uh to the March 10th Lakeville Area Schools uh School Board Work Session. Um we're meeting early tonight as all of us in this room know, but there's Township elections tonight. Um so we moved our meeting up to 4:00. We do need to end by 6:00 at the absolute latest to comply with state law. I believe it's state law. Yes, thank you. Um and I had learned a fun fact yesterday on MPR so I'm at that um all counties in Minnesota have townships except Hennepin. So it's a big deal tonight for around the state. I didn't realize that. So including our county Dakota. So with that um we'll go around for roll call. I'm Amber Cameron, uh school board member. >> Brenda Albright, admin services. >> Paul Carbone, school board member. >> Carly Anderson, school board. >> Aaron Casper, National Insurance Services. >> Tracy Brovold, executive director of teaching and learning. >> Uh Matt Swanson, school board member. >> Emily McDonald, assistant superintendent. >> Ryan Thompson, school board. >> Lucas Yoho, operations. >> Michelle Humphrey, executive director of student services. >> Katie Baker, school board. >> Phil Hommerding, executive director of business services. >> Michael Baumann, superintendent. >> Great, thanks everyone. Um we have three things on our agenda tonight. Um medical and dental renewal, the ELA core resource recommendation for grades 9 through 12, and the quarterly uh data review. In an effort to try to get through all of these, uh um we're going to shoot for allocating around 30 minutes per topic and we'll we see we'll see how we do. Um uh that way we can hopefully end by 6:00. Uh well, we have to end by 6:00. So with that um I would like to thank Aaron Casper for joining us today. I also learned Aaron is um not in your role while you're here, but you're chair of the Hennepin Prairie School Board, which I think gives context for to to everything that we do here. So I appreciate that. Um Aaron is a consultant with the National Insurance Services um and is here to talk about the medical and dental renewal for our district. So, thanks. >> Chair Cameron, and, uh, members of the board, as well as the administrative team. So, I'll go ahead and and kick us off. I think in your, uh, respective packets, you've got, uh, kind of just some talking points here. Uh, it it probably will will give you some share some information and kind of our process and and our analysis and our recommendations as you'll be considering, um, some action at a future meeting, uh, business meeting, but really just will open it up for some questions, too. And I just want to say, before I get into the the information, >> [laughter] >> um, I really appreciate you having me out. I know this is, uh, I think year four or five that I've been out, um, either in actual, uh, business meeting to talk through some information or in a uh, board work session. So, do appreciate that. I just gives it all of us an opportunity to kind of get our hands around the topic. I mean, we recognize that it's your second largest budget bucket, uh, here at the district, so it's important one. And I'm sure all of us have been hearing what's going on out in the, uh, marketplace. So, uh, with that, uh, really the context for our medical insurance here, um, for the next meeting in here today, is really our required, uh, statutory, um, bid requirement to go out and, um, bid out our administrative services, our stop-loss insurance, as well as our pharmaceutical, uh, pharmacy benefit manager. Uh, it's a it's a PEIP statute. It's designed to go ahead and create, uh, fully insured, uh, plans as well as pooled plans that are not PEIP, and then, uh, also self-insured plans. So, we've got a little uniqueness that we are self-insured, so we're really just bidding out the those components. So, we have to do that every 2 years unless there is agreement by the largest bargaining unit to waive that, um, uh, statute or that requirement. So, we did, um, go out for for process in 2026, And we have structured our bid responses to have an initial response as well as a best and final response. And the reason we do that is that we found probably 80% of the time those best and final response there typically is a revision or two by multiple carriers, which is ultimately better for the members as well as the the district from a plan sponsor perspective. So when we went out for bid this year, we received seven responses including our incumbent provider, which is Blue Cross Blue Shield, Health Partners, HealthEZ, Medica, Peep, United Healthcare, and Crumdale Specialty, which brought Express Scripts to the table and I'll talk about that here momentarily. And essentially what Crumdale Specialty does is they are a firm that manages the pharmacy benefit manager. That is something that National Insurance Services wouldn't do. They have a team of pharmacists that basically evaluate their programming, their script offering in terms of their formulary. So they essentially manage the the PBM or the pharmacy benefit manager. We did have five best and final responses on the secondary bid. And of those respondents, our most competitive responses were Blue Cross Blue Shield, our incumbent HealthEZ, which is a third-party administrator, and then specifically on the pharmacy benefit component it was Crumdale and Express Scripts. When we did our analysis and we were taking a look at certainly cost, bottom line cost, but also assessment of risk within the plan, and presented that to district administration as well as the representative insurance committee, it was our recommendation that we remain with Blue Cross Blue Shield in the administrative component of the plan as well as the stop loss, but carve out the pharmacy benefit manager with Express Scripts. We feel that we're going to be able to get a bigger rebate from them as well as additional maximize our additional cost savings in that in that type of environment. We have done that probably a handful of times with some other districts throughout the state and it's been successful in that. And I would say their process and transition is extremely thorough and we're trying to minimize the impact to our members as much as we possibly can. What I can share with you tonight and I got this information today earlier this morning is that all of all of our pharmacies that we're currently utilizing, we're going to have a 98.5% coverage. So essentially 499 pharmacies and eight we will are not going to be covering. So there will be some options for those folks. And then from a total script perspective, we're capturing 99% or 99.8% of our retail claim scripts. So there there is a formulary change which is the pharmaceutical listing. There's always changes to that even actively while we're remaining one with one provider in any type of transition. There's always a change that's a little bit of heartburn for folks. It's going to be minimal at at best. So we'll be we'll be proactive in communicating that assuming the board approves that recommendation. The medical market that we've seen is experiencing still significant increases and adjustments in the fully insured market in the pooled environment. Medical trend has gone up. Right now the carriers that we're talking to we're pegging medical trend in the low double digits. So around that 11 12% range. And that's even here in the seven county metro metropolitan area. You get out state in greater Minnesota and where they don't have as much access and you have declining things like declining enrollment and it's actually even even higher than that. So that's just kind of the state of the state kind of where we're at. Our specialty drug classes as well as GLP-1s and those types of you know for diabetic treatment as well as weight loss have seen an incredible growth in the in the marketplace overall and that is where we're experiencing some of our increased spend here at Lakeville as well. So when we take a look at our plan performance which is again driving our claims experience over the last 12 months we've seen higher utilization over and beyond the 12 previous months and remember we take 24 months of total data. We bring that together. We more heavily weight the most recent 12-month period and then we run it through a formula to come up with kind of where our revenue needs to be and where we are today and that's that's essentially our difference. >> Can I can I >> Yeah. >> So when you say the last 12 months are we talking about February 28th through last February 28th or are you talking about school year starting July 1st until end of June? >> Yeah so that's a great question. I'm pulling up I'm going around memory here. We're not going February to February because this is in a lag position. So more than likely we're pulling in December data. December so almost a calendar year calendar year and just so just to put in context we're always looking at 24 months. When we get a new month worth of claims data the oldest month falls off. So it's a rolling 24 month. Okay. So we're always we're always moving forward. The only thing that will really impact our our is the further away we are actually from our renewal, which is 7-1 or July 1st, is the more trend we have to build into that plan that model um to account for the months that we haven't yet incurred. >> Yeah. >> So, in a perfect world, we would renew June 30th, but we can't do that because that's not how the world works. So, we always have lag in our position. So, we have to model that on a go-forward basis. So, we do the same thing as an underwriter would do. >> So, so that $3 million delta variance over the past 12 months, it is that including I'm assuming that that includes the outlier that we had last year, but we don't really know. I mean, yeah, help me through that because we're spending 20 we're spending $3 million more than the last three the last >> Yeah. >> 12 months is what I read. Is that right? >> Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So, yeah, so the most recent 12 months 29.7 million compared to 26.8 million. >> Yeah, compared to the previous 12 months being behind that. So, the 29 million is the outlier month or year was what I'm trying to get to. But, do we know since, you know, September, how are we compared to not the previous 12 months, but the previous previous 12 months because I'm trying to gauge if our like are we are we in a is our outlier year last year going to be the standard? You you know what I mean? Does that make sense? >> Yeah, I would say it's going to be the standard. >> Okay. >> Uh and the reason being is is so, you know, right now if medical trends at 12%, and you take our essentially $30 million group, you know, you can put 12% on >> top of that group. Yeah. >> You know, that's that's what we're looking at. So, unfortunately, I wish I could tell you something different, Mr. Thompson, but the the I think it's going to be the new normal. >> to be the the new normal. So, so then, so can I ask the last 12 months, is it because claims just went higher because the utilization was higher or because the cost was higher that we recognized towards the tail end of that month? Meaning that this up this the current cycle that we're in, if the utilization stays the same, uh we're at and then the cost is actually going to be increased again. It's going to be higher than what we actually had last year, but if the utilization actually drops because compared to last year, then the cost actually should be lower. I'm just trying to like I'm not saying your $35 million estimate is wrong, but I'm like do we have a chance that it might be lower than 35? That's all. >> We'd like to see that. >> Right. [laughter] Yes, of course. >> Yeah, I'm just like >> All right. >> Yeah. Does that make sense? >> Yeah, totally. Yeah, is it are more people using or is the service is more expensive? >> Yes. Or both. >> And the answer to that is both. Yes. >> And the answer to that is both. Yeah, so what we've seen is we've seen um higher frequency and um higher costs within our high claimants. Now, we've got stop-loss protection at $200,000 cap level, all right, to help us on those specific instances, but >> That's per claim, not >> per per uh >> per member, right? >> Yeah. That's per member. >> Correct. Which it's per member, >> Okay. >> right? So, what happens is, you know, and and I I've got >> data just actually right here. So, if you actually come down on page three, those that have it, uh you know, our so our total member claims under $50,000, okay, threshold, 15.7 million or just under 3,600 members. So, that's a belly button. 