Elementary principals report broad rollout of BARR program; federal funding rescinded but schools say internal capacity can sustain work

Principals from four elementary schools told the RSU 06/MSAD 06 Board of Directors that they have implemented the Building Assets, Reducing Risk (BARR) model districtwide this school year and are keeping the program running despite the state rescinding ESSER grant support that funded external coaches.

Administrators said BARR organized staff time into small‑group “small block” planning, larger “big block” meetings for coordinated interventions, “Community Connect” meetings for high‑need students, and a weekly classroom lesson called "U time" to build students’ social and community skills. Charlotte Regan, principal of HBMRE, described the model as helping "to focus on all students with intentional structures." Chris Casey, principal at Georgie Jack and Steep Falls, told the board the model expanded staff participation beyond classroom teachers to include ed techs, bus drivers and recess monitors.

Nut graf: Principals said the program has produced concrete steps — goal setting, data tracking and return‑in‑six‑weeks follow ups — that let teams intervene earlier. They also reported the district lost the ESSER grant that paid for coaches; principals argued the training this year built internal capacity so schools can continue without the state funding.

Principals gave examples of how BARR changed practice: U time lessons generate qualitative data used at small‑ and big‑block meetings; staff set measurable intervention goals for identified students; and the model created a common language across elementary and middle school classrooms, easing student transitions. Principals said coaches visited schools, held weekly meetings and supported implementation; one principal described the coach as becoming "part of the family." The group also said the model emphasized starting conversations with students’ strengths and tracking every student so "nobody slips through the cracks."

Principals acknowledged implementation challenges: training every grade required time and substitute coverage, the BARR spreadsheet used to document student plans felt “dense” at first, and catching up late adopters required extra effort. Several principals said they plan to incorporate training into staff onboarding and use building‑level coordinators to sustain the work.

Funding: presenters said the BARR work was initially supported through an ESSER grant that paid for external coaches; that grant funding was rescinded for next year. One principal noted an estimated recurring license or program cost of roughly "$30 a year per school" during discussion, and described that number as an estimate. School leaders said the primary value of this year’s grant was building internal capacity so schools can continue with less external support, though they identified staff turnover as a potential risk to long‑term fidelity.

Board response: Directors asked implementation questions about coverage, time required to discuss all students, and plans for sustaining the model without external funding. Director Foyce and others asked whether there were unfunded needs; principals said their greatest concern is training new staff and sustaining coaching during turnover but that building coordinators and onboarding can address many gaps.

Ending: Principals urged the board to monitor the program’s impact as spring and fall assessment data arrive, and to consider ways to support onboarding so newly hired staff receive the same training the current staff received.