Make sure I bring this. >> What's that? >> Oh, you're laser ring. >> Nice. >> Isn't that um >> What show is that? >> House of cards. [Music] >> Is that the 30 seconds right on his >> We're live. Are we live? We're live. >> Uh so we'll call this special meeting of July 15th, 2025 to order for Independent School District of 194. Uh if everyone would rise. Ice to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We'll do a roll call starting from the right and going around to counting clockwise. Uh, sure. Paul Carbone, >> Amber Cameron, Kim Baker, >> Brett Nicholson, >> Karly Anderson, Brent Albre, >> Lucas Yoho, >> Emily McDonald, >> Michael Bowman, Brian Thompson, >> I am Matt Swanson. >> All right. Um, so I had everyone, all board members, I emailed everyone emailed in their goals. I made a confined list which is the stapled packet that I brought. I tried to organize them a little bit by category. So, we kind of go through them. >> Can I ask a question real quick? >> Um, typically when we have something that's presented to the board and um it's also presented in the board packet for community members. Was this available prior to me? >> Uh, it was not. Well, let's read it out loud >> for the things >> I think I brought discuss >> I probably brought a couple extra >> I have I have in mind >> sure you want to do you want to copy >> I did print out 10 but we might have we do have three extra um yeah so maybe before we go through these Um, so because I had a chance to to to read some of this, um, I I am I am not think I don't think I'm aligned with having academic goals and uh, financial goal. Let me rephrase that. Uh I feel like there's three sequential sequential steps that we should be thinking about when we try to come up with how we want to measure things or or what our strategic goals are or annual goals are. So you can have that. All right. Um I feel like what we need to do what we ought to do first is figure out what are the key metrics that we want to monitor as a district as a whole uh and in all the different categories of whatever it may be. And then once we figure out what those met what what what metrics we want to try to capture or what the objective is that we're trying to capture then we ask ourselves what is the goal that we want associated to that for this upcoming year. And then from so that's kind of like step one what are the metrics step two what are the the met the goals that we that we want for those metrics and then we end it with what are the initiatives that we want to do this year because they those initiatives may have nothing to do with the metrics or the goals. Once we place the goals to the metrics, that that pretty much is the goal for the administration of where we want to go. So when I as I read these academic goals, I think what I'm looking for is like I want my monthly or quarterly, what does that dashboard look like? And that's what I think we need to get to first because that's what how we should be monitoring the the district. >> What are we going after? >> Yeah, that's that's what we need to talk about. >> If we don't have a goal, we don't even know what metrics to start considering. We're just going to be everybody's going to say, "Oh, I'd like to know this or I'd like to know that. I mean, we have to have some highlevel direction and then you can figure out how you're going to measure it, what kind of time bound you're going to place on it and move forward with it. Like I how how do we jump the gun? >> I feel like also I think what needs to be discussed right away is like and you did that Matt, but differentiating between board goals, district goals, and superintendent goals. Yeah. >> And they're kind of all mixed together and of course they should like align and support each other. Um, but I think those are very different conversations on where on how we would approach this conversation. Where do we start? >> So, I think let's start here. Let's start with the because I'm 100% aligned like we should have the lens of all right the what are the district goals that we want and then the first topic would be academics right like there that that's your that's the topic right with the school board with a school district lens. What do you want to see regarding academics for at the at the school district level? >> I guess I'm confused because I'm looking at this going um we don't write the goals for the district. Like the district has a strategic plan that gives us the direction everybody the direction in the district of where we want to go and that's our goal and that's what we're shooting for, right? So like if we want to have some targets for the the board like it should be things that the board can actually do and then we can take the other things that we want to put as far as like direction that we want the district to go in as narrowed down from that strategic plan and you make that part of the superintendent evaluation process. Well, these are the this is the direction we've given the superintendent to go >> because I mean we can't just start going around the district and say, "Hey, Mr. Lucas, like this is what I want you to do today." Like that's not our prerogative. >> It's but it's not. I mean, so let me let me rephrase this. It's like if if we're a board of if we're a school board and and think of us as the the directors of a of a of a company, right? We need to see what dash what kind of dashboard do we need to look at to know that our that that enterprise is being successful. And that dashboard is going to have multiple categories of of topics like academics, like finance, like operations, like customer service satisfaction or HR XYZ. And so what we need to do is what what do you want to know at the academic level for the enterprise/lakeville area schools to to make you feel comfortable that they are delivering on that that service? I think we I think we know some of that though over the course of the last five or six months. Let me go back a step. What Matt put together is is is a a conglomeration of everybody's ideas to some degree. Okay. And and in essence, what I think this is, it's not a document like this is what we're going to do. It's a document of this is what we're going to discuss tonight and make sure that these are the things or some variation of these things come to fruition >> and and Brian I I you know on metrics and data so I'm I'm on your page there but I just I think it's the reverse honestly I think if I may >> Yep. >> Um I I think we need to understand back to Brett's point but I believe this too. We need to understand what direction we want this to go whether it's academically or finance. And my sense is academics and finance are the the top two >> the top two categories >> and then and then we waterfall down from there. But I think academics first and then finance you know we want to make sure there's academic success. We want to make sure we're not going broke and then after that what's left if there is anything left. >> Yeah. >> Let me share two things and then I'll pause. >> Hold on one second. I just want to respond to one thing on Kim. I don't want to put us in a box though as a board and say right we can't have initiatives right >> because plenty of initiatives were shared and and we'll discuss them but because we have been observing things and I don't want to keep saying like hey this is our general overarching thing that we're monitoring where we see some room for improvement and we don't just come out and say it like we'd like you to try this or analyze this for us and let us know what you think right >> I don't yeah I don't disagree with that M I I've just been looking at like we should have some based on the presentations that we've received for the last several weeks slash months. We know where some of our gaps and our our goals are within the district and things that we need to focus on. Um so let's let's identify like what our priorities are for the year, right? our goals around that and then I think some of these district initiatives or things that you put in there will fit under those goal areas and those would fit in as like key performance indicators like to show that you're making progress towards it. >> We need but you got to have those metrics first you guys. I mean so let me here's an example. All right, putting the school district lens on. What do I need to see from the school district to to help me understand that academics is progressing or academics is meeting the target, whatever that might be. And so, uh, I I had a chance to come in and and we went through that data presentation. Here's one example. All right, academics reading, uh, grade three reading levels. All right, uh, and and and maybe we don't need to get down to each grade level, but just here's an example. grade three reading, we would want uh we want to know what the fastbridge data is. Uh that that would that that would be one metric that that's available three times a year, fall, winter, spring. And we want to know uh what what what the score is for those that are meeting and exceeding. And so whatever that number is. And so I did some calculations because we're looking at the data. uh for grade three reading the number is 74.3 for fall 73.3 for winter and 72.6 six. And so if I was a board of if I was a school board member looking at that dashboard, I would be okay, winter, fall, spring, here's your metric. Uh and then secondarily, the other metric that I'd want to see is how many of the benchmarks from the MCA scores is the grade three reading levels meeting between red, yellow, green. All right. And so yellow means according to the data that we're meeting expectations. green means that we are exceeding expectations and you get a score. And so when I'm looking at this this dashboard that would be available to me on a quarterly basis, I would see all right the fast bridge data is this, the the winter data is this, the spring data is this, and then >> but we have access to that data. >> I we have access, but I but I'm suggesting that we should have a a singular dashboard that has all of that for us and and we use that as a north star. Now, as a group, we might decide, okay, now we've got the data. Do we want the fast bridge data to be at 72.6? That's the question, you know, do we want our MCA benchmarks to be 11 yellow and two green? And and so we can say no, we don't want them. We want five yellows or we want five greens. We want the benchmarks from FastBridge to be 78%. And so then we're establishing the goals for the district at that metric level. And then we do that for all the academics. And then from there, those goals is what he's like that's his directive to like go figure out how to get this degree. If go figure out how to how this gets to 80, we like that's how we should be doing it. And so when I look at this document right here where it says, you know, by June 2026, 100% of core academic courses and all schools will use curriculum and material that are aligned with Minnesota academic standards. I view that as as an initiative because it's not a metric that I can track. What we need to get to first is documenting what are the metrics we want to track as a dashboard so that anyone can come in and see. Are we doing good? Are we not doing good? And then what are all the initiatives underneath throughout the year that we might be need to >> Can I put a pause on this for a second? Because it's not that I'm not wanting to look at the data. We have access to the data and I've been um you know weeding through what we have access to but the thing is like we've had access to this data. What are we going to do with it? So you're saying we're all at 70%. Okay. Well, you're going to put a target on them that you want them all to 80%. Like I feel like some of the things that we've been talking about over the past like several months are impacting these scores and we can't ignore those things. for example, the teacher mentorship programming, having supports in our our classroom for that, the interventions, making sure that we're using high quality interventions because if we don't have that, this isn't going to come. >> But that's not our that's not our choice. That's not our place to tell them that's what they need. >> But you're saying it is because you're you're tracking this. So the same thing, >> but we're tracking the metric. We're we as a district feel like, hey, we think we we can be at 80. Figure out how to get there. >> Can I add something to this? So, I come from a current strategic plan at the University of Minnesota that's I think similar to what you're talking about where there's um many metrics and there's actual numbers assigned to a variety of goals. I think I and there are some school districts that have a or have like a strategic plan or a goal that looks very similar to that. I think that's interesting to think about like and and some districts have like their benchmark data like where are we now? Yep. >> What would it mean to progress? like what we arrange and then what is our like aspiration like our dream goal >> and that's attractive to me. Um >> so I think there's potential like room for that. I think the how we get to achieve that goal is not the board's expertise at all. >> Um and the other thing I was going to say not related to this particular thing but it seems like we have a current strategic plan. Some of those goals are in these documents. some of those goals are absent from this document. And so part of me is wondering like do we need to back this up slightly and say is it time because it's been a while, right, to actually are we changing our strategic plan because that's what it seems like >> we're doing. Well, we're due for it, but it's also this document is changing the strategic plan like because we have listed goals in the strategic plan >> and and half of them are here and half of them aren't. >> Which document you talking about? >> The produced. You mean the list of all the goals that people set? >> Yeah. Like