Rochester Public Schools outlines K–12 literacy plan, emphasizes FastBridge screening and tiered supports

Rochester Public Schools presented a districtwide literacy plan to the school board on Aug. 19 that centers on use of the FastBridge universal screener for grades 2–12, implementation of evidence-based curricula and a three-tier model of supports for students who need additional intervention.

District leaders said the plan aligns with the Minnesota READ Act’s expectation that students be reading at grade level and identifies the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs) and the ACT as the primary “North Star” performance measures for the district. In the short term, the district will use FastBridge as an early-warning tool and add the state-approved Read Basics screener for students who screen at risk; Read Basics is scheduled to roll out in January of the school year.

Why it matters: Board members and staff framed the work as urgent because early-grade reading proficiency affects later achievement and graduation. Presenters said FastBridge is actionable at the classroom level but is not a summative measure comparable to MCAs or the ACT.

The plan and targets District staff recommended system targets tied to state summative tests: a 1.5 percentage-point increase in MCA grade‑level proficiency systemwide and a 1 percentage-point gain on the ACT reading assessment. Staff said the 1.5 percentage‑point MCA target roughly equals about 125 students systemwide and was selected as a manageable, measurable near-term goal rather than the larger 3.5 percent figure referenced in earlier strategic work.

FastBridge data and risk profiles Presenters showed results from last year’s FastBridge screenings for reading (grades 2–12). The district reported that roughly 63 percent of students fell in FastBridge’s “low risk” or “very low risk” categories and said the ideal distribution would be about 80 percent in those categories, 15 percent in tier 2 and 5–8 percent in tier 3.

District staff also highlighted grade-level gains and subgroup trends. Staff said first and second grades produced the largest positive shifts in risk profiles, and some schools reduced the percentage of students in “some risk” or “high risk” by several percentage points over the year; the presentation noted examples of gains of around seven percentage points at selected sites. Staff emphasized that students can still show substantial growth within a FastBridge risk category without changing categories.

Curriculum, screening and interventions The plan lists core curricula and supports by grade band: structured literacy and Wit & Wisdom (knowledge-building) in K–5, a functional phonics program in grades 3–5, and continued use of Really Great Reading materials for K–2. For students needing more help, the district described a layered MTSS approach: - Tier 1: grade-level core instruction (classroom teachers), observation guides, ELA “power standards,” co-teaching and translanguaging strategies. - Tier 2: targeted small-group instruction guided by diagnostic data and resource maps; progress monitoring through FastBridge. - Tier 3: intensive individualized instruction (e.g., SPIRE, Sound Sensible, Language Live, MegaWords) with frequent progress monitoring and specialist support.

The district also said middle schools now have success coaches/interventionists and that high schools will pilot a “literacy lab” course (starting with incoming ninth graders) offered in place of a study hall to provide credit-bearing targeted instruction and support.

Professional development and supports Staff outlined multi-day PD sequencing for elementary and secondary teachers, ongoing instructional coaching, PLC (professional learning community) development to analyze common formative assessments, and training for educational support professionals (ESPs). Staff said many elementary teachers have completed phase 1 and phase 2 training on core literacy practices and that the district is expanding training for secondary teachers and special education staff.

Board questions and district responses Board members pressed staff for more context and precision. Requests included: - Reporting ALC (alternative learning center) FastBridge results with other high school data (staff agreed to include ALC in future reports). - Clarifying baseline figures so percentage‑point gains can be interpreted relative to starting levels (staff acknowledged slides showed highlights and said all schools were analyzed; board members asked staff to add absolute start/end percentages in future reports). - Explanation of how interventions will be scheduled without causing students to miss essential instruction; staff said schools have blocked tier 2/3 intervention time and aim to deliver much tier 2 support within the regular classroom.

Staff and board members repeatedly cautioned that FastBridge is an early-warning tool and not a substitute for MCA outcomes; staff explained the plan will use FastBridge and other performance indicators as predictive measures whose improvement should over time lead to higher MCA and ACT results.

Ending Board members and the superintendent described the plan as consistent with research-based practice but stressed that implementation will take multiple years and requires sustained scheduling, coaching and follow-through at school sites. Board members asked staff to present subsequent reports with clearer baselines, ALC inclusion and more actionable school-level metrics so the board and public can track progress.