School Board Snapshot: 12/12 BOE Meeting

We knew going into the meeting it would be a long one.  President Williams chose to cut Public Comment time limit in half, down to 90 seconds. 

DCP Board Member Kelly Mayr spoke on behalf of DCP.  Here is a video of Kelly's abbreviated comment. We have also included the full text of the comment we intended to make.

Douglas County Parents' Full Public Comment

"Douglas County Parents would like to express our deep concern about the direction of this board under the current majority. Two recent issues—the proposed release of a charter school to CSI and the delay in approving the AP African American Studies course—underscore a troubling pattern: this board is failing to lead with the best interests of our students, community, and voters in mind.

Let’s start with the charter school release. By entertaining this request, the board is undermining its own stated commitment to local control. The Colorado Constitution entrusts elected school boards with the governance of public schools, including charter oversight. CSI is not a local, elected body. By releasing this charter, you send a clear message that special interests—political allies, donors, and influencers—hold more sway than the voters who put you here to represent them.

Then, there’s the AP African American Studies course. You ignored the detailed proposal submitted by our educators, approved by 16 out of 16 high school principals and our district administrators. Instead, you delayed its approval while rubber-stamping four other courses. This is a blatant signal that political considerations are driving decision-making. This delay denies our students the opportunity to engage with a rigorous course that provides a fuller understanding of American history. It’s hard not to see this as part of a larger, divisive national trend, one that prioritizes political agendas over educational equity.

What these issues have in common is a lack of leadership. Instead of focusing on the needs of students and the priorities of our community—like transparency, equity, and academic excellence—this board appears to be taking cues from partisan movements and political allies. That’s not leadership. That’s agenda-following.

Your voters didn’t elect you to please special interests. They elected you to lead—boldly, transparently, and with the best interests of our children at heart. It’s time to prioritize our students and our community over political gamesmanship."

---

Throwback Thursday! 

It was just like old times at Tuesday night’s BoE meeting. A room full of politicians, Leadership Program of the Rockies (LPR) graduates, and outside interests telling the board majority what to do, and them following orders. The topic was a new charter school (John Adams) that wants to build in Sterling Ranch, but doesn’t want to apply for authorization through DCSD like most charter schools do. Instead it asked to bypass the usual process, and be released to apply through the CO Charter School Institute (CSI). Not only is this request unusual, but the way it was quietly added to the agenda by Board Pres Williams without informing other directors, who learned about it after the school founder knew and publicly solicited supporters, was shady. 

Supporters included Meghann Silverthorn, DCGOP treasurer and former DCSD board director who served all 8 of the “reform” years that did so much damage to our schools; State senator and soon county commissioner Kevin Van Winkle; former reformer school board director and now DCGOP chair Steven Peck; former candidate for governor & voucher proponent Heidi Ganahl; Director of Special Initiatives for the Colorado GOP Darcy Schoening; Brenda Dickhoner, president of Ready Colorado, a political organization promoting the kind of education “reform” that failed in Dougco in the past; Kim Gilmartin, also of Ready Colorado; Two employees of the developer of Sterling Ranch; and a California John Adams parent. The presenting founder, Ellie Reynolds, is also on the board of Ready Colorado, and is an LPR grad (as are many of the most destructive names in education across the state including old DCSD directors).

Many speakers who requested the school be released from DCSD to request authorization from CSI instead didn’t seem to understand what they were asking for. They emphasized the quality of the school and the importance of choice, as if they thought voting no to releasing the school was a no to authorization altogether. This couldn’t be further from the truth. A no vote would indicate that the board wanted to work towards authorization within the district, together. The release of the school passed 4-3.

Right Decision. Wrong Process.

Last night, the school board did what they should have done at the previous meeting, and approved the new AP African American Studies course for the 2025-26 school year. While we’re glad the course was approved, we are dismayed by the process and delay in making the decision.

AP courses go through a rigorous approval process both by the College Board and DCSD’s own staff. The class had been requested by students, proposed by an experienced teacher, and approved by 16 principals and multiple district administrators/curriculum experts. But when “about 10” community members expressed fear-mongering misinformation about the class, four BoE directors chose to take it off the agenda.

As Director Geiger said, “I remain concerned that the lesson some members of the public learned is that they have special access to this board”, and “it is unfortunate this delay, whether it was done in good faith or not, conveyed a message that this was not an important topic”.

During public comment, a parent expressed hope that the Board consider the impact of postponing the decision. “What must our educators think when whipped up outrage results in their integrity and experience being dismissed? What must our educators think when the districts own process for approving new courses is so easily sidelined? What must the Black students in this district think when a course highlighting African American history and culture is seen as something nefarious…?”

After the last meeting, the board received about 150 additional emails, almost entirely in support of the class. Last night, the board members who originally postponed the decision seemed to have their questions answered and voted to approve along with Meek, Geiger, and Thompson, without addressing the concerns of those first 10 emails.

Director Meek said, “we haven’t honored the questions that came in that forced us to take this off the agenda.” The failure to address these concerns in a transparent manner makes us wonder why certain board members took them so seriously in the first place. If they were legitimate concerns, they should be addressed. The whole process reeks of putting politics ahead of the education of our students.