Bell schedule change - what’s in the Board materials (and what’s still missing)
Reminder: Independent parent group — not affiliated with or endorsed by FASD.
TL;DR
The bell schedule proposal was first presented at the December Board meeting; I formally requested the “Board packet” and supporting materials in line with the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) on the evening of January 5 to better understand the information that Board was using to make their decision.
The Board approved the new bell schedule at a special meeting on January 8 posted barely within the 24-hour notice window, and before I received the materials requested on January 5 (and likely read on January 6).
The narrative at the January 8 meeting was that parents “don’t know the whole story.” After reviewing what was actually provided, the issue is that there’s no “whole story” in the materials—no clear baseline planning time, no grade-by-grade tradeoff table, no quantified impact narrative. In other words: no smoking gun evidence, just a familiar set of “vibes + intentions,” which makes the decision process hard to defend.
The packet emphasizes teacher planning time and retention (which is rational), but key basics remain unclear: how much teacher planning time exists today, what benchmark is being used, and what specific student time will be cut (by grade).
The “research/resources” list is broad and directional, not a clear evidence chain that reducing student time will reliably produce the promised outcomes at FASD.
In the public record, the only solutions presented were (1) shorten the day and (2) early release Fridays—not a broader set of alternatives that might improve teacher working conditions without reducing student time.
The Board is struggling with transparency. Good-faith requests for non-confidential information are characterized as “diverting resources,” instead of being treated as a normal and necessary part of the Board’s fiduciary responsibilities.
Parent Analysis (Recap)
My goal in this section is to keep it factual: what’s included in the materials, and what (based on what I received) still seems to be missing if we’re trying to evaluate tradeoffs objectively.
To be clear: I want FASD to thrive. I want our teachers supported. And I want decisions that affect every family to be grounded in evidence and genuine options analysis. That's what this analysis is trying to advance.
What’s included in the materials
1) A clear statement of the why (at a high level)
The core narrative is consistent across materials: the day is long; teacher planning/collaboration time is constrained; and the school is attempting to reduce strain and improve retention and student experience.
2) Two “options” were presented publicly
In the board-facing rationale, the “options” described are:
Option 1: Shorten the day (the narrative references implementing a ~7-hour day and cites an example schedule like ~8:15–3:15, with time carved out for transitions/recess).
Option 2: Early release Fridays (described as a way to create recurring blocks for teacher planning/collaboration).
The rationale shared in the board-facing document is nearly identical to what has been shared by Kathy on Class Dojo.
3) Benchmarking . . . but mostly at the “directional” level
The materials state that FASD’s day is longer than local comparators and reference general benchmarks (including a claim that “high-performing dual language immersion schools operate with a 6:45–7 hour day”). No one is contesting that FASD has a longer day than most schools.
4) Survey outputs are included, but stakeholder segmentation remains a problem
The community survey asked respondents to describe their role at FASD (parent/guardian, staff, board, other); parents/guardians make up 84.6% of the 149 responses; the other buckets (staff member only, both parent/guardian and staff member) did not have labels.
The materials I received do not clearly separate parent feedback from staff feedback in the exported results in a way that makes weighting transparent. (This matters because parents and staff naturally experience different incentives and tradeoffs.)
5) Community schedule preferences (as provided)
One question asked respondents to rank preferred schedules. In the exported results I received, the top “Rank 1” choice was the current schedule (8:00–3:30) with 60 of 149 first-choice votes (~40.3%). Next were 8:15–3:15 (48 of 149; ~32.2%) and 8:00–3:00 (36 of 173; ~24.2%).
Important caveat #1: because role-based segmentation isn’t cleanly available in what I received, these results appear to represent a blended group (parents/staff/others), which limits how confidently families can interpret “community preference” vs. “family preference.”
Important caveat #2: context on what would be cut from the current schedule (e.g., French immersion time, specials, recess) was not provided before the community was asked to weigh in.
6) More Community members dislike than like the concept of early release Fridays
Very positive impact (16.8%) + somewhat positive impact (15.4%) = 32.2% positive
Very negative impact (24.2%) + somewhat negative impact (22.1%) = 46.3% negative
No significant impact (21.5%)
Important caveat (once again): because role-based segmentation isn’t cleanly available in what I received, these results appear to represent a blended group (parents/staff/others), which limits how confidently families can interpret “community preference” vs. “family preference.”