3,585. Well, total member claims over 50,000 represents 14.7 million or 110 members. Right? Last year, if you recall, it was actually a little bit little bit worse percentage-wise, but we had 80 members. Now, we've got 110. >> Yeah, it's it's not unusual for a smaller number of uh the population to be the higher volume of claims. I mean, that happens a lot. >> Correct. It's the 80/20 rule. >> It is the 80/20 rule, right? But my question is this, um you've got almost an even split, 16 million, 15 million, roughly. Uh 110 members versus 35, almost 3600 members. In that um 110 member population are are we looking at is Blue Cross looking at um the the top five or 10 procedures that are driving those claims and driving that utilization and are they looking at anything to uh wrap their arms around those procedures and see if there's some way they can lower cost. Whether that has to do with >> I think it's their job. >> No, no, it is their job. It No, no, no, it it it is an insurance company's job to work with providers and contract with providers to keep to keep procedural costs low. And it and it and it is um it is their job to look at benefits and manage care programs within within plans and to make recommendations to say this would um A would lower B by by C. Um so so there it the insurance company, particularly Blue Cross, would have some responsibility here to to hopefully come up with maybe some suggestions. So so therein lies my question. >> Yeah. So they they do you you know, providers do have um cost containment cost management programs internally. They do have those. How- however, we're not we're not talking about the you know, the $25,000 claims, right? We're talking about the 250 and up claims, $500,000 claims. Just inherently because of what that claim represents, it's it's difficult to manage because there's generally a very high cost specialty drug associated with that particular claim and the and or some surgical procedures that are that could be pretty expensive. So are they managing that? Yes, they are. But it's still a giant number on a per member basis, right? So I think we we have we have probably we We more we have we have more opportunity to manage the the 80% versus the 20% because the 20% is kind of the 20%. It's the cancers, it's the conditions, it's the ortho, it's the or not the ortho but the orthopedic. So, it's those it's those things that are that are just happening uh and they kind of have a cost derived to them. >> Yeah, so reverse my question. Then, what are they doing with the 3,600 members? The healthy Same question but you know, is there something that's that they can do to create impact since since it's self-insured and every time something happens uh Bill writes a check for whatever that amount is. You know, what is Blue Cross doing? Um and and I'm not saying that in a derogatory sense. I'm just I'm asking the question. >> Yeah. The So, there there's inherently um management programs within various providers and I will say this, some do a better job than others. Uh as a self-insured plan, it's it's really up to us to try to make sure Yeah, to make sure and and leverage out those programs. What I can tell you, you know, we're currently in a carved-in model which basically means Blue Cross Blue Shield does our administration, they do our stop-loss and they do the PBM. And all that is essentially behind a curtain. Now, we do have some transparency in that but and I'm not saying anything bad about Blue Cross, okay? Cuz they they in a carved-in model, that's how they operate. It's really up to us um to challenge them to manage their plans and and I would say that one of the main reasons why we're recommending a a carved-out option for for our members in our plan is because we've given them the opportunity to manage the pharmaceutical side and [cough] and we haven't [clears throat] really seen that come to fruition. So, now we have to take that into um our own hands and force that and really what that's going to mean is it's is it's going to be going to mean much more transparency for us as a plan sponsor and certainly we can roll that up to the board, too, in some reports. Transparency and then guarantees on performance of exactly what you're talking about. >> Exactly. >> In terms of the management. >> There there is a >> So, the the tradeoff for that the tradeoff for the savings is going to be and it's real and we've talked about it in the insurance committee is that some of our members, not all, but some of our members are going to are going to experience some friction within the system, right? In terms of how they access and how they've traditionally accessed pharmaceuticals or been approved for those things or they may have to do certain things to be able to receive a certain pharmaceutical, right? Within a within a either a a diabetes diagnosis or a weight loss um program. It's not that they're there to decline it, it's there to manage it. >> Do do we have at the district someone who's responsible for managing this the the utilization, the not to encourage them that they shouldn't go to health care because if they got to go, they got to go, right? Like just to understand like internal do we have anything that yeah, to manage the 35 30 million dollar claims >> Well, I I would say >> if it's not us and we don't have anybody, then we're not even like we're not doing our part. >> So, it's it's a it's a combination of things. So, I would say do we have a dedicated person that just does this? No, other than the fact that we do rely on, you know, again, some programs are better than others within the what's underneath the carrier umbrella. We have deployed strategies, so that's where, you know, you kind of rely on us to say as an organization consulting firm to say, "Hey, we need to deploy this strategy. We need to deploy this these levers to go ahead and try to mitigate those costs." And to a large degree, I think we've done a phenomenal job. We've really received from my from my lens anyways, um really good participation and engagement from our existing insurance representative insurance committee and their members and the communication whether it's coming out of Brenda's department and the HR folks folks you know getting that those messaging out because we've seen that manifest itself in our increased utilization as well as participation in the various levers and programs that we have deployed. >> And at the end of the day At the end of the day it's the utilization is a byproduct of just members that need to go see a doctor and then also the plan design that we have. The plan design that we have gives our members the flexibility to take advantage of health care needs when they need to and that's just the way the plan design is set up. And because of that the utilization then is probably maybe higher than maybe typical. >> Yeah well you know so we we have we have rich plan design here. There's there's no doubt about that. We do have and we have seen and we will see for sure in this next open enrollment period. We're going to see migration within our existing population. We saw that last in open enrollment. So [clears throat] you know people are going to move when they're impacted in their pocketbook. That's what's going to happen or something else but mostly it's financial. And there is convenience. So the way that we have our plan structure today you know that's that's that's been our culture here and it's kind of where we're at. Now we do have a high deductible health plan a $4,000 plan. We're going to see more migration over to that plan. That I would anticipate that absolutely. As as as premium increases impact pay people are going to make make some decisions and but but what I would would caution here is that even if so if we have a half a million dollar claim or a $300,000 claim whether I'm on a $500 deductible or I'm I a $4,000 deductible we we just had a $300,000 claim or $500,000. Right? So, that that's going to that's going to impact us no matter what. Uh and ultimately, we just try to have to figure out how can we create an environment within our population that we can try to mitigate or reduce the the chances of those those >> And that goes back to your 80% saying, "How do we make sure that they don't become the 20?" But all of those that are in the 20%, how do we ensure that we've got programs or is there a dedicated resource within our team that is ensuring that those 20% are managing so that we minimize the amount of 400, 500,000 cares that might that might turn into that. >> And that's difficult, right? That's difficult because that's a that's an undiagnosed cancer diagnosis that comes comes up, you know, in June of 2026, right? And you know, and how insurance works, of course, is that the the 3,500 or 3,600 people that are using it less or half, right? They're they're putting in that revenue to help the 20% and any one of us around this table can be and maybe we have been. We can be one of the 20% at some point in time. Right? So, it's uh it's it's a it's a tricky uh discussion and then, of course, we we have statutory uh constrictions on on what we can and cannot do in terms of um changing our plans. We have statutory limitations uh relative to aggregate value. So, we we have to live within the confines of the law. Um so, what we're what we're doing is we're we're trying to manage the best we can with with the tools tools that we have access to, right? And I think the the biggest thing and you'll see here momentarily, the biggest one for us that is going to be a big thing because uh you know, pharmaceutical spend represents, I think it was last year, 31% of our total spend and 30% this year. Uh we see that and we're projecting that to grow. Our GOP 1 category in and of itself, you know, almost grew to a million dollars year over year. Uh and that that was not only the number of participants, the additional scripts, but also the cost associated with that. So, we kind of had rising tides everywhere. Right? And I'm not that's zero judgment on I mean, that's between a member and their physician. So, I'm not I'm just telling you kind of where where some cost drivers are. We pegged that we estimated that it would be about a $500,000 increase. Well, it was about $800,000 increase. So, that trend line is scary. >> Do you think that the the 110 that we had that made up that pop to 20% last year or the past 12 months? Are we on trajectory to have 110 as well for this upcoming or are we looking at are we going to potentially go back to 89? Because once you have something, are you considered out after the procedure is done or XYZ and you are back in maintenance mode? And then my second question is that um uh No, I'll leave it at that. Go ahead. Does that make sense? >> Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So, what I would tell you how we look at it is that it's the new norm until until we see the data tell us it's not. Yeah, and and that is is that's just we we can't afford to be wrong in terms of um under-pegging our revenue. We just can't do that. A, I'm not going to be sitting at this table anymore and B, you're going to be having a huge hole to fill. So, we just we just can't afford to do that. If that answers your question. >> Yeah, um back on the high risk group or the the higher end claims and we have a $200,000 stop loss for each individual claimant. Um but even there, I mean, if you have 75 people at $200,000, we're at $15 million already. Is it is it not possible to get a lower stop loss? >> So, >> It's just too expensive that makes it >> Yeah. So, what I would Yeah, so, that's a great question. So, I was I was you kind of threw me for a loop. You went the other way. So, often times people ask, well, we're at 200,000, well, it makes sense. The premiums on the stop loss are going to go down if we raise the stop loss up, right? So, we're leverage up the stop loss. There's a There's a There's a calculation we use to to to We We never want to leverage our stop loss premium um to try to save some plan expenses. And the reason being is we can get burned by that. 200,000 We would not recommend going below a $200,000 stop loss uh because the amount because A, anyone that would try to underwrite us at, let's say, 150,000, they've seen our experience. They're They're going to know what we've done, and they're going to say, "Whoa, whoa, you're going to hit this." And they're They're just going to adjust their premium prices to capture that that profit point. So, for us, the only direction we're going to go is we're going to go up eventually. But, this is when we do it. We We will leverage up that that individual stop loss amount when we have a return to a lesser claims activity, right? Not when we're currently in the thick of it because it that that can be dangerous. Um and then what are we saving versus what are we gaining um in that type of environment. I mean, >> So, is that going to be based on, you know, the age of our employees, though? Like, the average age of employees cuz isn't it somewhat unpredictable as far as what that top 20% is going to be? >> It's not necessarily going to be based on the average age of our our our demographic. It's really going to be where How have we utilized our stop loss? So, out of 110, how many hit that 200,000? Remember, that was 110 was over 50,000, not all 200. So, it It's really We've got We've got a a formula, a calculation model that basically is going to tell us when is this makes sense. We actually have two models that we pump it through. So, we're we're doing that analysis, you know, every renewal cycle. But, for now, um it it would be a potential bigger cash flow hit for us at a time when we really can't afford to take that cash flow risk um if we were to leverage that up. >> Do we want to have a cash? I mean >> So, right. I know car Oh, sorry. Do you have a follow-up to that one? >> Just along the same lines. I mean, there are there other other strategies that districts have used to, you know, address a high-risk group? [snorts] I mean, like paying their deductible or their deductible >> Yeah. So, there's there's there's there's there's some out there we're actually looking at some right now, not only for Lakeville, but also a handful of other districts that have had a higher [snorts] frequency of high-cost claimants where um and and I'm just going to paint it at the 10,000-ft level where it the law says you can't you can't provide anything less to an employee and it has to be uniform in application, [snorts] so somewhat voluntary, but there there there might be, and it's not known yet, there might be some strategies that we could use to identify some um chronic high-cost claimants to to redirect them and basically make their out-of-pocket and their care covered that would be a less impact on the overall plan. So, there they are out there. >> Um cuz is it the Is it the copay plan that's kind of killing us? >> Well, it's And so, I'm not talking about the the the plans that we have availability, like the $20 copay and the 500 and the 4,000. What I would say to that is kind of what I said mentioned earlier. If we're going to have a $300,000 claim, it doesn't matter if it's on a $20 copay plan or it's on the 4,000 plan. That the the of that is de minimis. It doesn't the differential is is small. >> Sure. >> Um so it it it does impact how we're used to act how our members are used to accessing care. >> Yeah. >> Right? And right, wrong, or indifferent, we're in a paternalistic environment. We have been for historically. And uh you know, this is debatable, but the but the fact is is that, you know, when we compare ourselves often to the private sector, our benefits are higher in value and our salaries are less in value. And and you know, if we if we assume that that is a reasonable um point of discussion, there's, you know, and then of course we have as well everyone is well aware, you know, we have a collectively bargained environment here, right? So takes two parties to agree to an an agreement, right? So we we have that going on as well and over time. And we have to identify our priorities. >> I mean just if we want to >> Oh, oh, can I I'm just going to do a time check cuz we have two other things we need to get through today. >> Uh I know Carly has been waiting to ask a question. So I'm wondering Erin if we could >> just I was giving you a 5-minute >> Oh, you're you're giving me okay, we're past [laughter] our 5 minutes. >> She will say she has five questions she wants to ask. >> I'm wondering Erin if we could >> I can I can move it. >> We could um you know, spend 5 more minutes getting to what the recommendation to the board will be that we need to consider for approval, correct? At the end of this month. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. All right, great. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Thank you, Cameron. Yeah. Yeah, so what I what I would say is on the bottom of page three there that is exactly that. Um we've run the financials. We shared this with district administration and um you know, the the insurance committee. Um we're recommending an aggregate increase of 15% uh effective 7/1 for our plan. Um all three of our plans are going to be impacted that by that slightly differently. Uh we're associating a premium equivalent to the value associated with with plan in comparison to the other two that are being offered. Um so really what that means is that, you know, one plan might be at 13.8, one plan might be at 17.5, one plan might be at 15.8. There's going to be variabilities in there. Couple reasons we need to do that, we need to we need to protect uh revenue and we need to align the rates, meaning making sure that the premium equivalent price that we're charging for that plan is equal to that plan value in relationship to the other two that are being off. That's an insurance-y thing, but we need to do that because we will see alignment um well, I would say we're going to see realignment in our existing uh enrollment. >> So the cost of the copay plan, what I'm hearing is will be higher than >> Actually, the opposite. The our our higher our highest deductible plan is actually going to get the largest increase and our our $20 copay plan, and it's only a percentage or two, is going to be probably the lesser of the two. And again, that's a formularic um modeling. It doesn't seem that that would be the right way to do it, but it's again, it's all based on value. So that would make that that would make >> raw dollars, right? >> That would move the number >> smaller percentage on a smaller I'm a higher percentage on a smaller amount of raw dollars less than a higher a lower percentage on a higher dollar amount. >> Yep, you got it. So it's still raw dollars. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Correct. Yeah. So we are recommending uh that 15% um in the aggregate that that accounts to a $4.6 million uh um increase uh assuming our current current plan enrollment. So we're taking people where they're at today, right? With the plans, etc. And we do know that we're going to we're going to have that. I'm going to I'm going to save page four. You can you can take a look at that on your own, and certainly if you've got follow-up questions, you can. I'm going to concentrate on uh page five with the remaining time I've got. A couple things that we've talked about previously. We've got Healthy SU, which is our virtual care for our you know, what we're what we're communicating to our members and and the association teach association has done a great job. The other bargaining units have done a great job of really getting this out to the members. We can see that in our in our enrollments. We can see that in our utilization. Uh, this is our first stop for non-emergent care. That's that's the that's what we're communicating. Uh, we were able to have 100% claims removal of 400 just under 425,000 dollars last year for a benefit that we are not paying for, by the way. For a program we we've negotiated that with Blue Cross and they do have um, some payment there. We are going to have to chip in a little bit at our 71 renewal. We are taking the pharmacy wave. That's our recommendation. So, it's 175,000. Uh, but then also our other program there is amplify um, through Solarte Health. Um, we've seen we've seen a a a rather uh, large uptick in um, this this type of program. In this one we're we're essentially paying cash prices for a lot of common um, procedures, conditions, those types of things. Uh, and um, we do have some savings there. Uh, and you can see there are Q3 2025. We don't have Q4 yet. Um, we should have that momentarily. Uh, came in at just under 630,000 dollars. So, uh, a lot of our members are using it. The one thing I say where we've got the the opportunity is our dependents. So, dependent spouses, dependent children primarily 18 to age 26. If we we have a hard time getting to them because we don't really have a venue to do that. So, if they can go ahead and increase their membership and participation in the program, that's higher uh, claims redirection. >> Okay, just one more financial question. More more for maybe both of you and Bill. Um, who determines the 15% increase? Is that even Is that going to be enough? Cuz if all things were equal, and actually we're not because prices are going up and we anticipate utilization potentially go up. Um, if they both do go up, what are you projecting our our the the the savings account balance to be after a whole year has gone by with this increase? Cuz if the increase should be just break even, or is the increase to actually put more money into this account? >> Slightly. I think we've got a point a couple points in there, two to three points in there to try to add. But how we determine that is we've got two different models that we run it through, and they do the same thing. They look at things slightly different within our plan model, and then we kind of it's a an art and a science. So, right now we're running at 99% claims to revenue. Right? But then we've got to account for for increasing cost to your point, as well as administrative expenses. So, um we feel comfortable with the 15. Um and I would say, you know, as we kind of take a look out, if we continue on this on this track, we're we're going to have to stabilize again. So, we're probably Again, trends at 12%. We're probably looking at another double digit. >> So, so so but it is 12% and we're putting putting 15. Uh and the utilization and the costs are all going to all going up. Like, that puts zero in your savings account. I mean, is that a whole >> you're you're explaining 1% is what you're saying. >> We're We've got within that 15% you've got two to 300 basis points built in. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And so, what I would say too is that >> in our savings account in that account, right? >> It's You know, we we've intentionally ran our plan kind of on the screws over the last 5 years. Um and there's a there's a variety of reasons why we've done that. Um notwithstanding our collectively brought bargain process and kind of what we have. So, it's it's it's difficult, you know, so for instance, what if next year we see that return to may maybe more of a norm. We What what happens there is is then we're able to build into our fund 20 reserve. Um we will we will stabilize. I mean, that's going to happen. It's just is it going to be after this next plan year or is it going to be after the next one? Right? >> Well, I guess the bottom line is like there's no consequences for you guys. If you lose money and you don't project correctly and we're and we're negative a million or two million dollars, you like you don't get fired. Do you? >> Oh, I for sure we could. Yeah. Yeah, we absolutely could. Yeah, no we I mean if we're if we're not projecting correctly, we're in the negatives again, the school the community gets is responsible for it. Our taxpayers have to pay that too. For for sure. Yeah. Coming out of our general savings account. And so I'm not saying 15% is the wrong number. I just want to make sure are we is that is that enough for based on the percentage 12% that you're seeing, the 110% utilization, and then pretty much the negative $500 that we have $500,000 in the savings account for the health insurance fund. Where we technically need that to be about $9 million. I mean, that's where it needs to be. >> the last three years were 5%, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, correct. I think the last three to four. Yeah, we've been we've been kind of Yeah, this is the anomaly. This is the anomaly year. I mean you know, we've got over $2 million in GLP-1 utilization. It wasn't there two years ago. >> the anomaly year but I'm like I'm not hearing the data that says we're having another anomaly anomaly I mean anomaly year. >> normal year >> Back back to the normal. >> And if that's the case, then we need to have the funding for that. >> Or you just do another 15% next year. >> Right. >> I mean, that's that's the problem. >> It's going to be on the back side. That's exactly right. So if if we to your point you know, we could propose a 25 or a 20. And and that's happening out there in the market by the way. Yeah. 25s are happening out there. We you know, that five point differential from a 15 to a 20 we our models are saying we can we can withstand that. Right? We we can do that. It's we're we're comfortable with a 15. That's what our models are saying. >> With no but but [clears throat] you're not using 15% to add to the fund balance. It's 15% for utilization and risk. >> So, we can always add to the fund balance, right? I mean, there's nothing that precludes us from making a making a good decision. >> model include adding money to the fund balance? That's the question. Or does your model just mean, based on utilization and price increase, this is what it's going to be for you guys to uh break even in regards to revenue and expense expenses? >> That's what I'm trying to get to. >> Yeah, we've got play of 2 to 3%. >> Is that Is that enough? >> The My answer to that is yes. >> Mhm. >> We would say yes. >> think that's why the recommendation is coming forward, right? And then we assess and readjust next time around. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I mean, this is like will be a continued conversation, right? As as insurance continues to do this. All right, I'm going to give us two more minutes and then if people have more questions in between now and the next meeting, they can get sent to Bowman. Is that okay? Okay. >> I mean, at what point um does a self-insured model not work well? I mean, when do we hit that mark? >> You know, that I think that another way of asking it is what's your alternative. >> Yeah. >> So, if the alter- the alternative is is that you go back into the fully insured marketplace, they're going to take a look at the existing data points that that we have today. Uh instead of uh instead of a 15% we're probably looking at a 30%. And we don't have any of the upside in the fully insured marketplace. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, we have upside here. If we go 15 and we perform at 10, we just added, right? If we go 15 and we perform as expected, you know, then we then we're you're absolutely we're assessing at a 12 to 15% next year. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Until we stabilize. That's exactly what we're doing. We we we prefer not to give ourselves a 20 plus and then underperform. I I I mean there's a there is always that risk, but we're trying to hedge against, you know, having higher claims. >> That's what insurance is, right? It's all about risk. >> That's right. That's right. And and I know we're short on time, so here camera now. All I would do is you've got the data here, the Delta uh the Delta Dental Program. We are recommending a 3% nominal increase. That's a that's a trend increase. Um we are starting to build back up into our fund a little bit about 35 grand so far this year. So really what that means uh this is this is peanuts. This is rounding error when we're talking about a $30 million uh self-insured medical plan, but really looking at um you know, a single dental rate going from $50 to $51.50 per month and a family going from $142 to $146.25. >> Okay. >> That's our recommendation. Um and and hopefully after this year we can go back to zeros. >> Okay. Great. So this will come to the next board meeting >> Yes. >> uh for consideration for approval. So between now and Sorry, help me with the date. >> 24th of March. >> March 24th. I know you're on vacation, >> Yep. Yep. >> but if there are questions in between, um send it to Bowman. >> Yeah, we'll we'll answer. Yeah, we'll get we'll get to get the answer back. >> for everybody? Okay. Thanks so much, Aaron, for >> Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it. >> All right. Um moving on to the next topic, Yolo Core Resource Recommendation. Uh this was on our last meeting, if you remember, um and we decided to table discussion on this just cuz of time. And so um we'll work through the discussion at tonight's meeting. And um we have uh uh Director Brovold and um Director No, what's your title, Sandy? I'm sorry, I don't Director. Uh You're not Director. Are you Director, also? >> I'm sorry. I'm confused, too. I mean, cuz I >> Both are actually >> I'm sorry. >> Deputy director of teaching and learning and director of teaching and learning. Thank you. >> [laughter] >> Um to walk us through um the recommended curriculum, but what I've also asked um just because there's been questions sent, I know, to Bowman about um about our curriculum review process. So, wanting Tracy and team to review with the whole board what is our approved process. Um I go through that and then discuss um the the recommended resource that you're bringing forward. Um I think as you discuss, I think it's important and you know Tony's not here. I was going to mention to him, but the rest of us um in April revised the policy related to curriculum. So, policy 606 was revised and approved by this board. Um and that's I think where a lot of uh your direction is coming from. So, with that can I turn over to you? >> Yeah. >> Okay, great. >> Thank you. Um as uh Chair Cameron said, uh we are providing an update for you on the ELA core resource um adoption and around the instructional resource um adoption process for uh grades 9 through 12. Policy 606, which governs this work, talks about the school board leveraging the expertise of professional staff. And so, I have two of those professional staff here with us today. Um Sandy Georgi is our director of teaching and learning and Natalie Nelson is one of our teaching and learning coordinators. We did ask some teachers to come and be part of the presentation, but they had conferences tonight. So, that was more important for