on that this is again this is to facilitate the discussion of what do we want our goals to be. It's not a we're adopting this. >> Oh yeah. No, I get that. But what I'm saying is like >> maybe we need to have a discussion is the current strategic plan >> what we want it to be. >> And if it's not but it's broad enough. If you look at our actual strategic plan, it's so broad and even like so I produced this single page thing like if the goal is improved proficiency and achievement in core areas of study that falls under our strategic plan right now, right? And then you can have sub goals underneath that that are more specific. I mean our core goal number one right now that was from 22 23 improve our teaching and learning practices and processes to increase student achievement. It's a pretty general statement and many of the things that people sent in would fall underneath that as well. And that goes to what you were saying, Kim, that could be an initiative which is just a KPI, >> right? >> I mean, for instance, by June of 2026, 100% of core academic courses if we want to get >> make sure that our curriculum is in aligned with alignment with with state standards, 100% is the goal. >> 100% go. Yep. So you can have it where all of your benchmarks for from your MCA, they need to be green. I don't want two. I want 13. I have 11 that are in yellow. >> And so we can arbitrarily decide. >> So why wouldn't we take our current goals as they have been approved by the board and the community and say, okay, under goal one, improve our teaching and learning data set. >> Yeah. >> Here are the three sub goals or two sub goals or whatever for this year. >> It's not a sub goal. You're talking about a specific metric to measure that. So what you Yeah. So what what the discussion that's actually happening is do we want to use improve our teaching and learning practices and processes to increase student achievement. >> Do we want to keep that goal? >> Yes. How do we measure it? That's where you're going. >> I don't want to get to goals, guys. We got to get to what do you you what metric do you want to know? How do you measure if your school if your school is being productive? That's it. >> And so I don't care if if let me rephrase that. It's not I don't mind. It's not important to me if our curriculum is not 100%. Because my metric here is telling me that my metric of your MCA results is telling me that your curriculum is is is not where it needs to be. Because if I've got if I if I've got 11 that are in yellow status for uh reading grade three, then like like what do you need to get there? Well, that that's up to him and his and the district's administration to figure out. We got to look at our curriculum. >> I would disagree that it's just curriculum based. >> Now, we can we can we can reinforce them and say, "Yeah, we agree you should reassess your curriculum and maybe we make that as an initiative, as a superintendent goal." But I guess what I'm trying to get get us to is let's build a dashboard. What metrics do you want to see in that dashboard to tell you your school district is doing well? That's it. Forget about the goals for a moment, okay? forget about we want this and we want mentorship and we want XYZ. That's a part two conversation. We don't even have a part one conversation which is a dashboard for as a school board that we look at quarterly or monthly that says our school's doing great. >> We do have dashboards. >> Do you get them monthly? I don't get them monthly. I get a financial report that's part of a >> Well, we have access to the dashboards that give us like the enrollment data like all of those things. and then I can pull up the academic scores if I want and look at them. Um, but I also don't want to just focus on like third grade when we have E through 12, not just K through 12 and you guys are focusing on we have early childhood too. And I do want to provide some educational background and context this conversation because you're really focused on these um scores and do you know why they started doing that? Like I mean we've always had tests to some extent but I mean we always talk about oh after co we slipped. Our scores as a nation the United States of America started slipping in 1982. This was a problem that was identified in 1982. They talked about it for several years and then the big response to this problem was the No Child Left Behind Act. And what did we say that we were going to do? We didn't look at curriculum. We didn't look at instruction. We didn't look at supports for teachers. We said we're putting more tests in place for districts and they have to do it. So now instead of one standardized test a year, you guys have to do two, right? Two different ones measuring different things, giving us outcomes. Nothing from anything that any of those tests have done has changed our curriculum and our instruction to actually show academic, excuse me, there in lies the purpose of our responsibility to put a direction on these types of things. Oh, I 100% agree with you, but I just don't think the scores are the ones we focus on. >> But if I may, Brian, I I'm I'm in your camp with metrics. I'm in your camp with data. You know that, right? But I do think it's flipped and and let me explain why. First of all, this is an opening salvo, okay? >> Right. >> We're not we're not going to have drop dead goals tonight, >> right? What we I think need to do is we need to have discussions on content and directions we want to do with academic achievement with finance and if there's a third category but I think those first two have to happen have to happen just have to happen that being said once we understand what directions like proficiency to 90%. Okay. Then we have to understand the metrics which to me is step two instead of step one. Right? >> Because even if we go with your premise and we say let's do metrics first you you don't know what metric you're even thinking about unless you start thinking about a directive that will >> right. You don't know what variables are going to impact the outcome. >> Varalize my point. Yes. Okay. >> Yes. >> That's what I'm saying. He put it more eloquently. So, so Brian, that's why I think we can go in the same direction. It's just step one, step two. Go ahead. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead, Matt. You're there. My apologies. >> Uh, sorry. >> So, I I've taken notes at board meetings and I've been trying to give my staff direction. uh and I think director Thompson said multiple times academics, finance, operations, HR. Did I say that right? >> Yep. So I think in in those lines of operation and with respect to the idea of a QBR or a monthly or whatever um we've started to do work to shape that >> um I think Chair Swanson we shared with you from an from on the academic side which we've prioritized for obvious reasons uh finance and academics We prioritized um MCAs, MCA benchmark reports, Fastbridge academic benchmark, Fastbridge academic growth, ACT advanced placement, grad rates, and PSO and being able to articulate and paint a picture with data in those areas as a place to start and nested in the existing strategic plan. I think director Cameron uh said earlier and maybe director Baker said it as well. We have a for lack of a better description a vetted an existing strategic plan. So I see the structure being in that format to be to give the efficacy to the work that preceded this board but exists within the system already and also to bridge the desire of this board to be more data driven. Um, you know, we talked about zerobased budgeting >> and that is another element of this that maybe isn't qualitatively stating a dashboard per se, but there's a method behind that with regard to how does that improve our financial um standing, if you will, and our our trajectory. Um, so that's how I'm seeing the framework here. And as I I read through these uh which I understand are just primers or primmer whichever word you like. I don't know what the Brits say. Primmer primer. Um, so I mean we're as a staff we're we're really on board to try to to operate within a framework that is meeting you where I think you you want to go here and having some experience doing this in the past. My learning is that if if you shape it under a framework and you create that data picture with dynamic data, not static data, that you can be um effective in sharing not just internally but externally with our public what we look like and what those u measures of effectiveness are with your key your key performance indicators. I I mean I see this clear as day. Um the challenge internally is to produce that at a high level and in a so the fidelity, the efficacy and the frequency on a on a cadence that's going to be demonstrating improvement over time. Can I ask you for one? Do you see any distinction between district goals and superintendent goals if we're structuring things? Because it seems like whatever we set for a district goal is going to be kind of your goals on your >> I mean >> to me they're superintendent goals. >> Yeah. >> And I don't mean this arrogantly. I am the district until you fire me and I'm not the district. Right. Um and or I could retire. that doesn't work out. Sorry, just having a little edity there. Um I I don't see a distinction. I do see um a I see board goals maybe being different and a distinction there. Um and but for me, it's district goals, superintendent goals. I can align underneath that and I try to work with every one of you and and meet you where you're at and and try to systematize what you're asking for. >> I mean, that's what I'm trying to do. And I'll go back to academics, finance, operations, HR. That's a good starter in my humble opinion. >> All right, let's uh start with >> Let's get back in academics. >> I want to ask a question though. So, like we're talking about goals, we're talking about direction, all that kind of stuff. What What has been our trajectory the last three years? For what? Everything. >> Fix something. >> Would you say we're going up? We're going down, we getting better. >> Yeah, >> great question. But in just looking at it from our goals, all our go all of our goals are improve teaching and learning practices. >> Okay, that's a goal. But why why was that a goal? >> Are are our practices going down? Are we are we like what is our issues? I see one of the biggest challenges of where we at where we are at is that we have not evaluated ourselves. We have not evaluated the superintendent. We haven't considered kind of what are maybe not considered but it's hard for me to say how we should go after academics when we don't understand the problem of I mean it's multiple things. And so I think we have to when we think about how to improve academics, we have to come at it from multiple angles. But I see as a board one of our biggest problems is we don't have we're not getting in a cadence of evaluation and strategic plan. We should be updating our strategic plan but how do we go through okay so for instance in May April May time we should be evaluating ourselves. which should be evaluated to the superintendent 204 goals we developed for the next academic year that should be conveyed in the June time period so that the administration can plan for execution. So I it's hard for me to start where we are. I know we have history >> and we know to to come back to your question like are we seeing improvement that we want to? I don't I don't what do we have that's measurable to >> and and that's that's the problem. We don't have a dashboard guys that tells us the state of our school district. >> And so how do you plan goals? >> But again I think you have to set and figure out what metrics we need to measure that goal right >> it's right there. >> Yeah some but that is the problem I have with everything on this page like this if that's what you're looking at. No, I'm looking at the dashboards. >> Yeah, but these don't these are just enrollment demographics. These are these are all >> stat those are public things, right? So, you can only have so much available to the public cuz private student data which we do have access to is for a board member. So, like I said, like you have access to the academics, you have access to enrollment, attendance, all of those things, >> reading and math. Yeah, that that like >> and then we have access to staffing. There's a staffing dashboard that's on every one of our board things now. So, we know like where we're at with So, I mean, I feel like the district is responding to the requests that we have put on their plate. >> I think you need to put the target and the goal to it though, like what what is good? What does good look like? >> The purpose of me requesting you guys to send in goals is so we would have some direction, right? If you didn't send in a goal, let's hold it till the end. All right, let's just go through the goals starting with academics. See what we need for metrics to measure that goal. See if it's a goal we want to even agree upon for a board. >> If we need to Oh, sorry. The second one was just the single page is just an idea. Okay. >> To structure it, but >> so this one. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um and then if we need to address the strategic plan, I mean I I get the idea for direction for the district, but if our goals don't align with the strategic plan, we can adjust the strategic plan. It's just words. I mean, there's I've gone through the page. It's just a lot of whatever. Somebody did a lot of work on it and it's great, but again, we as a new board can decide what our direction is, right? So, let's start let's just go down the list. I 90% I will say and I think I >> can we start with number one? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> We'll get there. But yeah, that is something that came up. We'll chat about >> Can we Can we make sure we read them out loud, too, just for >> Yes. >> number one. Uh, and again, >> we'll chat about each one. So, don't jump all over me because I'm reading this. Uh, but I do agree with this one. By June 2026, 100% of core academic courses, math and literacy, science, and social studies in all schools will use curriculum and materials that are aligned with Minnesota academic standards verified by annual curriculum audits. >> A couple questions. >> You can ask as many questions as you want. >> Okay. One comment, one question. Um, I think this should be happening. Um, however, I think our school districts should be um in compliance with all state standards, not just the ones that we choose as a board. So, there are more than this. There's art standards. Um, there's other standards. So, I think it should be all standards. Um, and then >> so all courses of study. >> Yeah. And then my other question, I think this relates to many items, is we're using the term curriculum um a lot and I think the term curriculum has very different meanings and connotations given the context. As a board, I would hope that we are when when we use curriculum and I would almost suggest changing it that we are talking about learning targets. So, as a district, for each um grade or each subject, we have learning targets. But then the day-to-day lessons that are happening in a classroom to me is not something that has to be identical to all students because that's never going to happen. I mean, every teacher has strengths and weaknesses in certain areas and I would hate to take away the creativity from teaching. So I think it's important that we that all teachers address the learning targets and achieve those learning objectives. But the the exact worksheet that they do that from I think that is not something we want to >> Can I just ask a question? Are we not doing that with math and literacy right now in elementary with the new curriculum that's being implemented? >> I don't >> what's your question? >> I mean I I think there's probably a high level curriculum, right, that every teacher is using but then at least in my my kids's experience and um there are supplemental things that teachers are are doing based on their experience and practice that aren't in the purchased curriculum, right? So like a book that they choose to read might be a different book than the other third grade class. I think one of the issues that we have right now though talking with the teachers is that there's they've said many times that we don't have sort of that overarching structure anymore though that it's been kind of >> washed away over years of you know people coming whatnot changing and whatnot and and people have >> things for certain lessons that meet objectives that meet standard. other people in other buildings might not have access to those because we don't have a common core which I I think is that's what I think this that that's the way I read this maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I kind of read that is like the common core means >> I think curriculum can mean all of us talking about and we should be consistent >> but I think you're talking about benchmarks right when you talk about objectives >> Emily's got objective >> so if it's helpful >> when internally I can explain to you how we define those two words. >> So internally when we are talking about curriculum, we were talking specifically about standards and benchmarks. That is what you should be teaching. That is what the state demands that we implement in the classroom. So when we say curriculum, and this is a shift from 20 years ago, curriculum used to be here's your textbook, here's your curriculum, right? We're in a different space now. So we define that internally as standards and benchmarks that we are required to teach. That is the curriculum you teach in your building and classroom. When we talk about things like materials, >> textbooks, novels, additional things, we refer to those as resources. So any type of physical thing that you're thinking about, that's how we define it. So I I don't I don't know if that's helpful in the context of if you're writing a goal around stuff, it it will be more easily understandable internally because that's how we define >> you want you want consistent curriculum variable resources. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> So what did we just implement in elementary school with reading and math? >> Not so I mean they're just given hey here are the benchmarks you can figure out how to teach them. >> No. So we have a >> specific program. >> We have a we have a very um extensive multi-year process that we go through with the teacher leadership teams and the first thing they do is start with those standards and benchmarks because they have to understand at a deep level what is being asked of them. What are they supposed to teach and to what degree of rigor and that's sometimes where we see um students underperforming is because we may not be teaching that particular benchmark. that's a different conversation. >> So then what they do is they um they take all of that once they understand what those benchmarks are and what the expectations are um uh then they move into the resourcing phase. And the resourcing phase is where they they take a look at a wide variety of resources and they put that up against the standards and say how much of this resource is actually teaching the Minnesota state standards and to the proper degree of rigor and then that's how the adoption process starts. So they start with the the standards benchmarks, they layer on the resource. If a resource is missing something, but say it's 90% there, then what you'll see is you'll see them go through a process of um engaging in conversations about supplemental resources to meet those specific benchmarks that aren't being met by the resource. >> So what did we pay for though? I guess is because we just we have a curriculum budget, right? So what did we pay for >> math for math? >> So we paid for all of the resources that the the teams and the teachers and the committees aligned and they said they said of all the math because there are lots the here's the reality. The reality is that when you're talking about core resources they are not generally created for Minnesota. They are created for states like Texas for example. And the reason why it's smart if you're in business is that they do statewide adoptions. So if they adopt something, it's for the whole state. So you can imagine if you're a publishing company, >> we still got to get us 80 90% of our way there. >> 100%. >> Unless the Minnesota Department of Education thinks that their standards should be very should be very very different from, you know, the tax 80%. >> Yes. There are always there will always be to your point Brett there will always be some pieces that are missing because there's not really a Minnesota specific curriculum to align to the standards which is why the teachers and the TNL teams have to do that work to say >> are we matching the proper resource to the standard. So, so one is you want all the resources that we have available to to meet 100% of slash the curriculum slash the the target the the the benchmarks >> right >> I think it's I think it's realistic to like evaluate these large um resources that we're purchasing like the ones we're we're referencing >> I I think it's kind a waste of time to start looking at the 10% that or even like the 2% let's say that an individual teacher just says like I'm really good at science in kindergarten and we're going to do this cool lab and then the kindergarten teacher next to me might not do it within reason that that that is healthy to like have teachers play on their strengths >> while 95% is still consistent >> within a classroom you might have kids who get extra materials based on their level or where they are those benchmarks or they might be using different things that they're not meeting. >> Is that appropriate? I mean, if you have one kid that goes to Lake View and another kid that then then they transfer to East View, like don't we want things to be consistent? >> Number two, right, which is kind of related to this. >> It does. It all this discussion sort of dubtales into number two because one of the things that that we were looking at is or talking about was that the same education at a grade level no matter what school the the student's attending. So, if if a student's in in middle school A and learning about puppies, and then in middle school B, they're learning about kittens, but both schools aren't teaching puppies and kittens, they both come out knowing one subject, but not the two subjects they need. So, so the point is that we're trying to get st and and Amber, we're not talking about breaking innovation. Teachers need to be creative and innovative. I agree with that 100%. >> That is something every resource needs to be evaluated. >> But we need to have resources that hit the benchmark. >> Yeah. >> Or how they're teaching. >> Back to the question, what do we have today? >> What subjects are we missing stuff or are we out of date? Is middle school math 15 years from a refresh? Cuz that's what I've heard. People are saying we still have duct tape textbooks that we're using and stuff that has been from >> 2010. So that's the type of thing that when I saw this I'm like yeah sure do it get let's get up to date across the board. So where are we with all of this? Like what's you know okay we all know that now what K through five math will be consistent >> and literacy >> literacy K through three cuz we we >> it >> fourth and fifth though was a math but they're >> yeah but we didn't have anything new in fourth and fifth in reading them because he only goes to third. So that was the new thing that we bought. So, fourth and fifth, explain to me what what are we doing there? Are we doing anything new in reading? Do we have a new resource? Do do we have new resources for reading? How about 6 7 8 9 10 12? Like, run me through it. Like, what are we missing stuff? What's current? What's not? >> Yeah. I mean we have a because we follow the um the MDE um standards review timeline we have different subjects in yeah different subjects in different states in terms of that right so I think you're all aware of that um >> for ELA at the elementary so ELA is they're in the midst of a review process al also of the reading act work the um around evidence-based practices. So we have teams of teachers at all levels um right now K12 preK12 um working on doing lit work around literacy and the standards around literacy. That said, because the because the state the state now is determining what our options are for resources. So like for math, we can go look at every and any math curriculum we want. The state is determining that and they have not completed all of their work. >> They're determining is reimburseable. Right. >> Right. Some of it is reimburseable. We can't we can't adopt a new a full new curriculum like we're doing with math until we know what that answer is. So, we do expect an adoption to be coming forward for ELA for the elementary um based on what the state tells us and and how they make their decisions. But here's the bottom line. >> What's what's the MCA benchmark today? >> And that that will tell you where where we are at. I mean, I think it's what is it 52% or something? I I don't know what the elementary benchmark is for for reading. >> Yeah. >> I mean, it's 52%. I mean, if that's what it is or 60%. >> But you're >> I mean because because the MCAs are are the the elementary students >> are taking the MCA's test which is the state benchmark and if they're not being taught it, meaning we don't have the curriculum, we don't have the resources. >> Well, there's a question that's too though. Yes, assuming they're you're assuming that the curriculum is actually going to do it, which if you remember 1800 hooked on phonics worked for me. >> Remember that big joke for everybody. Guess what's back? >> Mhm. >> Phonics in the read matters. >> Phonics matters. It's a huge thing. This whole idea of like, oh, read the first three letters of the word and then guess what that word is. So, are you asking Are you asking what percentage of our elementary reading resources are meeting state standards today? Ballpark. ask your question. >> What percentage of elementary resources for reading are meeting state elementary benchmarks today? >> Well, anytime we go through an alignment uh process, those things should be aligned 100%. >> So, we're at So, so we're at 100%. when we when we um that that's one thing that when we we always start >> and end with the standards and the benchmarks the expectation is those are being taught at the elementary we have our continuous progress report which reports on standards and benchmarks for students on how they're doing. So everything has to be >> but let's be aligned like right now 100% of our resources for elementary >> she just said that we can't because with the state turned us on the head and said we're doing the read act this is what you have to do and you have to implement our chosen curriculums to meet these targets that we've set through the read act. So, a lot of districts had the phonics curriculum, right? And so, we've implemented some phonics. There's literally only one curriculum that's approved right now at the state level for comprehension, and that's Witten Wisdom. We have no choice but to choose that one until they finish their process if you want to be reimbursed as a district. Is that the best one? I don't know because they haven't looked at the other one. So, there's no district in the state that is 100% aligned right now. >> But you could supplement, right? And that's what we're talking about. You supplement with other resources. and we can tell through the MCA which benchmarks we're missing. So, sorry, going back to >> I think I just want to say something about that real quick. >> I agree that having a strong curriculum is important >> is a key driver in student performance. I don't think you can explain MCA scores by only looking at our curriculum. There are many factors why a student would not perform well on an MCA regardless of curriculum. I would say the best. You can tell by looking at MCA scores which benchmarks our curriculum might not be teaching to >> or where our student body needs support. Mhm. >> Well, you you might be able to to find themes in areas that were not doing well that would make sense if it's occurring across >> versus >> so if you're looking at the fast bridge data which is quarterly and if they're sitting at 75% in win in fall winter spring but then our MCA resource 52 we've got a gap meaning we're teaching things that are not on the benchmark because our kids are meeting the fast bridge metrics from fall winter spring. So >> yeah, and and our our district is really and the public assesses our district by the MCA scores. Fortunately or unfortunately, it's a reality. So why not make sure that our resources and curriculum are geared towards the state? >> Well, I support that. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying >> find the best curriculum might not get us the best test scores. >> Okay. Correct. I mean, there are other issues. >> There are lots of other issues that we need to support a whole child. >> But maybe start at this base. Can we can we agree with reading and math third grade through 8th grade 90% MCA scores? >> Hold on. Hold on. Let's let's hold on. Let's get back here. >> All right. Going back to one. >> Is there I mean, why not, right? For one, do we want to say curriculum and resource? Well, I guess we say materials, but resources would be I mean, if I gave you that goal, >> I don't I don't think that's our place. I mean, I want I I would want you to want to go there, but I don't think it's my place to tell you you should be at 100% core resources. I would I my the metric should be I need you to hit 100% on my MC MCA benchmarks. >> But again, we're removing variables from the equation, right? If if our curriculum is in alignment, >> then our test scores will better reflect >> performance. But we're giving him the how. I mean we don't want we don't want him to I don't >> I just the only thing I want you to consider Brian like we can help on the curriculum side of in terms of yes encouraing that >> but we are asking I mean I do think we have to ask the administration what they think a reasonable move in terms of the needle would be because we are not getting to make a jump from 60 some% to 90 to 90%. We're 100% you're saying? >> Yep. >> We're not getting getting giving them more people. We're not giving them more money. We're giving them more time. >> But is that what's needed? >> We don't >> again if we have if you have a goal, but but this I think this goes to his point though. If you have a goal and a target that you're going after, you're trying to achieve that, then if you can't hit it, you should be able to determine what are the barriers that are keeping us from hitting that target. So you can't add >> We've had targets forever. >> No, you haven't. We haven't had >> We haven't had targets. >> You had to get better. Let's get better. It's not a target. That is not a benchmark. That is not a metric. >> Okay. I I don't disagree, but what I'm saying is it's been a goal for the district for MCAs to improve. That's it. >> That's clearly a benchmark that the district is trying to move the needle. >> I disagree with that. We've been on the board together for 3 years, Carly, and this this like that that hasn't been like we're going to try to move this by 5%. We're going to try to move this by two and a half% >> percentage. I'm just saying that if the superintendent and assistant superintendent can tell us >> why in this moment we're not meeting benchmarks. I don't think it's a simple straightforward answer. I think it's a very complex answer that deserves some evaluation. But just slapping a number on it to me in this juncture when we don't have like we have a problem that we haven't dug in to figure out. I mean the nation had the problem. >> If I I think this is important and you're making a point about how do we quantify this because we're not sure why it's happening. Here's my concern and I'm going to go back to something Brett said a little while ago. We've been looking at data that's been provided for and and I don't know if this data is good or bad, Emily. Honest to Pete, I'm just seeing numbers, but 67 89 bridge scores. We saw in February, I think we've seen MCA scores uh you know, whenever we saw them. Okay, we've been asking for five months, where is the data? If these numbers aren't legitimate, give us something that counts. Haven't seen it yet. That's no, that's not a derogatory comment. I'm just making a factual statement. So, I'm going to come back to something you said that I think is important. You got to put a number on it to create a challenge. And then all of a sudden people are motivated to be either innovative or come up with, you know, we need um we need A, B, and C because with those three things, we can get you 5%. Okay. Now, the board can help you. We can get you those three things and you get the 5% and we got 12,000 kids that are that are going to be better in the world when they graduate. That's where we're coming from. >> Do we know that if we improve MCA scores that they're going to be better in the world? >> Give me another indicator. >> Yeah, actually. Okay. So, >> because we're all into evidence-based research and everything else. So Connecticut State Department of Education early academic proficiency mastery of reading and math skills by the end of third through fifth grade strongly predicts high school graduation, reduced remediation, better life outcomes. Uh academic self efficacy um belief in their ability to succeed is a leading predictor of performance and motivation. Students with higher self-efficacy are more resilient, better or perform better across grade levels. And >> I think we all like that's all what we're talking about. But that's that's exactly what let me let me draw back to the goal. Okay. >> The goal is MCA. So >> I mean it's far more complicated. >> We can we can chat about >> that's number three. We should start with number three and we'll go back to number one cuz one feeds into number three. Hold on. >> We measure proficiency. >> Where's Where's my gel? Can we start with three? >> Yeah. Do it again. All right. Hold on. >> No, we've already we're a little deep into one. >> Okay. >> So, the goal is every increasing academic outcomes, right? No one is going to disagree with that, right? >> That's what number one is about. >> No, no. I'm just saying generally speaking, >> number one, we are responsible for curriculum, right, for approving textbooks and areas of studies. So why wouldn't we as a board be able to set a goal that we want to make sure that the curriculum that's implemented and used is not only consistent but going towards the standards that we want taught in the school because again if we're going to evaluate student performance, don't we want, you know, a consistent like education so we can see how students are doing across the board. >> Yeah, I support this. I just want to make sure you weren't reviewing every worksheet. >> Yeah. And that's >> well micromanagement and like the overarching like hey we're pacing at a similar level right like >> we're doing addition subract subraction >> I'm going to say all course of study standard >> that has a study standard >> I disagree with that and and I would love that I well I would agree I would agree that it could be a good part two but if we want to focus on our goals we should make sure our state standards are being met for the three things that we are tested on which is reading math and science. >> We're not tested on social studies. We're not tested on art. Like there isn't a >> those enhance student learning in in these other areas. >> I agree. But we're not tested on it. We're not penalized on any of those things. >> The problem is consistency again. And if we're going towards state standards, it's consistent. >> Agree. So then what do we tell them to focus all their energies on? Because I don't want it on art if we can't even do reading right. >> So from a priority ranking, >> have you ever watched Mr. Holland's Opus? for from a priority ranking once like we need to focus on the state standards. >> You can't drill kids 24/7 and they're going to read better, right? >> I understand research right to show participation art increases reading school. I understand but understand the relationship. >> But if our if we are if we are tested on reading, math and science, let's make sure that our focus is on reading math and science first and our kids are going to have to regurgitate. >> I mean, you could you could argue and I think this is right. Literacy is probably primary. I mean, you learn to read, then you read to learn, as somebody recently told me, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it, right? >> So, if we're gonna prioritize on making something consistent first, I think you can have priorities within that list and focus on our core studies, >> but everyone like Amber said, everything should be aligned with the state standards. >> Um, >> I agree. I say we my vote would be all. >> Okay. So, minor compromise. >> Yes. First target that you're going for is reading. So first metric that you start talking about that we are going to really prioritize on the general statement of all curriculum all you know resources whatever need to align to the state standard across the board. 100% sure no doubt no argument I got no problem with it. First one that we want to see from a metrics perspectives though and how are we going to start measuring could be reading. You could say reading is absolutely critical and I will die on this hill if by fifth grade we are not seeing an increase in reading. >> We are doing a disservice to every fifth grade kid in this in this system >> cuz in middle school it all changes. It's a whole different animal. >> Fifth grade >> I think 90% fifth grade reading is% >> is a is a target that we should strive to achieve. We are we are striving for excellence. We're not striving for mediocrity. So the the goal being 90% I think is not unreasonable for 90% of our kids that have the capacity and I guess you guys people who are specifically in education I don't get the rest of >> third grade in five years but 90% 90% is impossible to make that level of growth in a year since everyone's jumping to three. Let's just let them come back to us and tell us. >> Did we agree on number >> Did we agree on one? >> Are we in agreement? >> No. >> Yes. >> I am not in agreement with one because that is the how and I would expect them to figure out what they want to bring forward and how to get there. We are responsible. >> This is the what and then they go do that. >> This is all these them as goals like refining all the metric. I don't know. We're going to >> we're going to be here all night. There's something that we The metric that we need to be driving or the metric that we ought to be monitoring is the MCA score 90%. Fifth grade, third grade, fifth grade, third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade. >> I I don't MCA is the ultimate goal here. You guys are teaching and learning. What's >> I mean it will be a but not the goal. >> There's two conversations. So, we're still in one. All right. Let's knock out one. >> Start there. Start a conversation and start a conversation. Just for people at home, you need to be careful that we don't have side comments. So is a conversation regarding number one? >> No. >> Then let's not talk about it right now. >> Can I ask a question about number one though? Yeah. >> So my point and Paul I appreciate what you were saying to me. However, we can all agree on one. We can all agree on page two number six. I don't think we're like voting that number one is our a goal at the moment, right? We're like we're going to com we're going to have this conversation refine this and then deci decide amongst all of these what are the priorities. >> Yeah. Can I just say one thing? I I'm fine with that process but at the end of the day >> the buses are warming up out there. >> Yep. >> And I'm going to move out with a purpose and I want to meet your intent. I just want you to know that I'm going to do that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. But so Emily, just to a question about number one here. Um if if we were saying like in in this like if when you're looking at this, how out of alignment are our core academics? >> Well, I would say our core academics are aligned to the standards and benchmarks. >> Okay. Um I think where we experience uh some challenges is around resourcing number one. Um number two, >> hang on doesn't make sense to me. No, no, because you just said resourcing is not aligned meaning that we couldn't we can't hit benchmark. So either we have resources that hit all the benchmarks or we don't have resources are um teachers are clear on what their standards and benchmarks are. So they know what they're supposed to be teaching. So in that regard, it is an expectation across the system and the teachers are clear. These are my standards. These are my benchmarks. This is the expectation of what we're teaching. So so we don't say teach whatever you want. You don't have to teach the standards. So I would say that from our perspective there is clarity from the staff and from our leaders that the expectation is that they are teaching what the department of education communicates to us that they need to be teaching. When I say resourcing because first of all um I know you're all familiar with our history. We had significant and deep cuts for many many many years which we would bring teachers together to work on the standards and the benchmarks and to understand what they were supposed to teach and to what level of rigor but we did not always have the dollars