What’s not included (or still unclear)
1) Current-state teacher planning time (baseline) and the target benchmark
The packet makes repeated references to insufficient planning time and paraprofessional coverage, but it does not clearly present a simple baseline like:
“Today, teachers get X minutes/day (or week) of protected planning time.”
“Benchmark is Y minutes/day (or week).”
“This proposal closes Z% of the gap.”
Absent that, families are being asked to accept a major tradeoff without a clear baseline.
2) The “what gets cut” question (by grade) remains unanswered
The community still does not have a grade-by-grade daily schedule showing how instructional blocks, specials, recess, and transitions will change—i.e., the actual tradeoff.
3) No public exploration of alternative solutions beyond “shorten day / early release”
As far as the public record goes, the proposal frames the solution set narrowly: shorten the day and/or implement early release Fridays.
That leaves families with a very reasonable question: Why weren’t other options developed and evaluated in parallel (even at a high-level) before landing on reducing student time?
Other options could include paraprofessional support, recess coverage support, retention bonuses, among others.
4) The “evidence chain” is not crisp
The materials include a list of articles/resources and general claims (e.g., learning is driven by quality, not minutes), but there isn’t a clear, FASD-specific evidence chain showing:
what problem is being solved (quantified),
why the proposed solution is the best option among feasible alternatives, and
how outcomes will be measured.
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) Governance concern: the issue isn’t hidden information — it’s lack of Board curiosity and rigor
At the January 8 meeting, the framing implied that families were missing key context. I expected that, when I saw the Board materials, I’d find the “rest of the story”—a more complete fact base that addressed the hard questions.
Instead, what stands out is the absence of a decision-grade analysis. There is no obvious smoking gun. There isn’t a rigorous, quantified “why” that ties the proposal to measurable outcomes, and there isn’t the kind of basic decision scaffolding you’d expect for a change that touches every student and family every day.
So the governance concern (for me) is this: why didn’t the Board insist on the basics before approving the change? For example:
A clear baseline of current teacher planning time by role/grade and the benchmark target
A grade-by-grade “tradeoff table” showing what student time changes (instructional blocks, intervention, specials, recess, transitions)
A short alternatives screen (even if budgets are tight): what was considered, why it was rejected, and what it would have cost
A set of success metrics (retention, planning time delivered, student outcomes/wellbeing indicators) and a review date
When a Board approves a major change without requiring these elements, it creates a predictable trust problem: families are asked to accept meaningful tradeoffs based on intent and narrative, rather than evidence and transparent options.
2) Teachers supporting the change makes sense—and that’s exactly why weighting matters
If you’re a teacher being asked to do more with less coverage and limited planning time, you will naturally support a change that creates relief. That is rational.
But families are also rational to ask: What exactly are students giving up? And were there other ways to solve this?
Without role-based segmentation and an explicit weighting framework, it’s hard to avoid the impression that the Board is over-indexing on staff concerns and under-indexing on parent concerns, even though parents are the core constituency a charter school exists to serve.
3) Mission/vision fit: being “like everyone else” isn’t obviously consistent with what we say we are
It is not controversial that FASD has a longer day than many comparators.
But FASD’s stated vision is to be a premier bilingual institution known for the highest educational standards and a strong French-American community.
If the strategy is to converge toward 'typical' instructional time, I'd love to understand how the board sees this supporting—rather than potentially diluting—the mission. This isn't a gotcha; it's a genuine question about strategic fit.
4) Transparency is a recurring problem — and it’s eroding trust
Over the past few weeks, I’ve had a frustrating déjà vu: the Board and administration repeatedly emphasize that “parents don’t have the full context,” but when parents ask for basic, de-identified information, we hit roadblocks.
For example, I've been requesting a de-identified, spreadsheet-format export of the bell schedule survey data since January 5. I understand and respect the need to protect anonymity. But at the same time, it is genuinely troubling that after more than two weeks, we still can't easily see what 126 parents think in aggregate about proposals that affect every child's daily experience.