them to be there for that. Um the presentation could be found in board book or it's also online if uh you want to follow along with that. Uh this work with our ELA teachers has been underway for several years now and it does reflect the leadership of our staff alignment to Minnesota standards and our district literacy priorities. Our goal tonight is to review the process that has been followed, share the recommended instructional resource and outline our steps, our next steps for implementation. And as outlined in district policy, our school board's role is governance and approval while the professional staff lead the review and the evaluation process of of the resource. So if you're following along on the slides, I'm on I'm moving to slide two. So as I stated, policy district policy 606 textbooks and instructional materials is what we're following to to guide us in this process. The policy does establish a very clear framework on how instructional materials are reviewed and recommended. And according to that policy, it outlines that the superintendent is responsible for establish establishing that process and then professional educators lead the evaluation and recommendation of materials. In the policy, you'll also see that it emphasizes that materials must support the district's educational goals, meet the needs of students, re I'm sorry, reflect diverse perspectives and remain within the budget. That one Bill really likes. >> [laughter] >> Uh the board's role is to remain informed throughout the process and then approve the final recommendation once the review is completed. Sandy is going to take you through the next slide which shares the resource adoption process and how we aligned our process to policy 606. >> Um good afternoon everyone. Thank you for having us here this evening. As Tracy had mentioned, if you'd like to follow along, we are on the third slide. What you'll notice is the action steps that we have within the resource adoption process. Obviously, our first step is to go through a standards-based review process. That began in 2024. We'll continue through 2027. And for sure, we would revisit as needed needs for ELA. But when you think about the predictive cycle that the state of Minnesota puts forward for us, full implementation of those standards are for this year. We're still working through that implementation process. Obviously, teachers are part of that process and is led by Natalie Nelson. She's amazing in the work that she does with our ELA folks. In addition, you'll have noticed that in your Friday notes that are provided to you by Superintendent Bowman, we did provide dates to the school board on November 21st as well as January 16th and then again on February 20th as it relates to where we are with our process. In addition, with our standards-based review process, if you remember when I have visited with you before, we have different phases. And one of the phases includes a really robust research of what potential field test materials we would like to bring forward to teachers. That's work that really Natalie has led with her expertise and skill. And it was decided upon based on our resource rubric as well as what is out there for best practice. We looked at EdReports, which is showing green lights on both of these that we brought forward field test. So, both HMH and Common Lit were brought forward and the teachers did a field test. Natalie will be speaking to that in just a moment. In addition, we had a community review. So, we did have um these resources available with some digital links to the community for the full month of December, December 1st through the 31st. We also had a Google Form um which allows the community members to um make any comments or any feedback that they might have. Um in addition, if a board member wanted to or a board member or community member wanted to come in and look at the actual resources, we certainly could accommodate that as well. We work closely with our communication department. Um Director Grace Olson and her team are amazing, and they supported us with a communication campaign such as 194 Now, 194 Connect. I think they have 194 Pride. I'm really trying to keep up with all the [laughter] amazing things that Grace does. Um And she had um those pieces put in place to inform our community on December 5th, December 11th, and December 12th. Um in addition, we have both Carly and Paul um our directors here on the Board of Ed our school board um who are part of our Teaching and Learning Council. And then on January 12th, we did a full presentation not only of the 9-12 ELA resources but the ones that will be coming forward with you at the middle level for EL, and then for social studies both at the elementary and the secondary. And that took place on January 12th. Um our community members were part of that robust presentation and had opportunities as well to provide feedback as to what those resources were. Um and then um we also brought in some samples um that we had that were print, and then they had access to those digital links. And then we come to um where we are now in the spring of the year um is our recommendation to the school board. Um I'm going to turn it over to Natalie. You'll notice that um on the next slide um is talking a little bit about some of our key indicators. We do have a resource rubric that our teachers co-create with us when we're looking for what are those key things that um we want to see in a core resource. Obviously, it's standards alignment and all those things. Um but Natalie's going to hit upon um what are some of the pieces that our teachers stated when they went through the field test and um their place of making that recommendation um based on our resource rubric. So, I will turn it over to Natalie. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for having me. Um my name is Natalie Nelson and I'm the secondary literacy coordinator here in Lakeville. Um I was very recently in a classroom at Lakeville North and this is my first year as the literacy coordinator here. Um I have personal experience teaching from both CommonLit 360 and the HMH Into Literature um resources well. I'm in my first year here um and I lead the 6th through 12th grade ELA teams as Sandy mentioned through curriculum review and the standards review process. Um our team is currently seeking school board approval for this as our core ELA resource in 9th through 12th for multiple reasons. Not only is this a high-quality instructional resource for our tier one instruction, but it also serves as a teacher planning guide for re-engagement and for re-teaching students in tier one instruction. This curriculum also serves as a knowledge-building curriculum that incorporates complex texts in a variety of contexts so that we can support our students learning in the real world. I have also collaborated with other districts to learn about how this curriculum is successful in their world and how it's utilized with secondary students in other Twin Cities schools. Um however, as much as I have lots of background knowledge and awareness of this, um there is value in hearing from our educators um that had piloted this platform um and I wanted their voices to be heard even though they couldn't be here tonight. Um so our teachers, as they were evaluating um CommonLit 360 after using it with students, um shared some comments with me through a Google Form. So I took some of those comments to help share with you regarding the bullet points that are on the slide that you're looking at. So, in regards to meeting grade level standards, including engaging literary and informational text, a few comments that stood out to me were CommonLit has a great collection of text for all grade levels and opens access to a variety of texts to meet readers' needs. When combined with the assessment series, teachers get a continual reading comprehension growth check. Student thinking has been challenged and I've seen and heard firsthand rich discussions between students with ideas being challenged and also being validated. This curriculum does this curriculum allow students to choose texts and explore diverse perspectives? It has varied representation included with texts and the unit plans show provided show a variety of perspectives and viewpoints to help students see both canonical texts, which are those that are considered part of the ELA canon, and modern texts, both short and long. Does this curriculum integrate reading, writing, discussion, and meaningful tasks? Assessments are varied, aligned to lessons and content, and time manageable, and the data that's available is presented in a very teacher-friendly format down to the very individual student. This curriculum provides teacher guidance, assessments, and culturally responsive supports. Teachers shared, materials are well designed to on their own merits. However, they can be edited or customized to fit delivery and instructional methodologies. Assessments allow for tracking data across time. I have found their teacher keys and instructions very helpful, exclamation point. Directions for lessons and instructional materials are detailed and grounded in authentic connections to real-world experiences. Does this curriculum support student growth? I do support CommonLit for adoption in our district because of its reading skills tracking ability and its flexibility with assignments. The on-demand PD videos are extremely helpful and specific to unit lessons, topics, assessments, and CommonLit tech features. One of the question or one of the areas that we are looking for as well is um does this curriculum align to evidence-based literacy instruction? And part of what's important to note with this is that our 6th through 12th grade teachers have not been through Read-Act training at this point because that is considered phase two um of the Read-Act. So, um the information on this was pulled primarily for me from what I look at with CommonLit. I have gone through Read-Act training and looking at the different ways that it builds knowledge, topics, themes, using Scarborough's reading rope, which is essential, um explicit vocabulary instruction, um using verbal reasoning across many texts, and then also practicing writing um in a variety of different situations. Um And then it does it support our state standards? It does. Um 41 school districts in Minnesota have com- have adopted CommonLit um and for full adoption, and they have very clear um alignment documents that um are very easily accessible should you like to see those. Um this curriculum utilizes differentiated enriched reengagement strategies. The teachers commented that it was good on scaffolding and building unit knowledge. Um units are scaffolded with detailed plans, and they allow what's called flex time to show to slow things down and allow for opportunities to reteach or differentiate. And then finally, is it easy to use? Um the materials are structured and formatted consistently across all documents. The teacher documents mimic student documents, so it's not visually cluttered, and it integrates with Google Docs, slide decks, uses supplementary videos. It's a dynamic platform that allows work to take place within the program itself, but documents can also be copied into school student Google accounts or printed if necessary. So, those were just some the some things that I thought were important to note from our teachers that have used this and done a great job of testing this out with our students. >> Um, if you're >> have a question about that? >> I do for the data, but I can wait if there's more. >> Yeah, we just have a >> Do you want to finish and then? >> Yeah, okay. >> Okay, perfect. >> Um, one of the other pieces that we want to share with you is what does that budget allocation look like for this core resource? Common Lit 360 is a digital platform, but it also offers as well, so we can print those things for students. And in addition to the Common Lit 360 digital platform, we will be looking at a process within our district to be able to have a selection committee for additional whole class and choice novels. Choice novels and perspective taking is a requirement within those standards. So, there will be some additional supplementary pieces to the Common Lit digital platform. It roughly is 600 or excuse me, 60,000 over 3 years. Um, and then as I mentioned, I talked about the novel and the whole class and the choice. For a 9-12 perspective, that would be around 87 for next fiscal year. We would continue that until we felt we had a large enough a repository for our teachers to be able to choose from. Um, in addition, the professional learning with that consultant fee through Common Lit 360 is about 5,300. And then of course, when we want to work with our teachers to be able to do the alignment documents with the scope and sequence, the pacing, making sure the common assessments are aligned, etc. is about 50 grand for that release time for having the teachers come together and work. Um, it's about 202,000. Um, and as Bill said, he goes, "That's very reasonable, Sandy." >> [laughter] >> Um, the other piece as we maybe transition in just a moment to any questions that you might have, what we are looking for for next steps um is your approval. Um and we really want to be thinking about pacing because as Natalie mentioned, the Department of Education has um created a timeline that phase two teachers, which are secondary teachers, um will participate in Read Act next year. And so we really want to make sure as teaching and learning we're creating a manageable workload for our teachers and that we're sequencing this work um and that it is consistent and robust experiences for our students. So upon approval right away Natalie's going to be working um with our teachers. They're excited for that even this spring to start doing some of that alignment. And then we will continue that work in the summer for summer curriculum writing so that we can pace that so that they can um implement a new curriculum, feel like they have some of those pieces um already addressed, and then being able to um then focus some of their time on that Read Act um training that will be coming. >> Great. >> Okay. >> So yeah. >> All right. We're ready for the next >> So so I've got three questions and and so I'll I'll just share them and then we can kind of come back to any of those where it makes sense. Uh at the last board meeting I did pull this out out of the consent