Dallas Center‑Grimes board reviews year‑end district goals, data tools, MTSS and facilities planning

The Dallas Center‑Grimes Community School District Board met in a special session to review the district’s 2024‑25 goals and year‑end progress, hear updates on student data systems and multi‑tiered systems of support (MTSS), and receive status reports on the district strategic plan and facilities master plan.

Superintendent Dr. Bloom said the presentation was intended as a year‑end reflection on the district’s four long‑range goal areas — academics, academic support, climate and culture, and teacher efficacy — and to summarize specific annual targets set for 2024‑25. The board heard results and next steps for each area.

The board reviewed proficiency data presented as cohort comparisons on the ISASP (Iowa Statewide Assessment of Student Progress). The district reported gains in English language arts proficiency in several grade cohorts, with fewer and smaller gains in math. District staff told the board that, while proficiency remains the primary performance measure now, the district is preparing to consider a student growth model in future goal‑setting once data tools and human capital needs are in place.

Presenters discussed the district’s data tools and capacity. Staff named EVOS (a state‑sponsored data management tool) and Looker Studio as analytics platforms the district uses, and noted FAST assessments as a more frequent interim measure than ISASP. Presenters said the district has the technical tools but may lack dedicated human capital to generate regular, actionable reports for principals and grade teams. The presentation called out the value of a district staff member or team assigned to run and interpret data for building teams so teachers can act quickly on early warning indicators (attendance, grades, behavior).

On MTSS, district staff said the district completed a study of MTSS best practices for academics and behavior and reported that the district met its short‑term MTSS study goal for 2024‑25. The district described a multi‑step approach used this year: observations and interviews, monthly professional learning sessions, a capacity‑matrix tool completed by teams, and an “affinity diagram” used to prioritize professional learning before hardware or curricular purchases.

The board reviewed a five‑step systems‑change graphic the district used to show movement from reactive (”firefighting”) responses toward more systematic prevention (preparing and preteaching expected behavior). Presenters said building‑level variation remains and highlighted the need for consistent MTSS processes across elementary schools that feed into middle school.

Board members were given data on formal bullying and harassment reports submitted through the district website. The district reported 38 formal submissions in 2024‑25. Cases were categorized as under investigation, founded (met the state definition), unfounded, paused, or terminated (for example, when a parent withdrew the report or the student left the district). Presenters said unfounded cases often reflected interpersonal conflict rather than incidents meeting the state statutory threshold for bullying or harassment; however, building staff still use safety plans, schedule changes and informal monitoring when needed. The district said several cases were related to transportation and that Oakview was singled out as proactive in handling reports.

On conditions for learning, the board heard that state rule changes now require parent opt‑in for the state Panorama survey; district participation overall was about 54 percent, with the highest building participation reported at Heritage (73 percent). Because the survey now requires opt‑in, district leaders said participation levels complicate year‑to‑year comparisons and noted they will consider alternative survey instruments or additional collection windows in 2025‑26 to build a stronger baseline.

Staff also summarized teacher‑efficacy work tied to the Strong framework and reported that principals and instructional coaches delivered training during the year. The district added a consultant (Emily Donovan) to support MTSS and other work and brought Strong & Associates facilitator Carol Pollock to support teacher quality work.

The board received an update on the strategic planning process. The district engaged Teamworks (Julie) and a cross‑sectional strategic planning team that met multiple times since September. The plan frames five strategic directions across academics, operations, talent and facilities with “action cards” to document owners, steps and measures across a three‑year window. The new district mission shown to the board was “empowering every student to create their future,” with core values listed as collaborative, passionate, inclusive, innovative and supportive.

On facilities, the board heard that OPN completed a physical and educational assessment of each building and that OPN worked with Bishop and Modus Engineering; DCI is serving as construction manager. The district said it expects a finalized 10‑year facilities master plan and accompanying project prioritization this summer; the plan will include life‑cycle analysis, deferred maintenance needs and capacity considerations for the high school and other buildings.

In advance of the superintendent’s evaluation, the board was shown staff survey results collected through Qualtrics. District staff reported approximately 330 respondents across employee categories. On several items about leadership and communication, roughly 90–96 percent of respondents agreed with positive statements about the superintendent’s representation of the district, accessibility and communication; typical single‑digit percentages disagreed. Board members were given access to the underlying documents that were shared with the administration for evaluation purposes.

Board members and administrators discussed resourcing and sequencing for the strategic plan, noting action‑card owners within the administrative team and the district’s intent to treat the strategic plan as a living document that can roll items forward if priorities shift.

Next steps: the district said it will continue MTSS professional learning in 2025‑26, consider survey alternatives or additional opt‑in windows for climate measures, pursue a targeted approach to adding human capital for data reporting and finalize the facilities master plan and strategic‑plan governance documents this summer.