FASD Board: Strategic Planning Work Sessions

Written By Greg D

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

The September 11 strategy sessions covered school identity, enrollment, staffing, and priorities for the next charter renewal; a draft plan will follow.

TL;DR

  • The Board held morning and evening strategic planning sessions, selecting topics from a working list of potential initiatives. Community observers were not provided that list. No final strategic plan was adopted.

  • Discussion covered French immersion, teacher recruitment, enrollment and retention, possible preschool and kindergarten expansion, assessments, technology, leadership succession, fundraising, and communications.

  • Enrollment options and the Denver Language School (DLS) middle-school pathway were discussed. No enrollment target or expansion decision was adopted.

  • Participants proposed connecting the plan to charter requirements and the school-review criteria used for the 2030 renewal, with preparation beginning in summer 2029.

  • The next step described was to consolidate the sessions into a draft, organize work by committee, and distinguish nearer-term work from longer-term possibilities.

Parent Recap (What Happened)

A working list of initiatives

The Board worked from a document circulated to members before the sessions. Members identified topics they wanted to discuss and moved among those items. The list was not shared with community observers present, so the complete set of potential initiatives was not available to them.

School identity, immersion, and staffing

Participants discussed what FASD means by two-way immersion, dual-language education, and early total immersion. The conversation included questions about the charter's language, the proportion of French-speaking students, and how instructional time in French is calculated. Updating the website's explanation of the model was discussed.

The School Director described recruitment and onboarding challenges and combining visiting and longer-term teachers while maintaining hiring standards. Discussion repeatedly described Jules Verne as having a two-year limit.

Members also discussed French cultural programming, language-proficiency outcomes, and a parent data night. No specific fifth-grade language-proficiency target was adopted.

Enrollment, facilities, and pathways

Options included a third kindergarten class and early childhood education (ECE), with preschool costs, approvals, and enrollment priorities identified for investigation.

Members debated enrollment targets, attrition, grade-level sections, building use, and financial sustainability. DLS's French middle-school enrollment and continuity beyond middle school also came up.

Technology, governance, and resources

Members discussed documenting technology practices, media literacy, AI, limited screen use, and the boundary between Board expectations and classroom decisions. No technology policy was adopted.

Other topics included succession, transportation, fundraising, sponsorships, committee responsibilities, and financial contingencies. The facilitator emphasized avoiding commitments without the time, funding, or ownership to carry them out.

The closing discussion returned to charter renewal, indexing the plan to charter requirements, and assembling a draft from both sessions. The sessions did not establish a process or timetable for community review of that draft.

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.

More of the debate, please

There was actual discussion. Members questioned enrollment assumptions, considered competing uses of the building, and debated the Board's role in technology decisions. In the August recap, I welcomed members asking for evidence before changing spending authority. These sessions offered more examples of that engagement. I hope it continues.

Start with the school we have committed to operate

No one expects Board members to memorize the charter. I do expect a working understanding of the school we have committed to operate—and the relevant language in front of them when that commitment is in question.

Appendix A, Question 9 describes a two-way immersion model, including instruction in two languages and peer-to-peer language sharing. Section 9.A requires FASD to maintain the program described in its application or renewal application, gives the latest application precedence where they conflict, and provides for modifications with DPS's written approval. See the signed charter, pages 9 and 55.

It was disappointing to hear the model discussed without resolving what our own agreement says. The conversation repeatedly moved toward clarifying the website. But is the problem how we describe the school, or how far its program has moved from its commitments?

In my view, picking and choosing which commitments to treat as binding has contributed to the strategic drift I have described—and helps explain why some longer-tenured families feel the school and community they chose have changed. A revised description does not explain or justify that departure.

A participant characterized the communications problem as clarity rather than a lack of transparency. That has not been my experience. My CORA crash-course post documents weeks spent trying to obtain usable survey records. Families need access to the evidence behind decisions, as well as explanations of them.

The Board can pursue changes through the required process. The best place to start preparing for charter renewal is by adhering to the charter we currently have. Take a look at the Charter Explorer and decide for yourself: is the school it describes the one we have been building toward?

Establish the facts before accepting the narrative

The sessions needed a firmer fact base. Repeated assertions and positive anecdotes cannot establish which problems need attention or which solutions will work.

Jules Verne was repeatedly misrepresented as having a national two-year cap. France's official 2026–27 guidance, section 2.2 allows one year with up to two additional years (in other words, three years), subject to approval and service needs. The reported shorter limit under FASD's Grenoble arrangement is a different constraint; the national rules do not guarantee any teacher a third year. The Board should establish which terms apply before treating the staffing options as settled.

The positive assessments of school health also deserve examination. Based on the departures I am aware of, three local teachers left this summer, in addition to Jules Verne teachers returning home. The families of three of last year's six PTO executive-team members also left the school. Those families did not age out or move away.

These departures were not mentioned or examined in the sessions. What takes a family from being among the school's most dedicated volunteers to withdrawing its children? I am not assuming every departure has the same explanation. Wouldn’t understanding those explanations be helpful to planning?

We can discuss identity, branding, and marketing indefinitely. Without understanding why families choose FASD, what they value, and why they stay or leave, we are guessing at what to protect or change. I did not hear a systematic account of those questions.

The scrappy FASDads independent family survey surfaced signals about the French program, academic quality, and parent partnership. Its 28 voluntary responses, concentrated among first-grade families, are not representative of the whole school. But they are reasons to investigate. Imagine what the SAC or Board could learn through a deliberate effort to reach current families, departing families, and staff.

Use the mission to set priorities—and priorities to allocate capacity

Several participants spoke about advancing the mission. The facilitation, however, repeatedly emphasized avoiding initiatives without the capacity to implement them. Discussion of longer-term ideas was allowed, but I think the emphasis put the planning question backwards.

Start with the mission, identify the priorities that best advance it, and then decide where to deploy resources. Bridgespan's nonprofit strategic-planning guidance follows that logic: clarify the impact sought, set priorities, estimate resources, and plan implementation. It also emphasizes that these steps are iterative.

Capacity is partly a choice about what we fund and where people spend their time. Some funding is restricted and staff skills are not interchangeable. But the Board can redirect discretionary spending, stop lower-priority work, build capabilities, or raise money for a defined need.

An unfunded wish list would be irresponsible. So would allowing today's allocation of resources to decide tomorrow's mission. The proposed near- and longer-term buckets need an explanation of what matters most, what will change to make room for it, and how success will be measured.

What to watch

Alongside the plan, the SAC and financial follow-ups from August remain on my list:

  • Community participation: Will families see the initiative list and draft, with an opportunity to influence priorities before adoption?

  • Charter alignment: Will the plan compare the current program and proposed changes with existing commitments?

  • Facts and priorities: Will staffing and family-retention evidence inform priorities, resource choices, and measurable outcomes?

  • SAC elections: Will the Board enforce its approved SAC bylaws and ensure parent elections occur within 60 days of the first school day?

  • MLO 2020: What are the dollars coded to consultant services, object code 0334, purchasing, and how do those uses meet the ballot language’s defined purposes?

  • Moving costs: When will the Board publish the final Harrington move and former-site exit costs, itemized by what the money purchased, including the deposit's disposition?

I want this process to make FASD a school families choose—and continue choosing. The discussion was a start. The draft is where we will see what the Board takes from it.

~ Greg

Resources

Greg D
Previous

September Board Meeting Recap
Next

The Shorter School Day Is Here. The Tradeoff Still Isn’t Clear.