in the system to be able to provide resources. So we were really in a more of a like a self-creation environment. Focus on the standards, focus on the benchmarks, which is why we have really old resources like in math. And so then as we have been sort of um getting in a better cycle both budget-wise and um from an implementation standpoint as we are following the MDE predictive cycle around standards we are both doing the standards work to ensure that they're clear and then also doing the resourcing work on top of that so that when they walk into the school year. Math is a perfect example. They have clarity around what I'm supposed to teach, to what degree of rigor, and then what are the the resources that I have to support me in my scope and sequence to teach the students over the course of the year. And then what happens is then the after that year is complete, then it's a reflection back to say what are we missing? What's going well? what do we need to do differently? So I I think it's a it's it's a it's a little bit complex because when we're talking about standards and benchmarks that is a that's a clear directive in terms of what they're supposed to be teaching. >> But and the gap is do we have the resources >> that that have them that meet that the the the next question for me then is okay so where are you guys at seeing as we were at you know 53%. So, what have you guys been doing now? What's already in flight? Um, like how are you closing the gap? >> When you say what's in >> in flight, what are you what are you currently working on to address these? I mean, if this is what we're saying 53% in reading, I don't know, pull up the numbers like whatever it is, they're low. So, if that's how you guys operate, what are you guys building right now? What are you resourcing right now? What are you adding to the toolbox to help teachers get those numbers to where we want them to be? Like what what's going on? >> But we're talking about number one. I think you're you're going on because you're talking about >> I know it's kind of old, >> right? But I want to know like what resources are building that 100% of core academic courses in our schools will use curriculum and materials that are aligned with the standards. So I want to know where we're at with that. And she's saying that we have some, but due to budget constraints over past years, we haven't been able to build our curriculum to to the degree that we have wanted to. So then if I look at this, >> what is that? What is that number? >> Well, but but wait a second. I think you need to think about this in the context of what you're asking. So if we know that we have these financial limitations that have limited our curriculum, right, and we've already purchased a map, we're waiting for the reading things. Is this something they can accomplish in a year? Like is this the thing that we should be talking about is what I'm asking. Because we know that there's limitations. She knows that there's limitations. We know that we're working on it, but we don't have the finances right now to fix it. So then >> we don't even know where we are. >> Like that's the problem, guys. We don't even know where we are. >> But that's that's the question. Like what is the gap? >> Well, you're implementing a map right now. >> Yeah. That's elementary, >> right? Yeah. What's secondary doing? >> That takes that takes care of a big chunk. >> You're exactly right. But can that be done in a year >> at all? >> Right. We don't have the money to buy a new curriculum for secondary. Well, and it assumes that our current stuff is not aligned with the standard, >> right? So, we know that. That's why I said we already know this. Like, we know that it's not aligned. >> No, I think resources. What resources are we using? Not the curriculum, right? Everyone >> Well, it says we'll use curriculum and materials that are aligned. We know that they're not changing curriculum and resources, >> but resources like what are what tools are we using might not be consistent. >> Change materials and resources. >> I did change it. Yeah, >> I agree. >> All right. So, I think this is fine. The question is by 2026 can you do all of them? >> I don't know but we need eight. We should have eight. >> How about we start with the first step like let's do an assessment to see where are we today and what's the percentage of our curriculum that is not even close to our >> I would like to know where we're out of alignment. I think that's a better question. >> So >> and then when we get that assessment then we can add a target >> dual >> which would be one of the metrics you need to see in the dashboard. >> Yeah. >> This is an important question. what he asks is very important because when we go to the community and we're asking for levy support because we need to buy like we're doing a learning levy if we can say like based on all of these past things I was a parent when when music was cut when art was cut when we were going through those big cuts and we can say >> this is where we're at with our curriculum >> yeah 67% of our reading curriculum does not meet state standards we need money so that we can make it 100%. >> There you go. >> There you go. All right. So do we have that metric today? No, that would be a great dashboard >> to see. So point I was trying to make with us putting all these goals out is that we don't have an evaluation of some of these things and we're putting numbers on it. So we can we can get >> which is why we need to focus on >> what do we want to see? >> We can get the number though. So we're in agreement on the goal. We can get the number so we can refine the goal and be more specific. >> Yes. Like I think 100% like based on what she's saying, but >> he's got it right there. Like we need to know where the temperature. >> Okay. >> For third grade reading, third grade math, fourth grade reading, fourth grade math, fifth grade, I think we should go all the way down to whatever the MCA uh uh you know, category or group of students that get tested on like we should go to that. We should go that far. >> What would that entail? >> Wait, >> I just want to try to understand how you >> No, we're still at number one. No, I think we're good. Number one for one curricular area. You want some skills? >> Reading, math, and science because those would be the top three priorities that we are tested on from the state. >> Thank you. >> So, you have to >> I mean I think the for for the areas that are either in the review process or are at the resourcing stage of the the review process. They have that documentation. Yes. >> What we what we are missing and I mean we I I would have to >> dig into this a a little bit deeper um to be able to speak to specifics. Um, but I think in areas where they either haven't been through the review process because MDE had we don't have new standards yet, then you're going to see a larger gap because more time has gone by. They have less access to resources or less uh current resources. Um, so I think you what you'll see is all of the groups that go have gone through the review process more recently, they have done that analysis and they could speak specifically to that. Um, it's just the the ones that haven't gone through that process. >> The ones that are more dated would be aligned with the former standard. >> Correct. >> So it's not like they're out of alignment. It's it's not that they're out of alignment, but I think realistically when you underresource teachers over a long period of time, what you can get is drift >> in the sense of this resource is so out of date. I mean, just think about social studies for example. We went in a couple of years ago into one of the elementary buildings and they had a previous text that they were using and it had a picture of a president three presidents ago on the on the cover, right? So, you can't teach kids what's going on in, you know, today's world if you're just teaching the textbook. And so what teachers do is they get creative and they say, "Okay, >> this textbook only goes up to 1989. So we need to supplement to meet these standards." And that's when you see more variation. They they're trying to do the best they can to teach because again, they're rooted in the standards and the benchmarks. And so that's why you see that when they're underresourced. >> How autonomous are these groups that are doing the curriculum reviews? How autonomous are the groups that are doing curriculum review? >> They are led by the teaching and learning team. So there's a ve there are very specific steps and processes um that they come together to work on. >> So secondary had Elida Kane. They all kind of rolled up to her. >> Mhm. So >> and her team. >> Okay. So >> yeah, they work they they schedule all the they pull the teams together. They schedule all of the meetings. They they work them through the process and the the you know going through the standards and the benchmarks. They help them with the alignment in terms of what the resources look like. >> Does it change drastically year to year? >> Um in terms of the process, >> no the actual standard, >> right? >> No, every 10 years they change, right? >> Yeah. Every 10 years. So, so then if we if we would have had curriculum, I'm sorry, if we had resources 10 years ago that met the math standard, we should be able to use that same resource for 10 years until they change it. >> Ideally, >> ideally, >> because the MDA MDE hasn't changed it. So, as long as we're consistent, then as long as we stay up to date. >> So, it does seem like this is something you can measure and not for sure. >> Good question. >> I mean, ideally, you get it right away. You're perfecting it. supplementing over 10 years, >> filling the gaps as you go along, >> the new math. >> Anyways, okay. I think we're in alignment on one. I don't know if it's as much a goal as it is guard rail. >> But, uh, yeah, >> it seems like a like a KPI like we need to know. >> It would be something on our schoolboard dashboard that says the number of resources meeting state standards metric. >> You hit the goal, it's good for 10 years, right? Yep. >> Uh, number two, the district will standardize curriculum and resources. I'll add that across all schools to enable accurate assessment of student outcomes from building to building. We've discussed this one before too. >> Well, would this be part of number one? >> It's kind of but not necessarily. I guess the question is do we want >> and I think we're already doing >> well assessments >> standardized assessments, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think the question is is everyone using the same resources? I guess the goal would be each each school would be using the best resources which would be consistent across >> well I would say we already know the answer to that is no because we're not 100% >> number one that is standardized across buildings. >> Yeah. >> Done. Let's go. >> Yeah, that can be. >> Yep. >> Okay. But isn't it about learning content and not I mean one of the things that comment >> I'm sorry they're in agreement Paul. >> Oh you're in agreement. Yes. I'm mesmerized. Sorry. I I just My gosh. I >> Number three. >> Go. Move on. >> All right. Let's go. >> Oh, man. >> Let me provide >> Let me provide context for three. >> Sorry, I shouldn't be in that skittle. >> They get stuck in your throat. So three comes from the oh the ESSA goal every student succeeds act obviously it's right in there um which is 90% proficiency I'm not sure what grade levels that's for but my understanding is that this goal is already being conveyed to the principles that are at least elementary and middle school if I'm not mistaken and so why not align ourselves with that goal on board level. >> Do you want me to provide some context, Matt, around that? Okay. So, um, annually we do, uh, data digs and, um, we have, uh, school improvement planning meetings, um, with every building and their teacher shared leadership team. So, it's not just the principal, it's the principal and generally 8 to 10 depending on the building, other people. Um what we do at the district level is we set expectation around what the school improvement template looks like and what the requirements of those teams are to um report in terms of how they are going to work on improvement efforts. So um this year um we at at the district level we set two expectations on this we call them SCOP the school operational plan which is essentially their improvement plan. Okay. So um so every building starts with their own data and the two expectations that we set this year on those scops and then um they make their decisions about what their buildings need and will implement was number one that the ESSA requirement which we are still held to in the state of Minnesota is that 90% of the student or we will have 90% proficiency in reading on the MCA. So that is >> that that yes so that is something that we are held to um at the state and federal level through ESSA. So we wanted to make sure that people understood that and that that is what we were striving for and that's by 2030. So that gives us an opportunity to monitor over time improvement efforts to try to get to that 90%. So that's already on every single school building school improvement plan and they have created strategies around that >> this year >> but I >> pardon >> is that new this year >> it is that particular so in the past what we have done because here's the reality I will just be quite frank with you the reality is that different buildings are in different places in terms of where they are with their MCA reading we know that we've looked looked at the data right so from >> right >> what did you >> don't eat the >> Skittles what we have done in the past is we have helped them to set goals based on more based on their current proficiency levels instead of the final proficiency level right so we would say okay it actually is statistically possible for a building to increase x percentage