At a Southeast Polk Community School District board meeting, parents, teachers and students urged clearer, more transparent pathways to advanced coursework after several families said their children were denied acceleration under an internal scoring process.

Public commenters described repeated attempts to get teacher recommendations considered and said curriculum-office decisions relied too heavily on a numerical “matrix.” "I don't want that to happen to other children," parent Brent Barrons said, recounting his son's denial for math acceleration and calling for teacher recommendations to carry more weight.

District officials described a multi-part plan for advanced learning that they said aligns with Iowa law and the state TAG (talented and gifted) plan. Dr. Stephanie Laird, the district's learning supports coordinator, said the district is phasing in a K–3 talent-development model (push-in lessons and targeted small groups) intended to identify potential earlier and provide enrichment to every classroom. "We're really finding we're able to reach more students through that point of contact," she said.

Superintendent and curriculum leaders emphasized that the district's TAG state plan was recently approved and that identification must be systematic. Rob Timmons, the district's data and assessment coordinator, described the acceleration-identification approach: it will combine multiple data points — I‑Ready diagnostics, ISASP scores and CogAT quantitative results — and use z‑scores to spot clear outliers for acceleration. "Data makes the invisible visible," Timmons said, arguing multiple measures reduce the chance of missing students who should be accelerated.

At the same time, district staff acknowledged trade-offs. TAG teachers who previously delivered fifth‑grade accelerated math may be less available as K–3 push‑in work expands; staff have formed a math subcommittee (including tag teachers, classroom teachers and administrators) to design a sustainable delivery model. Officials said the subcommittee will narrow feasible options and share a recommendation with parents and teachers prior to spring break.

Several teachers and parents disputed that the district's classroom-level enrichments are equivalent to formal acceleration. "Advanced courses raise that ceiling significantly," high-school teacher Eric Greving told the board, arguing that level‑4 classroom tasks are not the same as an advanced, mixed‑ability class with consistent progression.

Board members pressed for a clear appeals or resolution process for families and for safeguards when students struggle after moving into accelerated coursework. Administration replied that counselors and teachers will work with families, that counseling and reassignment back to the core pathway are possible, and that families will retain an option to request placements. "After that counseling, if the student still is adamant that they wanted that challenge, then we would certainly welcome that," the curriculum director said.

Parents and staff at the meeting also urged improved communication about assessment results and eligibility criteria. Multiple commenters said they had not been notified when CogAT or other metrics indicated a student would qualify for advanced opportunities.

Next steps: district leaders said they will finalize the plan to deliver sixth‑grade math instruction to advanced fifth‑grade students and will return with a math‑delivery recommendation by spring break. The district also noted that forthcoming ISASP revisions (new norms and adaptive items) will change timelines for some placement decisions and that administrators will account for those timing changes when placing students for next year.

The board did not vote on policy changes during the meeting; the discussion closed with a pledge to continue refining procedures and to ensure families and teachers are part of the process.