Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District staff present FastBridge screening results; board hears effects of moving winter testing to December
Summary
District staff reviewed FastBridge screening data, explained why the district moved winter screening from January to December, and described how scores and teacher input inform intervention placements. After the winter screening, staff removed 7 students from intervention, kept 14 in services and added 2 new students.
District staff on Jan. 4 presented FastBridge screening results and a review of how the district uses fall/winter/spring universal screeners to guide intervention decisions.
David, a staff member presenting the FastBridge analysis, explained the December change: the district moved winter screening from January to December to avoid overtesting in January and to spread testing windows. He said staff compared student scores for individuals who were re‑tested and found modest differences depending on timing and grade. "When we look at this comparison on these longitudinal reports, we're still not comparing apples with apples because the 4th graders of 1 year aren't the 4th graders of the previous year," David said, summarizing cohort‑analysis limits.
David described student‑level impacts after the winter screening and staff review: seven students were removed from intervention services, 14 students remained in intervention, and two students were added. He noted teacher recommendations and parental choices factor into placement decisions; parents may remove a child from Title services but cannot unilaterally add a child without evidence that the child meets screening criteria.
The presentation included notes on grade‑level patterns (for example, kindergarten and early grades where instruction timing affects early screening results) and a district estimate that roughly 25% of students in the screened grades receive some form of intervention services. Staff and trustees discussed other approved screening tools (MAP/NWEA, STAR, etc.) and the tradeoffs between measures. Trustees asked for cohort‑level trend reports across multiple years; staff said they can produce cohort reports and share them with the board.
No board action was taken; the item was informational. Staff signaled they will continue to refine screening timing and provide cohort trend analysis to the board on request.