So, we're going to say this is the minimum. You can go higher, but this is the minimum you have to do. >> So, the shift this year was away from um looking at >> floors, >> basically floors. Thank you. And more to the ceiling. So, that was new this that for this upcoming year. That was a little bit of a shift. Um, but from our perspective, th this is what we're held to and so we have to strive to get there. Um, it definitely will be challenging and it's certainly more challenging for for some buildings than others. So we right now that's where we landed. >> Emily, >> yes, >> I'm sorry, but um is there incremental achievement per year? >> Yes. So again, our our official MCA data does not come out until the third week in August, >> right? >> We we have some we have some preliminary internal, but we we want to make sure we're operate operating off of like the real numbers. Um so what uh Cheryl Gangler has done is she's helped develop um the essentially a chart that once we get the real numbers will modify slightly that talks about what the yearoveryear increases need to be in order to reach that 90%. So they will know I have to have an x percentage increase in my MCA scores over time um in order to reach that 90%. >> When you say When you say how to what happens if you don't >> who gets fired >> let's be candid like who gets fired >> but who's responsible who's responsible from the state yeah I mean state does >> does MD come down and cut our funding >> well we're not at 2030 yet so I don't think >> I'll say this it's ESSA that's federal >> okay >> so the answer is a very hard maybe >> because there's nobody in the federal side of it. But okay. >> So, so and and that's I'm just >> yeah, >> you know, I'm raising my hand because if you need if you need a one throat to choke, I'm it. >> Um I think it's aspirational to say 90%. I think providing a trajectory and glide path is the logical sequence and it's going to be different for for different uh leaders in the system by school and you have to have a essentially an infrastructure in place to support getting to that goal. And if we go back again and talk about academics, >> y >> finance, >> operations, >> and HR, >> that's throwing policy as the fifth one that because that's pretty much our job. >> I'm going to stick with the four you gave me the first time. >> Okay. >> And the second and the third and the fourth time. Are there any legal requirements or or legal? >> But what I want to say is so my scaffolding is >> there's a mindset shift that has to occur in a big organization that's been operating differently. And so what is the scaffolding behind that? Well, it's evaluation, right? Here's the goals. Everybody's nested and the evaluation system is nested in those sets of goals and we drive for it as hard as we can every single day. win, fight, go, go, go. And some people are going to make it, some people are not going to make it. And in the end of the day, if that's not good enough, then you let me go and you get a new leader who can do it better. That's my reality. >> Well, can I ask the question then? Is there any legal requirement for us that says we cannot financially incentivize the teachers >> or the principles at the local level? Are we allowed to offer a bonus? Could we start saving today and say anybody who hits a goal within 3 years chunk of money and see what they do >> or in the contract maybe. >> So I think forget the contract. This >> I think my challenge are not legal. Why? >> It's a public use law. >> What if they're in the contract? >> That's what I'm asking. I guess like >> legal tells us we can't bonus. >> We can't call it a bonus. We can still find a way to >> we could look at ways to potentially incentivize. >> Well, don't we do that with um >> Well, let's not go to >> I mean, we there are incentives in the contract already, I would say. Um, so we're already doing that, but I just want to be very careful because the public is listening to this and bonuses are not legal. I just want to make sure we're >> so I have a lot of thoughts now after all this >> performance indicators. >> I appreciate that having I mean part of me is like why why isn't it 100%. Right? If we're going to have this like goal that is very aspirational, I would add, not just aspirational, I I think we should be here for all kids. Of course, I think I want to see what is the progression to get there. I mean, if you look at our high school race to get to 90% is almost laughable. And and and it's not because of what do students know. >> It's about how many kids are taking this test and what type of what kids are taking it. our highf flyer, our high performers are generally the ones who are opting out. So there's no, we cannot make students take this. >> Yeah, >> some districts do better than others, I think, in incentivizing students in some way to take it. I think that's something we need to look at, especially for secondary. if this is actually a goal we want. I'm more interested in a goal that talks about how are we progressing and setting like thresholds ranges to maybe get to 90%. But to me, we are and I feel kind of bad saying this, but I feel like I I realize it's the state goal, the federal goal. We're setting ourselves up for failure if we just think of either we get to 90 or we don't. I think if we progress three points next year that's phenomenal like it to move a system this large three I mean I think that's aspirational >> but I'm not done I'm not done so >> I I have appreciated districts who have lofty goals but who set the the the path as part of their goals in the language. So, it's not just you're getting to 90 and somehow behind the scenes we're figuring it out, but how can the community actually see that we are tracking kind of how we're doing this? >> Yep. >> I think I mean I objectives >> I think talking about how we get students to take the test is real important if we're going to get to anywhere near 80 or even 70 for high school. So, love to talk about that. And then I am deeply opposed to any sort of like incentive for a school or for teachers in the sense that there is so much that goes into a student's ability to perform on a test. Um and it should not be based on the demographic of that school or the demographic of a classroom if a student if a if a teacher is able to succeed or not. Um, and the other thing I want to say is, um, I think that I want to see progress on these things. I appreciate the districts who have set hard goals on these and have set goal targets. I think we should do that. I am concerned over a couple of these in order to get to 90. our district will start teaching more towards the test and that you can there are ways to get students to do better that isn't what the research says isn't in the best interest actually for student learning. I'm also concerned with some of these goals. We want to resource kids to get them at at grade level or up to grade level. Um, for sure, but also we've had very big conversations about rigor for acceleration for kids who need advanced learning opportunities. And at the end of the day, we have x resources. So to get to a 90% goal will mean a lot of resources need to go there, which we should do. However, that will take away from other initiatives like potentially rigor. Let me just I mean I started with a context because I don't think we can come in here as a board and say we're going to set a lower goal than has already been you know distributed to all the principles right >> you know that doesn't make sense like hey I understand what the superintendent and his office are requiring >> but we're going to set us a lower goal I mean >> I'm fine if we as a board want to only really analyze you know and hold their feet to the fire on growth three through eight you know or something like that or growth like in the next number for, you know, utilizing fast bridge and student proficiency growth. >> Well, when you look at like >> but I I would agree high school and we do have another one further down number six >> of the highest performing districts in the state. We're we're a higherish one, but we're not the highest. The top two, they're nowhere near 90. So, >> yeah, >> just keep that in mind. >> But again, but again, you set not going to get there yet. >> Set your goal. And I don't I don't think we can set a different goal. >> No, I than has already been. But I think it's not like you get to 90 or you fail. That >> no it's not an all or nothing. It's not like we have to fire everybody if we don't hit 90. Like the idea is to continuously improve. What he said earlier what he said earlier but no but you have to have a target like hey we want to be excellent. >> I say yeah I support that. >> But he's already got a glide path. He already mentioned he's got he's got a glide path to go. Here's what's interesting. Sorry. Look, >> it's okay. Go ahead. >> Looking at the elementary metrics here, I I'm looking at Lake View Elementary School right now. They are testing MCAs for third grade, fourth grade, and fifth grade. Okay. Four years ago in 2021, our reading score was at 73.4%. So that was reading. Okay. The following year, 71. The following year, 69. The following year, 68. not not including what's what what just occurred in April for that exam. And we won't get those results until October of this year. But another metric that we ideally would want on a dashboard to say how is the state of our school district would be our MCA metrics in in these grade levels. So I am in alignment where where 90% could be the 3 to 5 year goal or or or the overall target. And then we would look to the administration and say, "Is this possible?" No. And they was like, "Well, these are the resources we're going to need to get us there if you want it in within a year." Well, we can't afford that. Well, what is our appetite willing to accept for an percentage increase for the amount of dollars that we may or may not want to spend. And so, we can't get there without their input, but they can't decide how to get there without us telling them 90% is your target. Figure out how to get there. That's what I'm saying. They're doing it already. >> Well, but if they were doing it right now, they'd be coming to the table tomorrow letting us know you need >> $10 million to get to 90%. >> Because if and if you're not doing that, then you're not doing that. >> But maybe that's that's part of the goal. Like if this has already outlined and this has already been implemented, like where where is our role here? >> Our role is setting the target and our role is monitoring that they're making the target set is 90. So then our job as a board is to monitor are they making progress. >> Yeah. >> And our security and as I'm looking at Lake View the answer is no. >> So maybe it's not just because the target is defined here. We can all agree that that's the aspirational target we're moving toward, but maybe the role of the board is yes to help make sure we're moving in the right direction and getting updates on that as well as continuously evaluating the resource set resources that are necessary and figuring out ways to get them. >> Yep. So if I re if I received so if we reviewed this dashboard quarterly we could see fastbridge data fall winter spring we could see MCA data in the spring or in the fall that says what you taught from the previous year is meeting your MCA benchmarks if not then we come back and say the data doesn't doesn't work because we we can't come we can't be coming back to this like every fall when the exams were taken in April and now we got to wait a whole year until we see progress changes. I mean like we've got to be proactive at this and that would be one of the key metrics that we'd want to look at >> something more consist. >> No, that's okay. I just I kind of got my thoughts. >> That's all right. >> So, I'm just going to throw this out here as the educator on the board. I'm a little disappointed with this whole discussion because I look at where we've picked one metric as the quote indicator of success for a student and I think of myself as a mother and knowing that none of my kids would have met this metric. Does that mean they're any less successful? I mean, they've been Lakeville students their whole academic careers, albeit like two years for uh minus two years for my oldest two, but um there's no way they were 90% proficient on the MCAs when they were in third grade. In fact, I remember sitting down with um Paul Hellberg saying, "Paul, I'm going to I'm going to exempt my kid from this test next year because he's negative 1%. He's below the first percentile in reading, me, and math." Right. But he's been accepted to a community college. He's got a trade career and he's going on his own. And he's doing it on his own. I'm not supporting him. He's just doing that. And he is a product of Lakeville schools. And that is no less important than the kids that are actually reaching 90%. Right? I just want to throw that out there. And so when I look when I listen to this discussion and I keep it in context with there's there's not going to be all the kids are going to make it there, right? And there's a whole bunch of kids here underneath, but we're not considering the whole child and all of the things that have been presented to us by all of the different departments over the past few months on the things that they need to move our kids forward. And I just I I think like as a parent, like I don't even feel part of this district listening to this conversation. I'm just like my kids wouldn't even fit in. Like I don't even I don't even know what >> we're number three though. I just I just want to I just want to add context to this because again we're focusing on test scores and I do not think that's the best metric. >> But I think to add to Kim like I I think what what saying is not that each kid is at 90 or above but that 90% of our kids are proficient which means 10% are left behind. >> I'm just saying that it doesn't it