What's even more concerning is the implication that asking for reasonable, de-identified data is itself the problem. When I followed up to clarify that I wasn't asking for anything that would violate privacy (just a parent-only export with identifying fields removed), I was told the school had already consulted outside counsel and offered to 'pay to run your request past our outside counsel' again if I wanted. Rather than problem-solving within reasonable privacy constraints, the response emphasized the cost and effort my request was creating. This dynamic doesn’t build trust; it discourages normal, constructive oversight.
Even small details reinforce the pattern. An email chain about these data requests was retitled “Latest request,” even though the underlying ask goes back weeks. That’s not a fatal sin. But it’s emblematic of the broader issue: families are not asking the Board to be perfect. We’re asking for a good-faith effort to share the non-confidential decision materials, show the tradeoffs plainly, and make it possible for the community to engage based on facts. Right now, that good-faith transparency is not consistently happening.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether this change is the right call. My concern is that we're being asked to accept it without the information needed to evaluate it thoughtfully.
~ Greg
[Note: I’ll update this post if the Board changes their stance.]
If you want these materials, too:
A practical note: you can request the same set of materials I received. We don’t currently have a clearly published, formal CORA workflow specific to FASD, but emailing the Board appears to be a workable channel (e.g., board@fasdenver.org). Alternatively, the Board could proactively publish the non-confidential packet materials in a shared drive for easy access, just like where the
CORA timing refresher (not legal advice): Colorado’s open records statute generally contemplates production within 3 working days, with a possible extension of up to 7 additional working days if “extenuating circumstances” exist (with written notice required within the initial 3 days) — that means a total of ten days. (C.R.S. § 24-72-203)
The specific items I requested are:
The board packet/board pack materials related to the bell schedule change and any related school calendar rationale
The survey instrument (questions and answer choices) and a de-identified export of the underlying survey results (Excel or Google Sheet preferred)
Any benchmark or comparative data used in developing the recommendation (e.g., peer schools, DPS/charter comparisons, instructional minutes, staffing/coverage assumptions)
Any consultant deliverables that informed the recommendation
The items I received are:
2025 FASD Community Bell Schedule Questionnaire - Google Forms.pdf
2025 FASD Community Bell Schedule Questionnaire Responses.pdf
2025 FASD Staff Bell Schedule Questionnaire Responses_redacted.pdf
Articles and Resources.pdf
Best Practices in Dual Language Immersion Programs Report.pdf
Colorado Sun Article about Early Release Fridays in DPS.pdf
DPS Bell Times Sampling.pdf
DRAFT 2026-27 FASD School Calendar .pdf
Draft Bell schedule and Calendar Rationale_For Board of Directors .pdf
FASD Bell Schedule Change_ Feedback Comms.pdf
FASD Calendar Analysis.pdf
FASD Community Bell Schedule Questionnaire (Responses).xlsx
FASD Community Survey Responses_redacted.pdf
Instructional Minutes Analysis_ FASD_DPS_CO.pdf
SD Slides Dec for Bell Schedule and Calendar .pdf
SD Slides Nov for Bell Schedule and Calendar.pdf
Staff Bell Schedule Questionnaire (Responses).xlsx
Staff Bell Schedule Questionnaire.pdf
A note on requesting records:
If you decide to request these same materials, be prepared for language that frames your request as a burden on the school or Board. In my case, I was told: “We were able to divert the needed staff and resources from the school to complete your request by this afternoon as required by statute.”
It’s worth pausing on that framing. Requesting public records is not something the community should feel apologetic about. Under the Colorado Open Records Act, this is a right—not a courtesy, and not an imposition. Characterizing lawful, de-identified information requests as a “diversion of resources” subtly shifts the problem onto the requester, rather than prompting reflection on why basic transparency isn’t already routine.
More importantly, these requests are not a distraction from the Board’s work—they are the work. Transparency, evidence, and responsiveness are core fiduciary responsibilities, not optional add-ons to be accommodated when time allows. When families ask to see the same non-confidential materials used to make consequential decisions, they are helping the Board live up to its obligations.
Transparency can be uncomfortable—for all of us, myself included. But it's what allows us to improve together. A Board being asked to show its work—to explain assumptions, tradeoffs, and evidence—is not under attack. It’s being given the opportunity to grow into the standard of governance the community expects and deserves.
