Lakeville board hears academic report on MTSS, assessments, curriculum review and teacher supports

Lakeville Public School District teaching-and-learning staff presented a multi-part academic update to the School Board on Jan. 21, laying out the district’s continuous improvement framework, assessment program, standards-review process, and supports for teachers and students.

Emily McDonald, the district’s academic leader, opened the presentation by saying the goal was to give the board a “30,000-foot view” of processes that guide instruction. She said the materials provided to the board included a slide packet and a glossary to clarify acronyms and terms used in the presentation.

The district’s continuous-improvement framework centers on Minnesota Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MNMTSS), which staff described as an organizational continuous-improvement model. Nicole Adams, director of integrated continuous improvement, said: "This is the 3rd year that Lakeville has worked through MNMTSS as an organizational continuous improvement plan." District leaders said MNMTSS helps align initiatives across five components: infrastructure and continuous improvement; purposeful student, family and community engagement; intentional instructional practices and supports; multiple ways to demonstrate learning; and data-informed decisions.

Assessment system Sandy Giorgi, director of elementary teaching and learning, described a "balanced and comprehensive assessment system" that combines statewide tests, district-level screeners and classroom formative assessments. She said the district uses FastBridge three times per year as a universal screener and that the district stores assessment data in EduCLIMBER. Giorgi said, "It houses all of our data with easy clicks," and staff use the system for PLCs and data digs.

Giorgi explained the distinction between norm-referenced measures (FastBridge) and criterion-referenced assessments (Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments, or MCAs), and said each serves distinct purposes: large-system evaluation (MCAs), progress and screening (FastBridge), and classroom instruction (formative assessments). The district posts an assessment calendar on its public website as required by the Minnesota Department of Education.

Staff explained several assessment-related points that affect students and families: - FastBridge is the district’s universal screener; its targets are set through national norming and the district reports specified measures to the state by June 30 each year under the Read Act. - Families may opt students out of standardized assessments; the district provides opt-out forms on its website. Staff said opt-outs reduce the completeness of systemwide data. - Screeners for characteristics of dyslexia are embedded in the FastBridge early-literacy probes; the district said it cannot diagnose dyslexia at the school level but can identify characteristics and provide interventions or refer for further evaluation.

Standards-based review and curriculum Elida Kane, director of secondary teaching and learning, described the standards-based review process the district uses when the state updates academic standards. Kane said the state follows roughly a 10-year cycle for standards updates. District work follows phased steps: learn the new standards, unpack the instruction and benchmarks, develop rubrics for resource/curriculum evaluation, pilot potential materials, implement, and then monitor adjustments and assessments.

Teacher development, Q Comp and coaching McDonald and Kane outlined the district’s teacher-evaluation and professional-growth systems, including a state-required teacher evaluation process (TDE) and the Q Comp pay-for-performance structure. Kane said teachers and PLCs set goals aligned to district priorities and that completion of TDE/Q Comp processes is tied to additional compensation. Staff said the Q Comp program funds coaches and other roles; they also noted the governor’s preliminary budget proposal could affect Q Comp funding.

Staff described instructional coaches (Instructional Data Support Specialists, or IDSS) as a key support but said capacity is limited. The district reported roughly 9–10 coaches supporting approximately 800 teachers, with secondary content coaches carrying caseloads of about 100 teachers each. Staff and board members raised mentorship as a gap: leaders said the district currently relies on building-level supports and coaches but does not have a formalized districtwide mentor program. McDonald said district leaders are exploring a formal mentor plan and potential reallocation of Title II professional-development funds to support it; she said such funding is not guaranteed.

Implementation challenges and next steps District presenters noted several implementation constraints: time, capacity, and resources. They said tier 1 (core) instruction must be strong for tier 2 and tier 3 interventions to work. Staff said secondary teachers have limited collaborative time, hampering development of common formative and summative assessments. The district said it will continue to use site and district SEMI self-assessments to prioritize operational plans and align school-level work.

Board response and follow-ups Board members pressed for concrete academic metrics and for an approach the board could use to set goals. Director Brian Thompson asked whether the board should set higher-than-state benchmarks; other directors asked for district comparisons and a consolidated dashboard. McDonald and staff said the district already compiles a multi-page data dashboard that includes FastBridge, MCA, growth, attendance, and behavioral data and offered to schedule deeper board briefing sessions on that dashboard and on potential board-level academic goals.

Several policy and governance items also were discussed later in the meeting: the board approved formation of a policy committee to review and recommend changes to board policy. That governance action was separate from the teaching-and-learning presentation.

No district-wide curricular adoptions or budget approvals were made during the presentation. Staff asked for direction on which areas the board would like detailed follow-up on; the presenters recommended returning with the district dashboard and an agenda item focused on board academic goals and key performance indicators.