agenda. Uh not because I was not not in favor of it, but I think just because the magnitude and the scope of this particular curriculum in my mind doesn't warrant it just being thrown into the consent agenda. While it might have been the process or is a process, uh personally I didn't think it was uh it was a um it would be a good opportunity to make sure we talked through this and and where where we are all um aligned cuz it's going to impact you know, 4,000 high school students or potentially uh and and so forth. So um it might make sense for us as a board to come back and revisit that policy. I have no concerns with how you guys uh identified, get the research, but I think it's the approval process that I would like us to uh revisit. When we make uh a paragraph change to a school board policy, we do two readings just to make sure that the community is informed of what's going on. And when we've got curriculum at this particular scope, uh maybe a two meeting process might be warranted so that the community can see. I was hoping to have a a presentation like this during the board meeting that would have been 10 minutes. Then I would be like, "Cool, cool, fine, stamp, you're good to go." So that's what I was envisioning 2 weeks ago, but that that's just from my perspective. So that that's the first comment. Um the second question that I had was the the data correlation. So while there is 41 that have Common Lit, have have you um was there a data that kind of validated, "Okay, here's our MCA scores before Common Lit. Here's what it is afterwards." And then did you see was there a trend in year two and three with the implementation uh that it continued on? And is there a correlation with Common Lit being implemented 4 years later, they were able to um uh correlate ACT scores or SAT scores from an English perspective to see did that improve? And then the last question that I have was $200,000, great value. Um >> [laughter] >> if you had a million dollars in the budget, uh >> [clears throat] >> can we allocate 800 back to teaching and learning and let them decide where else that money could go if we if it was already earmarked for their department. So that was just a question. That's all. Those are my thoughts. >> Can we get to I hear I think number one is I appreciate the comment. Number two I think is uh something hopefully someone can answer. Number two I think is a exercise in how do we want to spend money if we had a magic if we had a pot of money, right? But I think there's lots of things on the table that has been thrown out. So I think at some point we can have a discussion about what may be possible. I don't think there's going to be a lot of Given our given the budget conversations we had, like we're we're we're not having a cut, but we're not lush, right? So So maybe focus on question two for Is that okay, Brianna? Brianna? okay. Question two, Brian's question two. >> Yeah, how how is this tool then used to evaluate performance on standardized testing in other districts or or the tool as a whole? >> For sure. I think I we might be able to take it even one step further, Brian, and I'll let Natalie chime in as well. One of the things particularly in our process, our Lakeville South teachers when they were doing their field testing, they did some pre and they did some post assessments to see where their students were and during that short period of time of just field testing CommonLit, they were able to see an increase as it relates to student achievement just within the data that we are collecting internally. We were able to see those pieces. I don't know if you want to elaborate on that, Natalie, or I missed anything. >> Yeah, I think that the important thing to note with this, the districts that I've spoken to have recently adopted it due to the curriculum alignment that's required of the state. So, the long-term data is in any of those districts isn't present. Most of them are in their first year of adoption. So, I think that's also just a key everybody starts with that conversation. We just started adopt we just adopted this this year. We haven't seen the growth. The nice part about CommonLit is that even now we can collect a variety of ways and viewpoints to see student growth on Minnesota standards through the classroom view. So, the teachers have used those data points to check in see specific standards are they teaching those and they've gotten they've shown me like scatter plot data or pie chart data that shows the growth and one of the data points I talked to them after they gave their final exam in January. They had used it and they piloted it for a couple months and they saw that almost all of their students had shown growth through the platform. So, they went from literally yellow to green in the platform on those standards. So, showing proficiency immediately in some areas was very trans was very apparent to us as we looked at the data, but I think that the teachers are also seeing the benefit of that data then what do you do with it? Because data is also such a large story when it comes to a student. And so, the takeaway commonly also provides grouping suggestions for students and then targeted lessons towards what specific skills could you teach a student who is struggling with this specific state standard. And so, it gives you specific lessons to follow up with that can individualize and personalize the instruction for the student following the whole class tier one instruction then what's that re-engagement that comes after it. >> [laughter] >> I just wanted to add one thing to what Natalie had to say. We have to keep in mind that this is the first year that the new 2020 ELA standards are implemented. So, in the spring of 2026, that's a whole new MCA assessment based on these new standards. So, even comparing it to past MCA assessments, they're really very different standards in in complexity. >> Could I also add in one more piece? I I I want to be very careful in correlating a product to student achievement because it does revolve around the professional development that we're providing to our teachers, the extent that the teachers know and understand the standards that they're teaching to that rigor. So, there's instructional components to to looking at that data as well. It's not just about the resource. It's about everything else that we provide for those teachers. Continued coaching from the principals in their building. So, there's a lot of variables in that student achievement increasing than just a textbook. >> Yeah, and Tracy, that's a point. This is a tool. You still need a carpenter to build the house. And that's really your point which is a good idea. But I want to come back to to a comment you made. Very hopeful comment in regards to South and seeing an increase in proficiency success with whatever the word is. >> [clears throat] >> Just wet our appetites. What What does that mean? 5% 10% 1% flatline? I mean what what did they see? They obviously saw something. What What was it? >> We'd have to pull up that particular presentation that they gave. They did a PLC presentation in front of their admins as part of our TDE work that we have. From what I recall, I think Natalie's pulling it up right now. We can Do you want to talk a little bit about the scatter plot? >> Yeah. So basically the view that I'm looking at, there are some student names on here so I want to be conscious of that. But basically as you look at the scatter plot, this teacher can see you can see like the blue and the red here. There's these dots all here. These students all increased. So there were about 1 2 3 4 5 6 students that actually did not show any growth in that particular period of time and there's no students that declined. So items like this again, it's very easy to just gravitate to this and look at oh this tells a whole story. But then there's also other pieces that go along with this story too to see where are those students at cuz some of them we noticed afterwards are very wonderfully proficient students. But and they just didn't show any growth and then the largest growth was actually happening in some of our significantly struggling students. >> So is that an end of like 12 people or 12 students? >> So this was I think, he had 20 He had 27 students total in this class. >> Oh, so it's a really small sample. >> And so, the rest of the students >> They were just piloting. >> Yeah, it's really small. >> Are you saying the rest of the students improved, then? >> Mhm. >> 21 >> So, 21 improved. Okay, I made a mistake. >> And we need to remember that this was just a field test, a small sampling of students for a short period of time, but what is promising is some of that preliminary data is showing that um these different strategies and these resources are making a difference for our students. >> I I'm assuming other states are using this, right? >> Yes, CommonLit is used in >> And have they had Then, so then they must have some sort of track record as well if they've been doing it for a long time. >> And many of those things will come up on the EdReports, which is kind of a national research hub, where you can do some research ahead of time, and then they have different criteria um based on that. And um we wouldn't have brought CommonLit forward if it wasn't already a good product. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Uh I mean, I have a lot of questions, but on that line, I mean, I'm assuming there are a number of resources that districts are using cuz how many districts are in the state? I mean, there's >> About 350. >> Yeah. And so, a little over 10%. Um I mean, did Would you get presentations from these different companies saying like, "Look at the results we're getting." >> Yeah. >> I mean, $200,000 is I mean, if it was a million dollars, but it's shown to be twice as successful, I mean, I think that's something you could convince the board. Um but was I guess when you're comparing to other options out there, you know, how did it stack up? I know we we tried two or looked at two, but did you look at the top six or the top seven? And then, are the top Sorry, did I mean, then compare like, "Okay, this is what the top 10 performing districts are doing in the state or what they're using?" >> Did they So, did you Did they talk about this at that T-LAC meeting? I'm just curious, like >> We did a process >> I'm just curious like I'm just curious like how does this >> process and in terms >> Maybe like it'd be helpful for them the board members on those committees to like share bigger summaries about those meetings. Not to put you both on the spot, but Like it's good to have it now and when you go to the meetings to give updates on what happens at T lack in detail like a little more detail. >> the meetings, the T lack meetings? >> Yeah, like you know how we do board updates. I feel like having updates from your committee involvement would be like that would have helped I think bring the rest of the board online right now. >> And yeah, and just for like the board members sake like I see 606 >> [clears throat] >> we entrust the staff to go and and find the curriculum that they're going to recommend, but we still have to approve it, you know? So just yeah, and approving the texts. And so I know I asked for a list of the books um and was provided great great information. So I I feel like that should be a starting point almost for the board like hey, these are the texts that are going to be used. I do have some additional questions about that, but sorry. If you want to go back to that selection process. >> One of the pieces that we do even before [clears throat] we narrow down what it might be the two or three resources that we might bring forward to the teachers is the coordinator spend a considerable amount of time researching what is out there and looking at all sorts of different metrics whether it's Ed Reports, What Works Clearinghouse, IES studies and so we do spend some time with that. The other piece that we do is we bring in those vendors to learn more from those vendors. Um we also then identify what other districts might be using that and then we call those other districts and then we meet with them. We get kind of a feel for where they are at. We also belong to a consortium called the Minnesota area curriculum leaders. We lean on that heavily. We send out surveys. In fact, we're doing that one right now for elementary health cuz that's going to be coming down. It just got sent to our curriculum leaders across the state to ask, what are you considering for the new health standards? What are you using now? What might you be considering? Why are you considering those pieces? So, we really look at multiple sources before we narrow it down. Once we take all of those pieces, look at our resource rubric, juxtaposition it to those resources, we identify which ones rise to the top because we can't have our teachers field test all of those. That would become, you know, very difficult. So, we try to narrow it down [clears throat and cough] to two to three to be able to field test throughout the year. The other thing we want to consider is the experience for the student. If the teacher is field testing a multitude of resources, it becomes more challenging also for that teacher to keep consistency within their classroom, too. >> [clears throat] >> I do. One more question then Carly. Do you have a question? >> I was just going I would just comment that I think in terms of my purchase patient with T-Lac, I don't have any ability to compare curricula, just to be honest, like in terms of what's better. That's I don't feel like that's my role at all, obviously, but in the meetings what stood out to me, which I did bring to our board reports, was the thoughtfulness around the process and what I felt was very thorough vetting and really talking I think some of my questions had to do like which districts are we talking to? Are these our peer districts? And I feel like the process itself has been think very thorough and thoughtful. So, that was what I appreciate. >> Thanks, Carly. >> Yeah. >> Okay, Matt. >> Um I did [clears throat] provide with a scope and sequence table for grades 9 through 12, which I think is very helpful and maybe that could be shared with the board, too. Um that shows, you know, a number of texts for different units throughout the year. Um I was just wondering cuz I know there's some discussion on or a comment on page 10 where it says students choose