Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessments And Grant Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions assessment-tool costs and asks for contingency plan if Title funding transfers fail
Summary
Board members asked whether the district should continue multiple assessment tools and pressed staff on contingencies for moving positions onto Title funding; staff said FY26 proposals are expected to be funded but FY27 positions would be at risk if federal funding is reduced.
Board members asked district staff whether the district should continue paying for multiple assessment tools and whether positions proposed to be moved to Title funding have contingency plans if federal funding does not materialize.
One board member noted the district’s benchmark-assessment costs have grown, citing MAP testing costs rising from about $70,000 in 2017 to $225,000 in 2023, and asked whether the district is “being fiscally responsible in continuing with all of them” and whether some tools could be narrowed.
Dr. Nold, a district staff member and the cellphone-committee chair who also addressed assessment questions during the work session, and other staff replied that assessment decisions are both instructional and budgetary. They said the district uses multiple tools (Canvas, MasteryConnect, DreamBox, Lexia and MAP) because different tools serve different roles in accountability and instruction, and that MAP provides K–11 growth data that state tests do not. Staff recommended a focused study and suggested bringing the subject back in a work session in the fall with a display of assessment plans and cross-checks.
On Title funding, staff said positions the district intends to transfer to Title cost centers are expected to be funded for FY26 through carryover and anticipated federal allocations. Staff said: “For the first year, which would be next year, FY '26, it would still be secured. FY '27 would bring it into question then if we do not receive the amount of federal funding we anticipate.” They said, if federal Title funding is lower than expected in later years, the district would remove those positions from the budget at that later budget cycle.
Why it matters: Assessment-tool spending affects instructional time and the district budget; Title-funding transfers shift personnel costs to federal programs and create multi-year funding risk if federal allocations change.
Next steps: Staff recommended a fall work session on assessment-tool alignment and said the Title-funded position changes will be treated as secured for FY26 but could be reversed if federal funds are not received for FY27.
