March Board Meeting Recap
Reminder: Independent parent group — not affiliated with or endorsed by FASD.
TL;DR
Enrollment slipped slightly (~2%), with four students leaving. Leadership is projecting ~250 students next year; finance is modeling closer to ~240. That gap matters.
STAMP results appear strong (as previewed last month), but with some caveats.
Fundraising totals leave an open question — both headline events fell short of their targets, but the annual number is somehow near goal.
Facilities: no new updates.
SAC: no update (again).
Governance work: still in progress, with some notable gaps.
Overall: another meeting with good information — but limited governance.
Parent Recap (What Happened)
The March board meeting ran just under an hour. All six board members were present and the Interim Director delivered the main report. The only votes were procedural — agenda, minutes, adjournment.
It was an efficient meeting. It was also a familiar one: a steady stream of updates, a positive tone, and not much in the way of decisions.
Enrollment: small drop, bigger questions
Enrollment now stands at 225 students (vs. 229 last month) against an October funded count of 224. That number masks a small but notable change: the school lost four students — roughly a 2% decline — attributed to families moving out of the country.
At the same time, there are two different pictures of next year emerging. The Interim Director continues to project growth toward roughly 250 students, tied to the school's full build-out of two classes per grade. The finance committee, meanwhile, is modeling more conservatively at around 240 students.
That gap isn't just academic. At roughly $10,000 per student in funding, it represents a meaningful swing in revenue. Layer on top of that a known pressure point — larger kindergarten cohorts than in prior years (see Strategic Drift), which may introduce higher-than-usual attrition — and enrollment starts to look less like a stable baseline and more like a key variable.
We still didn't see the underlying data that would help answer those questions: enrollment by grade, waitlists, or an update on the DLS school choice issue flagged last month.
STAMP: encouraging, but not entirely new
The board spent a significant portion of the meeting revisiting the STAMP proficiency assessment results. The headline remains the same as last month: scores appear strong across all domains, including speaking and writing — an encouraging signal for an immersion program. This meeting was more of a "double click" than new information. Additional context was provided around national comparisons and how language skills typically develop, but the core takeaway didn't materially change.
The key question — are students performing where we'd expect them to be? — is still open. Benchmarks are still being defined, and a more complete comparison is expected in a future meeting.
One useful piece of context came during public comment: the speaking portion of the test can be particularly challenging for students, as it involves speaking into a computer without feedback. Lower scores may reflect the format as much as underlying proficiency.
The results are promising. The interpretation is still catching up.
Student spotlights: good content, unclear venue
Two students joined the meeting to share their experiences with multilingual learning and leadership.
They were thoughtful, articulate, and a strong reflection of what the school is trying to build. These stories deserve a bigger audience than a Wednesday evening Zoom call — and board time is finite.
Finance: steady operations, confusing fundraising
Financially, the school remains on track. Revenue and expenses are closely aligned with the plan, and the current year appears stable.
The more interesting story is in fundraising. The school set an initial goal of $80,000, later stretched to $100,000. The current total is approximately $92,000 — close to the stretch target.
That's a strong result. It's also a bit hard to reconcile.
Colorado Gives Day brought in $31,385 against a $43,000 goal. The gala was reported at approximately $40,000 against a $60,000 goal. Both events fell short of their targets. And yet, the overall total sits near $92,000. Which raises a simple question: where did the additional ~$20,000 come from?
This isn't a concern — it's a transparency opportunity. Someone (or multiple people) clearly stepped up outside the headline events, and it would be helpful for the community to understand what's working.
Looking ahead, the bigger development is the state funding environment. Per Pupil Revenue will not increase next year, creating an estimated ~$60,000 gap depending on enrollment. That's manageable, but it makes enrollment assumptions and financial planning more consequential. The school was also awarded a $17,000 tech bond and is pursuing a significant grant opportunity, with a finance committee member and other community volunteers contributing to the application.
Hiring: moving toward a decision
The Interim Director has been named the sole finalist for the permanent role. The Interim Chair described the required 14-day public notice period as a "cooling off period." In practice, it's intended as a window for community input before a final decision is made.
The board could vote as early as March 31. It will be worth watching whether that happens via a special meeting or is held during the regularly scheduled April session.
Governance: still in progress
The governance committee is working on a board calendar to map out key decisions and discussions across the year. That's good, necessary work.
What didn't come up was the policy audit (or "policy audit-lite") that had been discussed last month. There was also no discussion of how recently surfaced items — like the CORA fee schedule now posted on the website — fit into the board's oversight responsibilities.
The direction is positive. The follow-through is less visible.
Facilities: no movement
The facility search continues, but no viable options have been identified. The school is building relationships — DPS board visits, an upcoming superintendent visit — which may matter over time. But in terms of concrete outcomes, there's nothing new to report.
A facilities town hall has been discussed in prior months but was not mentioned at this meeting.
SAC: not this month
The SAC did not present.
SAC is listed as a standing committee report on the agenda. The chair's absence wasn't a scheduling conflict — it appears that she simply wasn't asked to prepare remarks. The expectation is that SAC will present next month.
Public comment
A teacher shared helpful context on the STAMP assessment, noting that the speaking portion can be particularly stressful and unfamiliar for students — they are talking to a computer. It was a small but valuable addition to the discussion.
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.
This was a 55-minute meeting. The only votes were procedural.
There was good information throughout — on academics, on finances, on enrollment direction. But the meeting itself left a familiar impression.
The STAMP results are legitimately encouraging — and they raise a question worth sitting with: if students are producing these kinds of proficiency scores under the current instructional model, what's the case for changing the academic day?
The CORA fee schedule appeared on the school's website without ever coming before the board as a vote item. The policy audit that had been discussed hasn't resurfaced.
The SAC — one of the few structures designed to provide independent input — didn't present.
None of these, on their own, are major issues. But taken together, they point to something more structural.
Board meetings are where governance happens — where priorities are set, policies are approved, and independent perspectives are heard. When those elements consistently slip or get deferred, the meeting starts to look less like a governing forum and more like a status update.
That's not a dramatic shift. It's a gradual one.
And it's fixable. The pieces are there — stronger data, more transparency, governance work underway. The question is whether they come together in a way that puts the board back in the driver's seat.
What to Watch in April
April should (hopefully) be a more consequential meeting:
The revised budget projections will give a clearer sense of how the school is navigating a flat funding environment. Enrollment detail — especially by grade — should start to firm up the outlook for next year.
Staff and family intent-to-return data should be available by now. This drives both the staffing plan and the revenue forecast, and hasn't been shared publicly.
The hiring process may conclude, depending on whether the board acts before the next scheduled meeting or waits.
The SAC is expected to present; perhaps we’ll know more about the SAC bylaws.
And on facilities, the question is whether recent outreach translates into anything tangible — including the previously discussed community town hall.
We'll see.
~ Greg