doesn't indicate progress. >> And given where he was in third grade, he still graduated from Lakeville schools. he was still able to go on to a post-secary institution and be successful. I'm just saying there are lots of kids that fit that glove. Right. >> Well, in my issue thinking, >> but they weren't 90%. Maybe they were 60 and they're still graduated and doing okay. >> Yeah. To get to this 90%. We have to resource this nothing we've ever seen, which will resources for the kids. >> Again, this is this is the federal standard that's been set that our school has adopted. And we got to then we got to look to the administration and they will share with us how they would get there and how much it would cost. Is this if it's even reasonable? We know it's not reasonable. We know cuz it's we don't have the funding for it, >> but we don't know how much funding we're we're going to need if we want to get down there. So the bottom line is like we got to remember our school district, our primary objective is reading, math, and science. None of the other stuff. I get it. Like I get character development. I get other opportunities, other things, sports, athletics, clubs, but that like like we've got like the state has mandated >> last week voted on all this athletic ad stuff putting tons of resources to it. So like everything >> but we did through what I'm not going to >> but part of it too is how we how we define I do think this is important. It's already happening in this goal. So it's something that I think rather than having a goal that is outlined here perhaps it is kind of how do we support the administration in the path but the other piece is um in terms of the whole child making sure that we are defining what we think success is in the district. So we could get information about what percentage of our students are enrolled in clubs and other kinds of things that we see as towards progression towards leadership development. So, I guess to support what you're saying, I think we as a board have never defined student success. >> I don't think we I don't think we should. It's there somewhere. >> This is this is a goal that's already identified. But what I'm saying is what I'm what I'm hearing and what I agree with is that we do have to think broadly in terms of student outcome not necessarily just test data academic outcome. It is >> but we need something measurable that is a measurable thing on the academic side >> like what yeah >> that was first graduation number so and again if you look at six it looks at more of a composite thing if we're not going to track MCAs for high schools >> like the only thing I want to point out you guys we're saying number but that is the majority of these goals I mean Paul you identified academics and finances >> and that >> Shane didn't read till seventh Great. >> Um, >> did >> so I >> No, it's only because I we might skip whatever we've heard about that before, but I think it's it's just I don't know that the entire board agrees that those are the two main priorities that we need to drive home over and over. There's part of this that I don't feel a lot of how I would capture student success is really in this or how I would define it is really captured in this document. So yes, we can say round number three. we can move on. >> But I mean, is there there's not a goal in here that you sent to me that I didn't include in the document? >> No, I think as we talk it wasn't the all exhaustive. I think there's opportunity for us to consider what >> All right. I think you're right. I mean, we we haven't defined student success as a board and and I think there's probably a varying philosophies and interpretations of student success. Uh, but according to the state of Minnesota, student success is meeting the MCA benchmarks at 90%. Period. Like they period. >> Well, they're not looking at anything else. I mean, we get a Minnesota state report card that says your reading, your math, and your science is this score and that's it. They don't look at gym. They don't look at championships. They don't look at anything. >> That's not exactly accurate because if you pull up the Minnesota report card, it has all the demographics for the students. It has what students are, you know, breaks down. >> But we don't get a grade on that. >> Yeah. >> We get a grade on based on like number of students. >> Yes, we do. We get a grade on all of that. All of the different departments look at those metrics and determine where we're at as a district. Some of those play into our ANI plan. And if we're racially isolated district, then as we heard last year, we that was part of our ANI plan and things that we needed to work on. So, they do look at all those things. And that's what I'm saying. We need to look at the whole child and I agree with Karly maybe it's a little bit deeper and we define as a board which has never been done like what does student success look like because I think it's more than >> I look at nine on page four says define academic success. So there's a focus on the rest of the motion. But anyways, >> let's go to number four. >> Three. Uh I'll get the metrics. I'll get the annual increases from the district what they've already sent out in order to further define what we're looking at on an annual basis. >> I would just for clarity, our uh the expectation we laid out was specific to reading. >> Okay. >> It was not the other areas. It was just specific to RE with a with a a fast bridge with uh some fast bridge growth goals attached to that. >> Can I ask a question about that? And I know this isn't the board won't get involved in this, but >> how are you going to get secondary to participate? I mean, that seems like >> um well, we we already have our secondary um team working with the principles on that. So they're coming up with an action plan to increase proficiency. Obviously math is our most >> I mean participation >> participation I misspoke >> that seems like >> we our participation rates right now K8 are or sorry 38 um are in the in the range they're good >> high school it's really it's and that's only in in grade 10. So they're looking at both for math and for although math wasn't part of this um for they're they're looking at working on a plan and generating some ideas and some solutions about how to increase participation. >> And again I think to your point the benefit of having a multi-year even if it's an extraordinary stretch goal is to be able to do what you're talking about which is evaluate yearoveryear. We've never set goals like this before in terms of like doing the needs assessment and what are we looking at and what's working, what's not. So, I think that's part of the process as well. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I'd like to expand on number three. While we can look at the MCA score at grade level and and then then there's there's an then an aggregate at the elementary level, middle school, and then potentially high school. I would like to add that we look at the the benchmarks within the MCAs because my biggest concern is that while if we get an MCA score of like 75% for let's say elementary >> Mhm. >> uh it it mass other schools within our within our district that might be failing because other schools are performing. And so when I look at third grade MCA scores, uh you may have, you know, East View that may not be meeting half of their benchmarks, but four of our other districts are meeting their benchmarks. So then as an aggregate, we look favorable. Does that make sense? And so I I want to be able to incorporate somewhere in number three to say um you know how many if if we look at all the benchmarks I'll say there's 30 of them for third grade reading and we've got how many elementary schools 11 >> nine nine right and so >> not at 11 yet but we're on our way there. >> We're on our way you know then we then then you have roughly 300 benchmark opportunities. I would like us to be able to say we need to be 90% meeting those benchmark uh 90% of those 300 in addition to the metric itself. Uh because if you just look at the if we just look at the metrics we're we're we're h some of these schools are going to be hiding is what I I want to be able to avoid that makes sense. >> Well, if you see the data by school, how would they be hiding? >> Yeah. I mean, you could have say by school. >> By school. >> Well, it's district school grade. >> Yeah, >> that's how it's already >> is that how it's set up. All right. Well, But I feel like that is the superintendent's role >> to get into the weeds. >> Yes. >> Of that data. >> And like some schools have different programs that will I think affect their scores, right? So I think that's there's a lot of nuances to the school >> level. Um >> because when we get 75% and we've got three schools that might may be failing, but nine 75 of the schools are doing great, it doesn't tell the full picture. And so I I want to make sure that when >> you look at it on district level data, I would agree with you. But you can drill down to school level data and see where your shortfalls are. >> So I want them I want to get down to that level. But you already are at that level is what I'm trying to tell you. >> Right. >> I want to be really careful of what our role is though because >> in my opinion data out of context is dangerous. If you were not if you were just looking at the data point without understanding the context that goes into it, it can be easily misinterpreted. So that's why I feel like it is more the superintendent's role to be on charge or in charge or on top of >> where the schools are performing and what might be going on there and handling that situation with principles directly. It's not I don't see that as our role. >> We still want to review though and make sure that superintendent isn't neglecting two schools because the other you know >> seven schools are doing really well >> or carrying the weight. >> Yeah. Yeah. You know that that's all I'm trying to get to is just making sure that >> I think we have to stay >> it'll naturally happen. >> I mean it'll naturally happen but yeah but >> over making progress >> about growth for grades three through eight is is fast bridge just grades three through eight >> all right utilizing fast bridge assessment increase student growth proficiency by a factor of 1.2 for any student not meeting grade level proficiency in literacy in math. Wyoming grade three starts in kindergarten, doesn't it? >> Pass bridge. >> Is it fair to Is it fair to assess kids at kindergarten? >> We do it all the time. >> At the end of grade two is when they determine like >> that's when starting. >> Yeah. >> In kindergarten. >> Is it is fast in kindergarten, too? >> I am 100%. I just my son >> K through eight. >> Um, so it might be one through eight, but >> it's kindergarten. But no, no, because you're not going to you're going to hit the kindergarten your benchmark, right? >> No, they should be using FastBridge to determine whether they not whether or not they need intervention, whether or not they still need intervention, what type of stuff they need, >> all the >> Well, I guess are we doing prek? >> Do we do fast pre? >> I don't think assessment early childhood. So, so the way fast >> this gross is just gross. >> I know. But the way fast bridge uh tracks is that you've got how many kids are exceeding the benchmark according to FA Fast Bridg's benchmark, not the state of Minnesota's. Uh how many are at the benchmark, how many are at risk, and how many are like falling behind. All right. And so I appreciate the 1.2 factor, but this goes back to the MCA scores. What percentage of your kids of our kids of our students do we want at and above? And so if we're going to use the same rule as 90% for MCAs, we should use the same rule for fast bridge. >> What is this 1.2? What is it? What's the meaning? >> It's a growth factor. >> It's a growth factor. Yeah. 20% bridge that makes sense within fast bridge like that growth factor behind house. >> Yes. Well, right now >> third grade reading in FastBridge is at 74.3 at the district level for fall. >> Do we get a numeric result on FastBridge? >> Yeah, >> that could be could we track? >> We look at it our the goal we set on our uh school improvement plan um was that uh we would be at 60% or aggressive growth um for students that were underperforming. So that's how we defined it. The one thing to remember about that though is when you're talking about things like fastbridge and say English, you know, literacy, reading, that kind of thing, if you get a bunch of kids that come in who are English as a second language >> is a totally different like growth is the number there, not not a number. You can't say like 90% type of thing. You need growth on that. like focus on growth on that type of stuff cuz they're when you're coming in at way below anybody who's, you know, been here, been through preschool, had, you know, some level of rigor and whatnot, they're going to come in way higher than kids who, you know, essentially just come in the country and don't even know the language yet. >> And we're getting some of those, not nearly as much as other districts, but we have to be aware that that is coming. So as we deal with that I mean you have to look at growth. >> Can I ask a question because this has come up a few times now. This did you say school scope school? >> Yeah skip center >> used to be a skip school improvement plan school continuous improvement plan. >> I don't know where our role is in or not reviewing it for edits but like reviewing it for knowledge because I feel like some of these things that are brought up you're already doing stuff. So I guess I wonder to some degree whether we need that information. >> Which information you talking about? >> What's in the stock? >> That's embargo. >> Well, you know what I mean? Cuz like if they already have a goal, >> well, it should be a part of our executive dashboard that says this is our fast bridge goal. >> So I