Lakeville teaching-and-learning leaders outline standards review, curriculum rollout and intervention priorities

Tracy Provo and Sandy Giorgi presented the Lakeville Area Schools board on Sept. 23 with a district plan to strengthen instruction, align curriculum to Minnesota standards and improve tier‑1 instruction and intervention systems. “Student learning is our core purpose as a district,” Provo said, summarizing the department’s mission and six themes for improvement. Giorgi, director of teaching and learning for PreK–12, described the district’s phased standards‑review and curriculum process, alignment to Minnesota’s standards cycle and an emphasis on building teacher capacity and consistent learning targets across schools. Presenters said classroom teachers remain the most influential factor on achievement, with building leaders the second most important influence. They described a multi‑phase standards review (engage, unpack, field‑test, implement) designed to produce shared learning targets, common assessments and aligned professional development. The presenters showed a grade‑level example unpacking a third‑grade math benchmark — “use strategies and algorithms based on knowledge of place value, equality, and properties of addition and multiplication to multiply a 2‑ or 3‑digit number by a 1‑digit number” — and explained teachers convert those benchmarks into student‑friendly learning targets and assessments. Sandy Giorgi said curriculum is more than buying a textbook: it includes instructional resources, aligned assessments and evidence‑based practices. The presenters discussed classroom rigor, DOK (depth of knowledge) levels and the need for teachers to calibrate instruction to how the MCA will assess standards. Board members pressed for specifics. Director Nicholson asked how much standards change from review to review; Giorgi said some reviews produce significant changes in content and rigor and cited recent statewide shifts in science and math. Director Anderson asked how the district will support teachers during stacked implementation cycles; presenters described phased professional development, field testing of resources and a plan to build a curriculum hub, videos and exemplars for onboarding new teachers. On curriculum selection, staff said they surveyed other Minnesota districts and interviewed vendors before field testing resources; Bridges (Bridal/Bridges was discussed in the presentation) was named as a chosen elementary math resource candidate because it includes intervention and enrichment components. Presenters noted Minnesota’s standards are set by statute and districts have latitude for the “how” but not the “what.” They also described state funding constraints for elementary literacy and recent MDE guidance expanding allowable uses of literacy aid from “highly aligned” to also include “partially aligned” resources. Presenters identified near‑term steps: a unified district message emphasizing teaching and learning, a five‑year teaching-and-learning plan, expanded professional learning communities, a mentor pilot for new teachers, licensed reading interventionists in elementary buildings and a work group to systematize interventions. They said school schedules (the high‑school six‑period day was cited) limit time available for intervention and that schedule review may be necessary. The presentation prompted questions about assessment cadence (FastBridge proficiency vs. growth), common assessments at unit level, how to measure advanced students’ needs and the timeline for MDE full implementation of standards and associated MCAs. The department said FastBridge growth is tracked separately from proficiency and that EduCLIMBER is used for progress tracking and intervention monitoring. No formal board votes were taken on curriculum selection during the meeting. Staff said they will return with specific recommendations, field‑test results and implementation timelines for board approval.