarity.

Especially at a moment when it often feels like major decisions are being made without a clear read on what families actually want.

3. The staffing additions are good — I just hope they are not too late

Adding more TAs, especially for first grade, is directionally positive. That is the kind of support many families have wanted to see. The same goes for increased mental health and nurse staffing.

The question is whether these moves are enough — and whether they are arriving too late to address concerns that have already been visible for some time.

It is better to respond than not respond. But it is also fair for families to ask why this support was not more clearly prioritized sooner.

4. SAC should be parent-led and board-connected — and right now the optics are off

I want to give the current SAC chair some grace. This group is still getting its legs under it, and that is not easy.

Still, the optics are not great.

Under Colorado guidance and FASD’s own draft SAC bylaws, the interim school director is supposed to be part of the SAC. So the issue is not that the interim school director is in the room. The issue is whether SAC is operating as a parent-led advisory body with a clear line to Board oversight, or whether it is drifting toward an administration-centered committee.

Right now, it feels closer to the latter. On the SAC webpage, Kathy is listed first. The roster is a little murky. And at this meeting, only one parent member was actually present. None of that proves bad intent. But it does make SAC look less like a parent-led accountability body and more like a committee operating in administration’s orbit.

That may simply reflect a committee that is still maturing. I hope so. But if SAC is going to matter, it needs to become more visibly and functionally what the bylaws and best practice seem to envision: a parent-led body that listens to the community, develops its own recommendations, and sends them clearly onward to the Board.

~ Greg

Resources

Greg D
Next

FASD’s Fundraising Squeeze