texts. And I was wondering how, you know, additional texts or resources, you know, are integrated into that and then how, you know, we're able to maintain a consistency of what's actually being introduced to the students across the different schools. You know, for tracking purposes. >> For sure, I appreciate that. Um, the In our current environment, um, we really don't have a consistent and a cohesive way as it looks at, um, whether they're whole group novels or whether they're choice novels. So, um, Natalie and I have been working closely, um, and we have developed, um, a novel selection committee. Um, and it's representative, um, of our teachers across, um, both our middle and our high school level. We also have, um, some digital media specialists that are on there, um, cuz they have some expertise as it relates to print. Um, we have some administration that are on there as well, um, and then Natalie leads that process. We have a rubric that we look at, um, as it relates to which text we might want to select. And in fact, that first meeting is going to be coming up. Um, Natalie just sent something out with a couple of dates, um, to be able to bring this team together. What we want to have is a repository of whole group novels so that we can develop, um, some curriculum around those so that teachers can check them out. They know that they've been highly vetted, that they're aligned, um, to what we would expect for complexity for that particular developmental age level, um, and that they're also meeting, um, some of the other needs as it relates to the key shifts in the standards for the ELAs. And one of the biggest shifts is teaching multiple perspectives as well as making sure that students have choice in choosing their texts. So, we want to be able to have a variety or a repository of texts so that students can actually choose maybe what they might want to read in addition to whole group instruction. >> Those are in your hand texts, right? >> Yes, they're in your hand. Yes. >> They're [laughter] print texts. Yes, they're not digital. >> Yes, they're in your They're in your hands texts. >> Is that And then like students would be expected to do assignments that are maybe similar but but it's based on their text. Kind of like when we used to do book reports, right? Every every student read their own book, but >> Do you want to explain what that might look like? >> Yeah, CommonLit does have some whole class alignments that it's clearly suggests like you're seeing those in the scope and sequence document. Um and so those are really important to pay attention to, but we're also aware that there are some Minnesota specific needs because our state standards are unique to our state. Um so for example, there are multiple state standards in 9 through 12 that call out that we need to um focus on perspectives, specifically Dakota and Anishinaabe tribal perspectives. And so those are not most um platforms or publishing companies or vendors have not done a great job of fulfilling that state standard requirement, um which we legally have to do. So we are working within those accommodations as well, um and using the support of our wonderful um American Indian liaisons that we have through Amy Kisch Meyer, um and doing work with that um to support that. So that's one of the um places that we're working to try to see do we need more whole class, but choice novels, um CommonLit does give some suggestions for choice novels, but we want to make sure that they're um appropriate, they're for our they're meeting our state standards, um and then they're also going to be something that every teacher in every site can also use. Um because right now that has not been the expectation. We have um a little bit of everything going on everywhere. So we're trying to align everything so that no matter which middle school you go to, which high school you go to, you have access to the same texts or the same choices in texts that students have elsewhere. >> How is it [clears throat] integrated then um as far as you have all class novels that they're going to read, and then you'll just have a Okay, once we read that, then we're going to switch to a choice novel, and you have the choice out of 15 novels or something like that. >> That's a great question. >> [laughter] >> Um one of the ways in which we do this is we have and a lot of those scope and sequence units um CommonLit addresses like big thematic units. Um and so uh we pick best practice dem- shows that you should pick about four to six texts that have a similar theme or big idea um through different perspectives, and that student engagement increases when you offer the variety of choices. So a student, as we all know, 16-year-olds don't feel like to be told what to do. So when you hand them a text that they feel like there's been some choice involved with, that gives them more empowerment to want to read. And I've seen this play out in my own classroom many times. It's wonderful. Um but it does need some direction, and there is too much, and there can be um and obviously when you give everyone the same book, that's not choice. So we want to have um >> [clears throat] >> I call it controlled choice, where you offer the pathways to them that you as the novel selection committee have curated, and then you offer them that pathway. Um but they're usually where the best practice is to have them along the same lines, common theme, common big idea, common focus, so they all No one's missing out on something related to that unit of study, if that helps. >> I'm going to time check. >> Yeah. >> [laughter] >> 20 after almost. Are there any last few questions? I have one more Yep, one more question, and then if there are more questions, can we get them to you, Michael, between now and the board meeting? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh so So I just have two. Uh first question is that So it's a it's a it's a digital platform, book the books are online. Is that Uh so no. >> The novels that we were just speaking of would be, as you said, in front of the kids um in paper. And then um >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. Yes. And then one of the things about CommonLit 360 is that it does not come with your, um, standard textbook. Like, we don't hand the big thousand-page document to students because that's not part of the platform. Um, what they do is they say, "If you, these are the different texts that we offer." And as I mentioned before, it can be printed. So, it also integrates with Google Docs so that teachers have slideshows that are easily integrated with the tools that we have. Like, Schoology is for learning management system. So, that is also, um, a component of it. But, I do think that does impact the cost somewhat in that we're not handing a large pre-selected chunk of text to students. We can, um, differentiate and we can reteach and re-engage and choose to do things that are meeting students' needs as we go through the process. [cough] So, it is all digital, but those novels are not. >> So, so as things become more and more digital, I, um, I I want to make sure that, uh, I always think about the parental choice and parental involvement. If they they they they may or may not like, for whatever reason, the text offerings and stuff like that. Does the platform, it it maybe this is a separate conversation where maybe it's a district policy or how like do how do parents get involved in this knowing that now everything is digital? Is Is there access easier now to be able to say, "Oh, these are the seven books or these are the 10 things or the these are the themes that are that's going on." And I'm not saying it needs to be integrated with, uh, Infinite Campus, but just, you know, where where where do parents play a part in any of this? Or do how do they get involved? >> So, if you're asking if a parent has an opportunity to maybe reconsider what, um, that particular resource would be, we do have a policy 630 that walks through >> through that. Okay. And then that would just apply to that. >> Correct. Yes. >> Got it. Got it. All right. And then, my second my last question is, do we need to wait 2 weeks for them to keep going. Or is that something that can be made today? I I don't know. And so cuz I know that this was supposed to be done 2 weeks ago and then someone decided to pull it out of the consent agenda. >> [laughter] >> I don't know but and while this is a working session and I just want to be mindful that this is a working session and we're not supposed to make decisions but I just also want to be mindful of Can you can you wait another 2 more weeks? I don't know. >> I Yes. Our our next meeting is right around that time. So I think we'll be okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So we'll bring us to the next meeting. >> Is the concern more of the implementation of the program? Like training on the program itself cuz my understanding there's a digital platform. Is that what you're going to be training the teachers on? Like here's the program and how we teach. >> it's a little bit of that. As Natalie had mentioned, there's a really robust assessment portion of the program that really aligns to our state standards. So that's a really positive piece particularly when we're looking at common assessments. So there will be some PD around that for sure. But I also think we really want our teachers to come together, look at that platform, look at those resources and really start doing the alignment, creating that scope and sequence, creating that pacing guide, making sure that the units are [clears throat] developed at the robustness that they need to be. Are there any gaps which there will be because most resources are not you know, there's going to be some spaces and then that's what we're thinking about that professional development. So it's an and >> Cuz I mean this is the question from the board would be is is our job just the approval of the texts themselves and not necessarily the how but the what. >> Correct. Yeah. >> So I mean I guess one of my requests would be just to get a list of all the texts that we're approving for use in the program. >> I don't think you have that list, right? Cuz you said you're bringing together >> We do have that smaller list that was already sent to you but then the selection committee will be generating the next list, which will also come to you. >> For sure. And they haven't even met yet, so we don't even know what those titles are. >> So, what we're approving next meeting is kind of like 368. >> That's the only thing that >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So. >> We should probably have a broader discussion around >> Around the text? >> Around the text because again, I don't want to read 800 pages in a science book or a chemistry book, but but I I but we should as a >> Yeah, I think it's a conversation around like what does the board want our role to be? I mean, I found this really helpful, this chart showing the many stops that it that the community, parents, students, teachers, etc. us went through to get to here. And this is important, this process. So, I don't think we get to here and say, "Oh, we need to start over and start reviewing every single sentence." I don't think that's in In my opinion, I think that's a discussion the board can have. But this is the policy that we've supported, right? In terms of 606. And I appreciate like the updates from TLAC and board members going to these things to stay informed and [clears throat] reading Friday notes so that we're like we're we're following the process as well. It's not getting What what I don't want or any of us, I don't think want is to get to a meeting like last week or 2 weeks ago and feel like we've never heard of this, we've never seen this. And I didn't even realize all of this had happened. And so, this is helpful to know that like we're not getting it at the end hour. Our job is to stay um plugged in through this process. So, maybe that's the conversation. Like, how do we how does the board want to stay connected? >> Mhm. >> So, we can have that >> Yeah. >> We did get the Friday notes. >> [clears throat] >> Superintendent Bowman has shared a lot of the information from our our teaching >> Yeah, right. >> learning department. So, I feel like part of it is we have It's not like we've been in the dark about this. >> Right. Yeah. >> So, so how does that come back to Matt's comment? I'm trying to connect the dots here. Uh Matt, were you asking that we approve um you know, Common Lit 360 as as a framework? >> As a framework. >> But as a tool. >> Yeah. >> As a tool as a framework. >> Which, you know, fine. Okay, but but then you had a second question or second comment in regards the texts that fit into this program. And >> Which which I think that aligns more with what we're approve what our duty is under 123 B09. >> Yeah. >> You know, approving the texts for instruction. But the what, you know, the how, the framework is is kind of the district and teachers. >> So, it lives with your department. >> So, all the texts flows with or what we're approving lives within this online module, correct? So, when you talk to other districts, um like I think Wayzata uses this, correct? If I'm >> No, Wayzata does >> Oh, I thought they were one of them. >> No. >> Who Well, whoever you talked to. >> The biggest district I've talked to that uses this is Shakopee. They have adopted it and they the the whole package this is what comes with it, the modules that Matt has reference that Mr. Swanson >> Got it. >> [laughter] >> So, how does that >> answer that? >> I mean, I think if you look at the if you look at the sequence and scope, you know, that like that's great. You know, that's kind of what the question was. Okay, what are we approving here? And it's like, okay, ninth grade, they're going to read these books and do these different units. And it's like, okay, that makes sense to me. You know, cuz I don't need to do >> So, you think we have >> all the research. >> Like read everything in three Common Lit 360. >> Is that what you're trying to I'm trying to understand? >> Like that >> No, what our job is to approve the the texts for instruction. >> But the texts that we're approving are all in the the platform right now. Correct? >> I think what you're speaking to >> That's all we're approving right now. >> But there are resources. Yes, we don't know what these texts are, right? >> Yeah, we got sent the link