Brian I you don't I'm I'm here with you. we can react nicely. But like it it's a perhaps that is what we do. We don't define 1.2 or whatever. Perhaps they already have clearly defined goals that we just then need to be >> helpful in monitoring and making sure that they're moving toward their goals and when they're if they're not how do we or how do we best support that? So >> does that make sense Emily? what how what is all outlined in this scope that would help us understand where where your vision is for moving forward? >> Well, there are from a district standpoint really we're focused on um our primary goals are around the MCA and the fast bridge. Um there are other there are other items without actually going through it with you. It's a little bit out of context, but um the buildings the the the buildings set other goals and have action items around those, but the one thing that is consistent across the district in terms of academic metrics are the is fastbridge and MCA expectations. Um there are other things on that school improvement plan that is work that we are doing and trying to move forward but it's not it doesn't fit into this category. So we could go through like basically what the template is and what is provided to the buildings and then where we sort of say this is what because every building is has different needs. Um and so we want to make sure that they have as the leaders and the expert experts in those buildings, they have an opportunity to build those plans, but we want to set a standard across the district. So it's a combination of those two things. >> That's right. I just don't want to be redundant in terms of like I I feel like you guys are the experts. I mean we should lay the expectations for monitoring and supporting but you all are the experts and how what what degree can we move that you know what should we obviously creating an aspirational goal looking for that >> but are we doing things that are redundant here >> but well I mean we're tracking different ways again MCAS is a once a year fast bridges multiple times a year assessment >> and I mean to be honest I mean the reason why we're coming up with this is because we weren't provided with this is what we should use. >> I'm not saying >> No, no, no. I'm just saying that's why we're here today to set the goals because we haven't been provided like, hey, we think this is a fair goal for the district. So, we're setting the goals as a board that we can track, right? Maybe and 1.2. I mean, maybe I don't know how we measure an increase in fast bridge performance. So, we probably need your input on that, >> right? Can we measure it how much of a gain? Because here we're looking at underperforming students. We want to make sure that they're they're not not just staying one grade level behind essentially that they're actually making progress towards proficiency each year. I >> I would rather see the number of kids meet or exceed and make that number as large as possible and have that number continue to grow or whatever that statement is. >> Maybe we need both. But again, I think there is a we do want people I mean the goal is to get to >> to help them move in. If we are getting at the kids who are are not meeting proficiency on fastbridge and we're working them towards that then more of our kids will >> I think to add to like I think maybe Brian what you're getting at I support that fully getting kids to where they need to be. I I've seen it in our own family like I I feel like there's intervention strategies identified especially with FastBridge to to do this and so I think setting a goal is great. I'm I am concerned and I've heard this from many families about in order to get that group up other kids plateau or don't move. I've seen that too. And so again, it's all about resources, right? We only have x amount. And so in order to move, it will take away from >> just the other >> unless we resource things differently or better. >> Yeah. And that's where you get into like interventions >> and I think that's where our finance goals need >> additional resources our academic goals which right now they do not. >> Y so >> hey is is fast bridge is is it a is that a curriculum? I I don't know is that just an assessment tool? Okay. is universal screener and is that universal screener so that if I see 80% in fast bridge um in the spring would that correlate to 80% on the MCA exams if they took it if or are they or is fastbridge assessing different things in MCA. >> So here's what I can say about that. um in terms of so fastbridge should be a a good indicator of performance on the MCA. That said, and I think um Chair Swanson, you said we need to be looking when we're looking at FastBridge, we need to we have the capability starting in grade two, we need to look at both growth and proficiency because if my child is two years behind in reading, they could grow 1.2 years in a year and still not be proficient. Okay? So they're not going to be successful on an MCA test even though they made extraordinary growth. So that's to say that we always want to be looking at both of those metrics simultaneously because the growth is it's a very very important piece because kids can only there there does get to be sort of a ceiling in terms of how much a child can grow in a year. Although we do see some kind of explos explosive growth with kids. Um, but we want to always also be striving to make sure that what that means is they're actually proficient. >> And then maybe we can get an average score of like all the kids in the top just like the GPA. But hang on one second. Can can the FastBridge assessments be tailored or customized to meet the MCA benchmarks? >> No. >> Okay. >> So then what? So like how do we have we done an assessment to see if the fast bridge fast bridge assessments actually meet the MCA benchmarks? I mean do we know there's a delta >> comprehensive assessment universal screener Minnesota comprehensive assessment different >> learning target. >> If the state of Minnesota wanted an MCA sumitive uh with a formative uh precursor if you will >> Yeah. um that would be alignment. But what they do is they give you the summitive and they tell you to find >> figure out how to get there >> the the other part of it. And you want to look at growth >> um through a formative test and most school districts in Minnesota are using FastBridge. So it's it the correlation is not direct. It's the best thing that I think we have out there right now. Um, but that might be a business opportunity. >> Could be a business opportunity. And we've talked to legal counsel and see if we can sell it to other districts. >> You're only worried about student growth. >> Underperformers, >> huh? >> We're only worried about student growth for underperform. >> No. No. So your target again is 90%. Right. Like that's the broad but growth is the mission. >> Okay. So progression, growth, continuous improvement, that's the target we want to continue on that trajectory because again 90%'s your goal. Now whether you achieve goal different discussion than whether or not we're making progress to goal, right? >> Which fits in with what Paul was saying where we make this part broad and then we put down here like the objectives to get us there like the stair steps that we know. So again, if underperforming kids, okay, if they're making a 15point jump from fall to spring on their fast bridge assessment, >> that is a great thing that whatever it is you did, you worked miracles. Like good for you. Keep doing that type of thing. Now, the goal is still 90, right? We still want we want to get you to to proficiency. Okay? 90% of the kids we want how I forget how that whatever 90% is sort of that goal right but you got to continue to see progress especially with the kids who are down on the the struggling side of it they need to keep progressing >> and I think that lends to >> some of the other things that we've talked about like graduation rates we want to see that >> client start to go back up we want to see things moving back in the right direction Yes. >> Emily, in Fastbridge, I've looked at like the national data and it, you know, you get your score for your grade level like a 520 and and then that maps that with the percentage for the nation, right? So, let's say 520 is 80%. So that's not 80% proficiency rate for Leville schools in Fastbridge. I'm trying to like merge your idea with the actual numbers in Fast Depends on the grade. >> Can can we track that a percentage like >> our identified percentage on the skip is 60%. 60 proficiency >> which fits with >> and I've got and looking at the fast bridge data for third graders right now in reading in spring those that were meeting and exceeding combining those numbers is 72.6%. Mhm. >> So, >> so can we can we show a growth? >> That's good. 72% is good. >> That's my point >> for sure. That's what we're saying. I would I would rely on I would rely on the team to do that. They really have the expertise. But um >> could could be a name. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But that's the celebration right there. That's the >> We should have filters for that English as a second. >> Good track and growth. Yeah. >> Fast bridge. >> Yeah. >> Are we going kindergarten through? Well, K, it's really more appropriate to at starting at grade two. Sure. >> Do we have a metric at the end of kindergarten for us to know how many kids are reading at certain grade levels? We have a early reading and an early uh math that is fastbridge. Um that really is it's really our universal screener to identify what how prepared students are coming in and then how they're progressing through the system. It's just a little more tricky um at K1 for a lot of reasons. It's it's definitely more of a reliable metric two through two and above. Yeah. Well, what metric can we use to identify kids from kindergarten and first grade that are falling behind that might need further intervention? I I just want to make sure that they do low risk or high or low risk. >> What you're not going to get is you're not going to get the same growth metrics around that at those levels, but you will get a proficiency rate. >> So, do we want proficiency for both bridge and MCA on our dashboard and then plus a growth metric? >> Yes. Yes, we do. >> To the point of I think what you said a second ago, Brian, is there a way for us to disagregate the data in a way that would be meaningful for us to be able to understand that a little bit more? Like, >> are you saying that like we have a filter where if we've got 50 kids that are English as a second language in in East View, if we hit that button, then the metrics change? Well, English language learners along with a lot of other populations that might be we might consider more variability on the testing or um can I just pause the discussion for a second and just for clarity and direction um given that it's 8:00 and we've talked through things for like 2 hours and we still have not discussed anything that's related to what the board is actually going to do which is what our board goals are supposed to like target. >> Okay, we kind of like I I understand we need board goals and 100% aligned on that, but we need to make sure that we understand how the district is doing as a whole. And this is like our first step. >> I don't disagree with that, but we also need board goals so that we can establish superintendent goals, right, which are going to align with district things. So, >> I'm just trying to figure out like which one do we need to do first? I don't know. But I'm also being mindful of time. I'm just making sure We probably won't get through it all tonight, >> but Kim, I think some of the things we're talking about do become superintendent and district goals, >> right? >> So, I mean, I don't I Exactly. So, >> I'm just for timing wise, like I'm just trying to figure out where we're at and where we're going to go and what we want to accomplish so that we can make the last like hour or so like to get through what Matt needs to do. >> If I may, I think um and I don't know if this is a good idea or a bad idea. I'll put it up to the group. Um, do we want to switch gears? Because we in two hours have done four four of these. Do we want to switch gears? Close the meeting. Give Brenda the floor so that Brenda's not here until Wednesday. >> I'm also not going to be here until Wednesday. >> You're stuck. You're stuck. >> There's a close session. >> Yeah. Come back. >> And so then come back and get us out. >> Does that work? because I do want to talk about number five, chronic uh absenteeism. >> Yeah, I'm just trying to be mindful of time. >> I understand. >> Yeah. >> So, do we need to make a motion to go into >> Somebody would have to make a motion to go into close session. >> But before we do that, is there alignment that we want to do that? >> Yeah. I don't think Brenda necessarily needs to be here for >> right >> the discussion on the rest of the goals. >> I agree or whoever. >> Do you need a motion? >> Yes. I would. >> All right. I'm making a motion. >> Is there Sorry. Is there anybody else who would be leaving that we would need to discuss? Like are you guys planning to stay during close session? >> We're staying in close session. >> Yes. >> I don't think I mean >> Lucas is here to observe and learn and contribute in any way possible. But after Brenda's done and Wednesday is here, we'll let Lucas and Brenda go. Matt, you you need to read this first, then you make the motion. Okay. All right. I'm trying to take the notes. Kim told me I had to take notes. >> Okay. Can I I'm going to make a motion that we go into close session uh close pursuant to Minnesota State Statute Section 13D.05 uh subdivision 3B to engage in negotiation discussions. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. Right. There being a first and a second. All in favor going into close session pursuant to Minnesota State Statute section 13D.05 subdivision 3B. Uh say I I