Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agr Funding And Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates use and reporting of $1.5 million AGR funds; district pledges clearer disaggregation
Summary
Board members pressed district staff for clearer evidence that Achievement Gap Reduction (AGR) funds produced measurable, supplemental services after officials said the district received $1.5 million this year — about $500,000 more than initially expected.
Board members pressed district staff on June 11 for clearer accounting and measurable outcomes tied to Achievement Gap Reduction funds after the district reported how the money was spent this year.
Dr. Brown and Dr. Coleman reviewed current use of AGR funds at Roosevelt, Jefferson and Menominee elementaries. The district said it used AGR money to maintain literacy instructional support teachers and interventionists; at Menominee the district will staff classrooms so coaches and interventionists co‑teach during Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) skills portions and targeted practice time to create a roughly 2‑to‑24 adult‑to‑student ratio for targeted literacy instruction.
Board members said the district learned in November it would receive $1.5 million — about $500,000 more than earlier expectations — but the board was not informed of the higher total until March. Several members asked whether that extra $500,000 produced additional services rather than merely sustaining existing positions. Dr. Coleman and Dr. Brown said AGR funds in some cases allowed the district to sustain the current FTE for literacy interventionists that otherwise would have been cut; in other words, the money preserved positions rather than necessarily adding new full‑time staff.
A recurring request from board members was for disaggregated evidence that AGR funds are reducing achievement gaps (for example, by economic status or race). Dr. Coleman acknowledged that the districts’ DPI report template does not compel all the disaggregation the board wants and said staff will produce iReady disaggregation by subgroup (ELL, race, economically disadvantaged) in future reports so the board can compare cohorts year‑to‑year.
Financial specifics discussed during the meeting included the expected AGR allocation and planned next‑year budgeting: staff said they expected AGR funding to remain about $1.5 million and that roughly $960,000 would be allocated to Menominee for the co‑teaching/coteach literacy model. Dr. Brown said the funds allow the district to maintain instructional support teachers and interventionists at AGR sites to support reading instruction without increasing FTE at all schools.
Board members asked that the district present AGR spending and impact to the Facilities and Finance and Education committees next year and encouraged staff to provide clear documentation showing whether funds supplement or supplant other district spending.
No formal board action or vote was recorded on AGR during the meeting; board members requested more granular reporting and earlier notification of materially higher fund awards in the future.