where you could go to every page and read it. >> Yeah, well, this is what they are. I mean, there's optional novels, right? >> no, no, we're not talking about the novels. >> Oh, yeah, yeah. >> So, our goal right now is just to assess if the recommendation to approve CommonLit 360, no novels. Correct? Unless they exist in that platform. >> Yes, there are novels that exist in the platform. And I believe we shared those with you in an email. >> So, there's a whole website that you developed where anyone in the community, including us, can go read the tool. Correct? I mean, I went to the ninth grade and I read like a couple pages, right? And got a sense of what the tool looks like. So, that's what we need to figure out is like that's where we're that's what the recommendation is for next meeting is to approve this one curriculum resource, not the print novels. >> And I think what >> Am I driving on it? >> You're correct. And I think maybe what you're referencing, Director, and you and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that's our core resource, and then we have maybe some core supplementary texts that we want to add to with that. That's not what we're coming forward to the board with today. What we're coming with is the core resource, and then when we get our selection committee to kind of build a repository of some choice novels, then we'll share those what those selections look like moving forward. >> And would you follow a similar process as this for those resources? >> So, with the um the core supplementary novels, um in the sense that it would be somewhat similar, we would put some things in writing notes to let you know where we are with that process, what we're considering. Um we wouldn't necessarily go through like a full communication campaign because they're supplementary resources, it's not the core. So, and we really have a committee that's going to be selecting that. So, then we would just bring it to you for approval. So, it would kind of be an abbreviated process because it's supplementary to the core. >> Okay. Sorry. Carlie and Kim. >> Sorry. >> I just wanted to make one small point about or question question {slash} point with this three-year contract. I know we're talking about the cost of it, which means in three years we're going to have to pay a fee again. And so, how does this differ from when you did used to buy a big like how many years would we have that big text? >> 50 years ago. >> [laughter] >> You don't want to know that. >> I'm just been wondering like how much change for good or for bad with these digital subscriptions. Like if this is probably something not just for ELA, but like with other um curriculum coming down the pipeline. >> And the other thing we want to think about is what is best practice. When you have an anthology as you're talking about, those are just short excerpts. And one of the things we really want and we'll talk a little bit more with the um the QDR now the QDR is that we want to get students in complex texts that are novels so they can build up our stamina. >> Mhm. >> We are finding that in the current environment that we're in, students just don't have the stamina to read full texts and to be in that complex piece. And so, when we were looking at this resource, certainly we want to have excerpts short excerpts and we want to have things from a variety of different genres, but we also want to make sure that they can actually be in a novel that is complex text that really is looking at language structure, sentence structure, understanding meaning, and really grappling at unique um content. And so, that's where we really want to be focusing and that's what the new standards are asking. So, the shorter anthologies is probably not the best way that we want to go. >> It's got to be longer than YouTube shorts. >> [laughter] >> So, this may cost more money over time, but it's more evidence-based in terms of making that progress that we need to see. That's what I'm hearing. >> And I think, too, that you'll find is with all resources moving forward, almost all of them have a digital platform. It's almost impossible >> Some are 7 years, some are 3 years. >> It's almost impossible [clears throat] to find a resource that you aren't tied to a digital platform. And that's actually a good thing because all the assessments are in there and it helps us do the alignment and making sure that we're doing more monitoring progress on those standards. So, that really is a positive piece. >> Kim, so can I clarify, the board is asking for like lists of what books are being used in this curriculum? Is that what the question is? >> So, well, I think there's two things. I think there's there's the nov- the printed novels, is that a good term to use with English teachers? Okay. That >> [laughter] >> That um this committee will recommend will come to us as a list of of novel titles. Correct? >> But then Correct. We have to approve that list. >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you. And then but then within this tool, there are many novel 360, there's many novels and excerpts and etc. So, we're approving the whole platform. >> Okay. I I just think that I would caution the board into getting into approving specific books for cur- for curriculum or novels. The district has a process that if a parent or a community member has an issue with a book that's read in the classroom, there's a process that they can go through and talk through it. Um coming from someone who's read pretty much every book on the banned list, um we can get into this like whole debate about what what's a good text and what's not a good text when there's lots of opinions on that. So, I just there's lots of good literature that ends up on lists. So, I'm just stating my opinion there. >> Okay. I'm going to move us to Okay. Like 10 seconds 10 second [laughter] question. >> Yeah. Uh so, this next topic agenda >> Yes. >> I think it's going to be lengthy and I'm not like 30 minutes is not going to be enough. Can I make a motion or not a motion? Can I propose we punt it to next week? >> I'd like us to start it if that's okay and if we feel like we can't finish it, then we can move to the next. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. So, with that you Thank you for the transition though. Um okay. Uh this is also director executive director >> Thank you, Natalie. >> Correct. You're taking us through this. >> I am. >> Okay. Yes. So, as a reminder the board has asked for um quarterly review of data. You know, we we're frequently monitoring the budget through presentations from from Bill and so I think in this one you focused on um academic metrics and student service metrics. Um oh, yeah. Come on up, Nicole. And so, >> [laughter] >> given given where we are in the academic year, you've selected um um >> I'm so sorry not to interrupt. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um um um we have that um >> [laughter] >> I've been sorry. Um um You've select You've selected metrics that have that we've had new data from from our the last time we did this, correct? So, that that's what this presentation is about. Thank you. Correct. >> [laughter] >> Uh well, we are um as uh Director Cameron explained, we are going to go through the metrics that we have results from and to share with you the the steps and process we are taking to analyze those metrics. And again, I have district experts here with me. Sandy Brovold, Sandy Brovold. >> [laughter] >> That was my mother-in-law. My mother-in-law. Oh my gosh. Sandy Georgi, sorry. >> Oh my god. >> We are really close. We have gotten close over the last few few weeks. [laughter] And Nicole Adams are here and Nicole's our director of integrated continuous improvement. Our goal with looking at this these metrics is in in this review is to really step back and look across several indicators to understand where we're seeing strengths, where we're seeing patterns, where our systems may need adjustment to better support student learning. The review that we're doing is really about our systems and taking a look at where our system is strong, where we need some additional support. We're we're using this data to understand instruction and how we're performing across schools and across different grade levels and across student groups. As we look at this data, we want to make sure that we remember that some of these measures represent a snapshot in time. It doesn't give the whole picture of a student. It does give us helpful signals, but they don't capture the full picture of learning that's happening across our district. What is most important as we look at this data is looking at the patterns over time and then using that information to guide our next steps. I also want to acknowledge before we move forward the incredible work that's happening across the district to look at our systems and to make some systems changes. Our teachers are spending so much time digging into our standards, creating scope and sequences, creating common assessments. They are learning about the Bridges math program at elementary. They're engaging in the read act. There's a lot of professional learning that's happening right now and it really reflects our staff's commitment to continuous improvement in making sure that we are doing the right things for student learning. As we moved into this QBR two, we came together with several different groups. Teaching and learning at the district level met with student support services and the in ICI integrated continuous improvement team to really drill down into the data. In the first data that we have looked at is our literacy data from FastBridge and our failure rates, our course failure rates. So we really had an opportunity to dig into that data. We also brought that data to our principal group or our DLT and our DLT includes our senior staff team, our principals and also directors across the district to dig into that data and review it. And then Sandy and I also reviewed that data with our teaching and learning teams. And we asked the group, sometimes when you're looking at data, it's really easy to jump to solutions and try to personalize that data or to determine what we're doing right, what we're doing wrong. And we really asked those groups to let's look at it from a systems perspective so that we could figure out where in our system we're lacking or where in our system we can celebrate. So as we continue to go through this process, we are going to continue to come back to data on a regular basis to to um make sure we're analyzing that data, but most of all that we get to a point where we could really dig deeper into analyzing the root causes and identifying solutions as to how we best move forward. Please note that that work takes time. We can't just look at the data and identify those solutions and how we're going to um solve any of our issues right away. We need to take time to really dig in to understand that data and then to begin to incorporate um all of the changes that we might need to move forward. So, we'll be looking at four areas of data in this QBR 2. We'll be looking at FastBridge fall to winter scores. We'll be looking at end of semester grade point average for high school and a continuous grade point average for middle school. We'll be looking at end of semester failure rates for high school and a continuous uh failure rate for middle school. And then we'll also be looking at attendance data. We won't get through all of that today, but we'll we'll do our best. And Nicole and Sandy, please jump in as as you see fit. So, let's we're going to take a look first at FastBridge. And we are very, very encouraged by our early literacy scores that we're seeing. Our overall profici- proficiency as a district, we are looking at 73.8% proficiency. From fall to winter, we we are looking at a de- decrease of about 0.5% from fall to winter across all of our levels, which is K through grade nine. In math proficiency, we hit 75% proficiency for winter. And this decreased by 1% from fall to winter across all of those levels as well. When we look at what's working across our district, as I said, we are really encouraged by our early literacy. Our kindergarten growth, first grade growth, and um second grade growth is showing that some of our foundational literacy systems in K2 are working and our students are making progress there. So, that is a really big thing to celebrate um for us. We also are Go ahead. >> Okay. What So, 78, 69, 76. And I know that the board last year shot for 90, but I just want to be realistic with like >> So, our goals this year, is that what you're getting at? >> Well, yeah. I'm just >> So, we set goals for this year. >> Last year. Well, we >> Well, we set goals for the 25-26 academic year. >> Yes, for this school year. >> And so, for K2 K1, it's 70.2% and for 2 through 9, it's 75.4. So, we we're hitting our K1, but we are about 1.15% below our 2 through 9 goal. >> For Fast Bridge? >> For Fast Bridge. >> So, what but I'm but I'm trying to get what I want to ask is what's a realistic and what's a good number? Because So, I want to make sure that for those of that are listening like we're not going to get to 90. Like >> We knew that. >> I'm wondering if they can keep going and talk about that like maybe that can be part of what you're thinking about as you're presenting. And I think you have some observations on where there's, >> Yeah. >> opportunities to drive that number higher. >> Yeah. >> And what might be a real What are What are we working towards? >> Yeah. >> Is that okay with you? