2026-08-11

August 11, 2026

The August general meeting was held on August 11, 2026.

For the first time in years, the entire board was present at the same location.

For the first time (ever?), the board had a serious discussion about police in our schools, and the board actually began a reduction in police force.

Agenda Item 5: Presentations To The Board

The main thing to highlight here was the change to the law with regard to the school board's ability to tax non-residential properties separately from residential ones.  Last year, the state legislature passed a temporary measure to allow the school districts to tax residential and non-residential properties separately, similar to how New Castle County did it.  The allowed us to tax non-residential properties at a rate of up to 2x the residential rate.

This year, HB462 became law, allowing school districts to have separate residential and non-residential tax rates in perpetuity, but with a non-residential rate cap of up to 1.85x the residential rate.  Given that Christina School District taxed non-residential properties at 2x the residential rate, this year's tax burden will be shifted slightly onto residential homeowners.  If you don't like that, then complain to your local state representative and senator or elect a new one (every state representative is up for re-election this year, and half the senators are).  (Might I recommend Luann D'Agostino for state representative if you live in north and west Newark.)

Next session, there will be an effort from the apartment lobby to try to get their properties taxed at a lower rate, which will shift more of the tax burden onto residential homeowners.  Don't let them do it.

Agenda Item 7.1: Goals And Guardrails

A number of months ago, the board met to craft three 5-year goals for the superintendent.  Tonight, finally, we approved them.  As of tonight, the superintendent has her marching orders and will design her budget, organizational structure, and everything else to accomplish those goals.

They are:

1. The percentage of 3rd-grade students demonstrating literacy as measured by iReady Reading proficiency will increase, from 35.1% in August 2026 to 40.4% by August 2031.

2. The percentage of 6th-8th grade students demonstrating literacy as measured by iReady proficiency, at or above grade level, will increase from 38% in August 2026 to 43% by August 2031.

3. The percentage of 6th-8th grade students demonstrating numeracy as measured by iReady Math proficiency, at or above grade level, will increase from 32% in August 2026 to 36.8% by August 2031.

There are also three guardrails:

1. The superintendent will not allow academic programs that fail to deveop durable skills, including, but not limited to, critical thinking, problem solving, financial literacy, communication, collaboration, and self-management, necessary for students to be productive, self-sufficient adults.

2. The superintendent must not make major decisions regarding student services without consulting the community.

3. The superintendent shall not implement or maintain practices that diminish students' sense of belonging, connection, or engagement within their school community.

The goals and guardrails were adopted unanimously.

From this point forward, our board meetings will be focused on our progress toward these goals.

Agenda Item 7.3: SRO Contracts

The district put forward a proposal to renew our various police contracts.  We have contracted police officers (termed School Resource Officers, or SROs) in our middle schoools and high schools.  These are in addition to our constables.

If you'll recall, SROs are in-school police officers, contracted from the various police agencies (we have them from state of Delaware, the city of Newark, and the city of Wilmington).  Constables are district employees with similar powers to police, but are limited to school property only, and they also cannot handcuff students.

If you'll also recall, SROs are granted almost absolute immunity under Delaware's Law Enforcement Officer's Bill Of Rights (LEOBOR), while constables are specifically excluded from that.  In practice, this means that police are unaccountable, while constables are accountable to the district and are subject to the districts rules, policies, trainings, and procedures.

We had a long, healthy discussion around police in our schools.

I brought up an incident this past year in which a student almost succeeded in disarming an SRO and gaining control of his sidearm during a incident that escalated quickly.  Two district staff members were able to get the students away from the SRO, who was in the middle of restraining another student, and his sidearm remained in his possession.  But it was close.  And the only reason that that student was almost able to bring a firearm to bear is because we, the district, put the armed police in the building.

Amy presented the board with an analysis of the current state of the research with regard to police in schools, and it looks like she was able to sway the board away from contracting with police.

I argued that if the board did nothing different, then it would get no different results.  In particular, we must cancel the contracts to force the district to take this seriously and hire its own constables if it wants security officers.  Amy and I have brought this up the previous two years, so this wasn't news to anyone, and still the district requested a full continuation of its police contracts.   If we don't cancel those contracts, I don't see the district actually acting in a way that will reduce the police force in schools.

We took two votes.

Motion 1: Renew the contracts as requested (defeated)

In particular, the motion to renew the contracts as requested was defeated 2-5.

Those in favor: Lou, Moriak.  Those against: Cherry, Ingram, Manley, Sawin, Trauth.

Motion 2: Renew the contracts for high school and phase out the ones for middle school (carried)

A second motion was made to adopt a modification of "option 2", the second of three security-related proposals that the district provided with the board last year.  Under the original proposal for "option 2", the district would use constables for middle schools and continue to use contracted police in high schools.  The modified version that the board adopted was to continue to allow for the use of contracted police in high schools while providing the option to for up to a 6 months of contracted police for middle schools, allowing the district some time to bridge the gap and hire enough constables before cutting the middle school cops off completely.

Those in favor: Cherry, Ingram, Lou, Moriak, Sawin, Trauth.  Those against: Manley.

While this was not the exact outcome that I wanted, this is an actual improvement, and I believe that this board will continue to fight for further reductions in police contracts until there are none.