District updates math rollout; board schedules June study session on advanced pathways

Director Edwards, the district’s K‑12 director of teaching and learning, told the school board the district is in the second year of an elementary implementation and the first year of a middle‑school implementation of new math curricula.

The update, delivered by Edwards and guest presenter Jen Maloney, the district’s math differentiation specialist, detailed classroom rollout schedules, results from a midyear student and parent survey of CPM classrooms, and examples of released Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) questions that illustrate the level of rigor students may encounter on state tests.

The presentation traced the adoption timeline: a K–5 curriculum adopted and implemented beginning in the 2023 spring adoption and now in year two of implementation at the elementary level, and CPM (College Preparatory Mathematics) piloted and in year one at the middle school level. Edwards said the district intentionally started implementation at elementary grades and then expanded to middle school to create a K–12 vision for math instruction.

Maloney led the board through sample MCA items and proficiency‑level descriptors, explaining how released test items map to the state proficiency buckets and how the adaptive nature of the MCA can place the same student on different item paths during the test. "Nothing gets me more excited than thinking about academic excellence and also assessment," Maloney told the board as she showed sample items and discussed how question formats (multiple choice, open response, multiple‑select) align with does not meet/partially meets/meets/exceeds (soon to be labeled beginning/intermediate/proficient/advanced under MCA changes) performance categories.

Administration also reported midyear survey results from students and parents in classes using CPM: 1,686 students enrolled in CPM courses were invited to respond; parent responses represented roughly 11% of CPM households. The district summarized the top positive themes from students as teacher support (151 mentions), collaboration/group work (88), and perceived ease of learning (77). Top student challenges reported were homework and completion (234 mentions), difficulty with fractions and decimals (105), and conceptual understanding (91). Officials said they are continuing to analyze qualitative comments.

Board members used the update to question implementation details and to express concerns raised by some families about whether advanced learners currently have appropriate options in middle school. Director Atkinson moved to bring the district’s math pathways back to a March study session for additional discussion; that motion failed on a 4–3 vote. Board members debated the timing and scope of any follow‑up, with some urging more time to gather and analyze triangulated data (grades, FastBridge screening assessments, teacher feedback and MCA results) before a deep policy conversation.

After further discussion, the board voted to add a study session in June specifically to review math pathways and related data; the motion to add a June study session passed 6–1. Chair White said the board would work with administration on a June date and asked Director Atkinson to provide specific data requests to help staff prepare.

The board’s June study session was characterized in the meeting as the next formal opportunity for a detailed review of multiple data sources and for administration to present options to address advanced‑learner needs, acceleration policy usage, and any registration or access issues families have reported.

Administration emphasized that implementation of a new curriculum can take multiple years and noted steps taken so far: summer and ongoing professional development for teachers, classroom visits and implementation checks at the K–5 level after winter break, peer coaching and on‑site support for middle‑school teachers, and continued collection of student and parent feedback to inform adjustments.

Board members and administration repeatedly separated discussion from formal action: the board did not adopt or rescind any curriculum at this meeting; it instead scheduled a focused study session in June and requested further data and analysis.

The presentation also included a brief overview of the change in MCA proficiency category labels (from does not meet/partially meets/meets/exceeds to beginning/intermediate/proficient/advanced) and how sample items are classified, but staff noted that scaled‑score comparisons year‑to‑year are limited and that a full view requires triangulating multiple measures.

The board did not take additional policy action on curriculum at this meeting; the June study session will be the venue for the requested deeper review and staff were asked to return with the specified data and contextual information.