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah, and um as you uh think about it, we do want to disaggregate our data so that we can look at where each grade level is and how we can support each one of them. Um as you can see here, we are seeing some stability in grade 7 through 9. Um I especially want to point out our ninth graders um who went from 76.5% to 79.7%. Um it's really encouraging to see that as we've been putting some pieces in place at ninth grade from Link Crew um to to bar. Um we're really trying to make that transition from eighth grade to ninth grade um really um meaningful and purposeful in making sure that we're supporting those ninth grade students. We did see some decline in grades 3 through 6. And um notably we saw a concern in grade 4. They went from 78.1% to 69.2% across that grade and we can see that across uh all of our buildings. And so we did a little bit deeper dive to find out how did all those fourth grade students do in 2 years in the last 2 years and we see the exact same pattern. Uh a uh decrease in their FastBridge scores from fall to winter. We do see that they rebound and they grow again from uh winter to spring. They don't get back to where they were at fall but we do see that growth come back again. And so looking at that from a systems perspective, we're saying what's happening between fall and winter that we're not preparing, the system isn't preparing those students for that um uh for that uh assessment that they have in the winter. Do either of you want to add to that? >> I think the other piece to note is grade 4 is also our COVID year. So we do know that that is also an area that we're looking at. Um and I think too we need to be thinking about pacing of our instruction and does that make pace with what that assessment's asking? >> on from the COVID conversation of that particular cohort of kids? Um share the share the why or or what um why that group matters and kind of what we're trying to assess there. In that the fundamentals that Okay, I'll just >> [laughter] >> The The one conversation I think >> [cough] >> happened nationally around that cohort of kids, you know, decision was made to take the kids out of school, go put them online, all that stuff. And then And then it was as if there's not going to be any consequence to that. And And there is a consequence to that. The fundamental development and I think if you look at our how we're doing in in K2 and then you see where four is, something got missed. And then how do you recover it? And I think that's the challenge we have. Now, yes, I'm saying maybe there's a a little bit of a leap there, but I don't think it's a big leap. I can I can make that correlation. The The question is how do we How do we help that particular group of kids? And that's another part we're going to look at more deeply. So, I just want to say that out loud. Uh that's not There's The only excuse you have is that it's not it's not been recovered. That's There's no excuse for that other than you you didn't see it coming. You know, point the finger at me, whatever you need to do. My point is uh that's why that class I think is of a important concern and also one that we need to figure out as we're moving forward and really look at the disaggregation of the data on that. >> Do you think also that like so um many of us have a fourth grader on on the board and they didn't have online. They started K live. They're the first group to like return back, but it was masked, I think. I can't remember. But as a result, that class is big across the country, not just Lakeville, right? It's a bubble class. So, we have higher class sizes for that group. That we're building the middle schools because of that group, right? Or or building on and so might that be part of it, too? It's like there are just more of them and we have >> that's what I mean. >> Okay, yep. >> That's what I mean. Yes, the online part, but the fact that they came back when they came back and there's a transition that your whole organization has to take from coming back offline to back online. And all of the things that were associated with that because we weren't out of the pandemic. [clears throat] I mean, that's some serious stuff that happened that I think might get glossed over a little. >> I also want to just piggyback off of that. They did come back in person, but they were masked. And when you're kindergarten, you got it. You've got it. They have to be able to see what those sounds look like and how you make those sounds. And that early portion of that early literacy with that phonemic awareness, they missed some of that. >> So, is there a higher percentage of like special education IEP plans for this fourth grade population compared to normal? I mean, I would assume maybe not. I don't know. >> But isn't one of the findings here that is consistent across the last 3 years is that they're starting higher and getting lower? Like something >> There's something There's something systemic >> Like they were doing very well in the fall. >> They were doing well. >> So, I don't know if it's COVID. >> Well, this This is what I'm saying. Is masks and COVID don't have anything to do with the fact that they're starting high, getting worse. And that has happened for three consecutive years, right? So, what I hear you guys saying is something's going on that we need to dig into with that pattern. Right. Okay. Keep on, please. >> Okay. All right. We also disaggregated this data by students who are receiving special education services. I want us to be really careful with this data because this is every student who receives special education services from a student who might receive speech services to a speech only services speech only services to to other services aggregated this data further at this point. But what we are seeing here is that we're seeing a slight decrease decline if student is being receiving special education and so we need to dig further into that as >> above exclude them or do you have another set of numbers that exclude them so that we can actually see a difference? >> The numbers above include them. >> Include them. So the numbers above would be actually significantly higher than if you exclude it this population. >> It's probably about a quarter of our student body correct? Receiving some form of service. >> Okay. >> Are you seeing this also with English language students a similar pattern? >> We are seeing a similar pattern. >> I think that would be nice to be able to differentiate those that have special education English as a second second language just so that we we can and then you have the aggregate score as well because we can't make the aggregate score to 90 when you got other populations that just may not have the ability to get there. So >> Okay. >> Well it's not that I mean I think it's like different students have different needs and so how do we help all students along and those might require different interventions different services. >> What we've been talking about in teaching and learning is making sure that we have strong tier one instructional practices for all students so that our special education students are EL students everybody is receiving strong core strong tier one and then what do they get extra what do they get [clears throat] in addition to tier one that can help support them along the way. >> Mhm. >> Anything to add? >> No, good. >> Okay. Um, we have not at this point, we have not um taken a deep dive into our math scores. We are going to be doing that with um the student services, teaching and learning, and ICIT teams next week, and then on Tuesday we'll also be following up with our principals. So, we'll have more information around math in um a similar way um for you, and we can maybe add that to our presentation as we go into um our next board meeting. How much time we got? How are we doing? >> We have 10 minutes. Do you want to like work through the packet, and then maybe we can hold questions, sure, and figure out how that we want to discuss those. >> Sure. >> Is that okay? So, you can get through your points. >> Yeah. So, um we have several action steps that we're putting into place um for These are action steps for literacy, because we haven't um taken a deep dive into math. Some of these cross over, because we're doing these district wide, and so you'll see the same thing in math. By using data to guide improvement, making sure that we are um regularly looking at data, and looking that at it from a systems perspective, as well as um at the elementary level, they do a really great job of having data digs after their FastBridge scores come out. They look at that down to the grade level. And each teacher is able to look at their individual students, and how they're doing, and what interventions they want to put in place to support them. Strengthening teaching and learning, we know that our um secondary teachers are engaged in uh professional learning on the five days that we have professional development, and they are focused on our grade level benchmarks. So, they are reviewing their standards. They are looking at uh following a scope and sequence. They're coming together with their um cross cross district colleagues to look at what their scope and sequence looks like and they're developing common assessments as well. We know that our K-3 teachers are have completed Read Act training grades 4-5 are completing [snorts] the training this year which has been 60 hours of training. I'm not done with my training yet. I think I have like 10 hours left. I'm getting there. And then we also have we also have our teachers engaged in implementing Bridges math. So when we look at building our stronger systems of support as Natalie was here, she is taking our secondary teachers through a robust standards based review with our ELA standards. Our elementary teachers are supported in a standards based review process and they do a train the trainer model because we can't bring every elementary teacher together at the same time like we can at secondary. And so we have a train the trainer model where Sandy's team helps to train some of our teachers and our leaders in our buildings and then they go back and train the teachers in their buildings. This year we have expanded intervention for K-3. We have K-3 access reading intervention is um in nine of our elementary schools. And we have professional learning at both secondary and elementary levels with the ELA resources in the adoption process. Secondary will adopt this next school year and elementary will be adopting the following year a new ELA resource. They'll be piloting that resource this next school year. We also are partnering with the Minnesota Department of Education. We are working to strengthen our systems of support for our ELD students. Uh we are also Nicole presented the achievement and integration plan for you a couple weeks ago maybe. And part of that plan is bringing in two new positions that are focused on strengthening tier one and tier two for our EL students. Uh and then we are working closely with student services to make sure that we have strong core tier one instruction and then we have specialized supports for students who are identified to receive services for special education and EL. >> Can I on this particular one with all the I I get it where we want to create good systems at the tier one level and it sounds like a lot of this stuff does that which is good so that way when a student comes through the process they're they're getting whatever. But at the end of the day you know the student still has to do the work. >> [cough] >> And they like you can put the best system in place and if they're not going to do the work you're still going to have a poor unfavorable outcome. It's not that the system is bad you know what I mean? And so you know I've talked to Matt about this where uh you know we like where do where do we start to incorporate AI or AI tutoring or whatever may be where it is individualized personalized for that person or for that student and it's really not a system thing it's more of like hey the the the kid needs 30 more minutes of reading 30 you know three times a week and maybe in middle school during winter time that's just what they do. They don't do anything else that's just what they do until they're at the proficiency level that they need to be. So I just want to be mindful that while we're putting systems I get that but again if the student isn't going to do it and and and we're not creating a program personalized to the student the system isn't going to work. >> So I think would that require in order to like implement something like that I think we need to know a lot more about the students who are um not having success right or or who aren't gaining as much as we like. So, we can see here that our special education students are serving receiving sped services might be a group that needs extra support. AI tutoring might be a tool that's helpful for that or it might be something else. So, I think we need to look at who is doing things or or what or what students are needing supports and then what are the best tools to accommodate those learning needs. Do you know >> Yeah. I I get that. Yeah. >> and I think that's what you're trying to do. We have 3 minutes. I think we're probably going to end on this section. So, if there's one more question, um >> Which one? Weighted GPA? >> four on my phone. Um but well, I think >> Just save questions for [clears throat] >> Okay, save questions. We could pick either What's the board's preference? We could pick this back up at a future meeting or we could process the report and if you have questions, you can send them to Bowman for Friday notes and the whole board could receive a response. Is there a preference? So, I appreciate the report and the action steps related to it, but What do y'all want to do? >> [clears throat] >> I'm asking, do you want this the rest of this to go on a future meeting? >> Yes. >> Okay, so that's your vote or are do you have the information with the ability to ask questions that would go on Friday notes for further understanding of how the district is taking data to to change how things are happening. >> I mean, I guess it's if we wanted to process for us or if we want to share it with the the community, I guess it's two different questions. >> Yeah, and I feel like this is the information is good. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> This is public, obviously, the report. Yeah. >> Um but I think there's probably there's more than just that that we're doing as a district which might come out in a future meeting if we have time. I have a lot of questions I didn't ask because of time. So, I'd be up for an an additional meeting. >> Do you think this is like next work session? >> Yeah, maybe at the next work session. >> Okay, sounds good. So, with 2 minutes, well, you're we'll save the second half of the report for the next work session. Um, and maybe by then the math stuff will [clears throat] be ready. Um, potentially, we can see. >> We're sure. >> Um, yeah, with that we can wrap it up and have a good evening, everybody. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Motion to adjourn. >> We don't need motions for this. I watch so many board meetings. >> [laughter] >> Eden Prairie >> They don't do any of that at work sessions.