Farmington board reviews draft indicators of success and elementary literacy results

The Farmington School Board spent the bulk of its meeting on a draft district framework for “indicators of success” and on elementary literacy results, focusing on new assessment data and curriculum changes that district staff say are intended to accelerate reading growth.

Director Busman told the board the draft framework is “part of an interconnected system that flows into building goals and operational plans,” and that it draws heavily on FastBridge screening data for grades K–8 and on TS Gold for pre-K. The presentation described two complementary measures the district will track: students’ risk levels (high risk, some risk, low risk) and student growth percentiles (flat, modest, typical, aggressive).

The indicators-matter section of the presentation links the FastBridge risk bands to percentile ranges: high risk (roughly the 1st–14th percentile), some risk (15th–39th), and low risk (40th percentile and above). FastBridge growth was described using student growth percentiles, with “typical” defined as the 41st–70th percentile and “aggressive” as the 71st–99th percentile. Busman said the district will measure changes spring-to-spring and use the data to set building goals that feed into teacher IGDPs and interventions.

Principals from five elementary schools described how that work looked in classrooms last year. Sean Peck, Riverview Elementary principal, summarized a year the staff had called “the year of literacy,” listing 70-plus hours of statewide professional development, adoption of a systematic foundational program (named in materials as UFLI), and intensive use of literacy coaches to push into grade-level PLCs. “We aligned our schedules a little bit to provide some tier 2 and tier 3 intervention time,” Peck said, noting teachers use diagnostic assessments and frequent progress monitoring to guide interventions.

Meadowview Principal Becky Bacon said staff are using a Scarborough-style “reading rope” model to pair word-recognition routines (phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding) with language-comprehension work. Meadowview and other principals described daily UFLI lessons for K–2, ongoing PLCs, communities of practice and selection of a knowledge-building curriculum for upper elementary (Wit and Wisdom) to strengthen comprehension and content knowledge.

Aiken Road Principal Tracy Magnuson outlined the FastBridge screening schedule (fall, winter, spring) and explained how universal screening, diagnostic follow-ups and short-cycle progress monitoring inform teacher decisions. She emphasized that the spring-to-spring comparisons are cohort-based (the same cohort measured in successive springs) and explained that a student who is “low risk” for fourth grade is being compared against fourth-grade expectations when measured again as a fifth grader, which can make interpretation less intuitive without longitudinal context.

Farmington Elementary Principal Kim Lisonbee and North Trail Principal Kelly Gallardo reported their buildings met or exceeded Q-Comp and school-level goals tied to FastBridge aReading and other measures. Farmington Elementary reported growth in aReading and math automaticity; North Trail reported an 8-percent gain in aReading and increases in early reading and AMath measures. Aiken Road reported improving rates in early reading and early math for its K–1 cohort.

Board members repeatedly asked for clearer linkage between indicators and dollars: how achievement and integration funds are being spent and a request to publish a three-year trend so the public can evaluate progress over time. Director Busman and principals said building-level intervention and coaching resources account for much of the work on the ground and that some indicators (staff, family and learner experience surveys) were paused this year but should be preserved on the dashboard for continuity.

Why it matters: District leaders framed the indicators as both internal management tools and public-facing accountability. The framework is intended to guide building goals, teacher professional goals and operational decisions; principals said the new screening data is already shaping intervention schedules and curriculum choices.

Board members and staff agreed on next steps: refine the draft indicator targets (Busman said several placeholder “+3” targets will be adjusted), publish clearer three-year trend visuals on the district progress page after the referendum period, and preserve survey-based measures as part of the long-term dashboard.

Principals invited board members to visit classrooms to see interventions and Wit and Wisdom modules in action.