Principals from Albert Lea Public School District’s elementary schools presented fall-to-spring assessment trends, curriculum changes and action plans that emphasize stronger tier 1 instruction, targeted interventions and family engagement.

District and school leaders said reading scores showed variable growth after the district adopted new core reading materials last year, and noted that science assessments changed format this year to require constructed responses. Several principals asked the board for continued focus on professional learning communities (PLCs), Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) implementation and fidelity checks to make sure the curriculum is delivered as intended.

Why it matters: The principals described concrete classroom-level strategies intended to raise student outcomes over time. The district’s stated approach combines schoolwide emphasis on high-quality daily instruction with data-driven PLC work and targeted intervention blocks; those choices will shape which students receive extra supports and how district funds and staff time are allocated.

Principals’ presentations

Principal Kim (Halvorsen) said Halvorsen is in the second year of the Wit & Wisdom reading curriculum and called this the first full implementation cycle for that program. Kim told the board the school re-administered an HRS Level 2 survey to update its internal measures and is using school leadership team (SLT) time to identify leading and lagging indicators. On science, Kim said the new fifth-grade science assessment required longer written responses and that Halvorsen scored 26 percent proficiency compared with the state’s 25 percent and the district’s 18 percent. “That, of course, is unacceptable,” Kim said, adding the SLT is mapping performance-level descriptors shared by the state to grade-level instruction so standards are spiraled rather than taught only in early grades.

A different principal referred to the shift from previously used reading materials (CKLA, Storyworks) to Wit & Wisdom and described “beating the odds” by sustaining positive gains during a curriculum change. Principals across buildings said instructional leadership teams and PLCs have been reinforced as the primary vehicle for using data to plan instruction.

Instructional priorities and interventions

Principals and the district literacy lead described an emphasis on tier 1 instruction across K–5 classrooms, with intensified tier 2 interventions for students who need additional support. Tactics listed included:
- More explicit phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency work in K–2 aligned to the science of reading;
- UFLI-based intervention groups for grades 3–5 and expanded use of interventionists during whole-group instruction to allow differentiated supports;
- A district schedule of PLCs and HRS-level meetings to monitor “we” language, collective efficacy and data-driven decisions;
- Family and community engagement (FACE) training and planned literacy nights at each elementary site and at Brookside to help families support early reading at home.

Assessment and goals

Several principals presented school-level proficiency goals for the year. Examples included:
- Lakeview: increase the share of students in grades 2–5 at low risk or above in FAST E-Reading from 46% to 49% by spring;
- Sibley: increase the same cohort from 41% to 44% by spring;
- Hawthorne: increase A-reading for grades 2–5 from 33.5% to 36.5% by spring.

Leaders cautioned that one-year changes are modest while the district continues curriculum transitions and that some assessment formats (notably the new science assessment) have expanded response demands, which affected this year’s results.

Data practices and next steps

District staff said the presentation will be followed by a principal leadership data retreat where cohort tracking (student-level longitudinal movement across grades) and a comprehensive needs assessment will be reviewed. The district will publish the cohort document in the next board update and principals said the action plans presented will be integrated into each school’s continuous improvement planning process. District staff also flagged the need for implementation integrity checks to determine whether disappointing results reflect curriculum design or inconsistent classroom delivery.

Quotes from presenters

“When kids earn the credit they come in they ring the bell, everyone celebrates,” said Jen Hensel, credit recovery staff, describing a celebratory practice used in the district’s academic-recovery program (see separate article on activities/credit recovery).

Ending

Board members asked for the cohort data document at the next update and for continued tracking of HRS certification work, PLC practices and implementation fidelity around Wit & Wisdom and other curriculum cycles. The district scheduled additional principal leadership data retreats for February and June to continue monitoring progress.