Richfield superintendent presents second-draft evaluation goals; board presses for better student tracking to avoid coded dropouts

Superintendent Steve Yudnowski presented a second draft of his 2025–26 goals to the Richfield School Board on Sept. 15, linking 35% of his evaluation to student achievement targets, 35% to process goals and 30% to overall evaluation measures. The goals emphasize screening and progress monitoring (FastBridge), targeted gains in third‑grade reading and eighth‑grade math, and a districtwide graduation-rate target of 90% across demographic groups.

Yudnowski told the board the district chose third and eighth grades as transition points—third grade as readers move from “learning to read” to “reading to learn,” and eighth grade as a predictor for future math course readiness. He said the district will require progress monitoring for tier‑3 students twice a month and that FastBridge assessments are being implemented across schools.

Board members pressed for clarity on graduation-rate reporting and how students who leave the district are coded. The superintendent explained that Minnesota does not publish subgroup data when a group has fewer than 10 students; the district has nonetheless reported outcomes for indigenous students and other small groups. He said past incomplete follow‑up resulted in 12 students four years ago being counted as dropouts and that the district will now intensify efforts to track students’ school enrollment — including cross‑state and, if necessary, international follow‑up — so those students are not coded as Minnesota dropouts.

“Once a student passes their anticipated graduation date and we never knew where they were, they would be considered a dropout,” Yudnowski said, describing the coding rules and the district’s new procedures to document transfers. Board members asked for clarity about which student cohorts (ninth grade and up) carry the greatest risk of being coded as dropouts; Yudnowski replied the immediate priority is ninth‑through‑12th graders and that district staff are compiling a spreadsheet and following up on students lacking transfer documentation.

Directors also discussed non‑achievement inputs used by school leaders (course pass rates, assignment completion, attendance, and social‑emotional measures such as SABERS) that are tracked at building level though not all appear in the superintendent’s evaluation metrics. The superintendent said building leaders and instructional coaches maintain more granular measures and that his goals are intended to align district systems and ensure leaders are prepared to support classroom practice.

The board will return to the goals process at midyear; Yudnowski said small revisions can be made and a fuller update will come in February.