Wayzata board hears first-year report on Achievement and Integration plan; staff cite research-based classroom strategies and measurement changes

Wayzata Public School District staff presented the first-year report on the district’s three‑year Achievement and Integration (ANI) plan at a Jan. 27 school board work session, outlining goals to reduce racial and economic disparities in student outcomes and to increase equitable access to effective and diverse teachers.

Director of Equity and Inclusion Solve Herde opened the presentation by describing the ANI plan’s three required state aims: reduce disparities in academic achievement, increase racial and economic integration, and reduce disparities in access to effective and more diverse teachers. "We have to have goals in our plan that are addressing each of those 3 requirements," she said.

Why it matters: the plan is funded and guided by Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) requirements and aims to address persistent gaps the district’s data show across student groups. Herde called this year the first year of a new three‑year approach focused on adaptive innovation and research‑based classroom practices intended to accelerate growth for students who are behind.

Key goals and measurement changes - Goals: The district identified SMART goals tied to local assessment disparities, representation in intervention and enrichment programs, and teacher practice/support. The report said those goals reflect the areas with the largest observed gaps. - Assessments and baselines: staff said the district is leaning on FastBridge local assessment data for the plan’s key indicators of progress (KIPs) and that some middle‑school measures shifted from MAP to FastBridge this year, which required resetting baseline comparisons. - Data: Herde said year‑one data show continued disparities in multiple measures and that the plan is designed to produce measurable change over the three‑year period.

Strategies described Staff described a set of research‑based classroom strategies and system supports the district is emphasizing, including culturally responsive classroom protocols, increased student‑to‑student talk, movement and multimodal instruction, and "wise" feedback (feedback that couples high expectations with clear next steps). Herde referenced meta‑analytic research (noted in the presentation) indicating effect sizes for several classroom strategies that can accelerate growth when implemented intensively and with staff development.

District leaders stressed that these strategies require sustained professional development and that implementation is adaptive as well as technical. "There are times ... that this does not work. And that requires us to start leaning more in the realm of adaptive," Herde said, urging continued staff learning and coaching.

Supports and constraints The presentation noted district efforts to embed learning at the site level, including building instructional leadership teams (BILTs), peer coaches, family partnership leads, and collaboration with teaching and learning staff. Staff said implementation is constrained by limited professional learning time and competing priorities (for example, implementation of the state READ Act took substantial staff development hours). Herde warned that significant practice change typically requires many hours of focused implementation work.

Policy, funding and governance Dana Miller, executive director of teaching and learning, told the board that the state program is supported by MDE guidance and that districts receive state funding intended for these efforts; she said the state’s approach includes networking and some MTSS (Minnesota MTSS) supports. Miller said the state-level funding framework is overseen by MDE and that the district’s ANI plan is subject to annual reporting and adjustments if goals are not met. The district also described an ad hoc board committee (approved at a prior January board meeting) tasked with following community questions and informing board-level understanding of the work.

Board and community questions Board members asked for clarifications about terminology (equity and inclusion vs. the state’s Achievement and Integration label), why some gaps persist, timelines for accountability, and how the district measures socioeconomic status (the district uses the traditional FRP/educational benefits indicators). Staff acknowledged that the plan is not a quick fix and that the first year provides baseline data and adjustments for year two. When asked about whether the state provides hands‑on guidance, Herde said MDE provides networking and some technical guidance but limited direct staff capacity for one‑on‑one district support.

Next steps District staff said the ANI plan is a three‑year effort; they will continue to refine KIPs, embed professional learning through building‑level partnerships and peer coaching, and adjust strategies if targets are not met. The district will continue annual reporting to MDE and will revisit goals and tactics each year within the three‑year plan framework.