Verona Area School District outlines equity‑focused advanced learning plan, pilots math screening

District staff presented a detailed update on the Verona Area School District's advanced learning work at the board's meeting, saying the program is deliberately framed around educational equity and will use universal screening and multiple measures to identify student needs.

Amy, who introduced the presentation, told the board the district's goal was to “ground in what the admin rule for the state of Wisconsin says, what is our approach to our program development,” and to answer community questions about identification and services. The presentation emphasized aligning advanced learning with the district’s Multilevel System of Support (MLSS) so that screening and interventions use the same data processes applied to students who are not yet proficient.

Lindsay Simonson, the district's special programs coordinator, described the design process the advanced learning team followed using the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) self‑assessment tool. She said the team initially focused on mathematics at the site level and piloted identification in grade 6 before expanding screening to grades 2–5. “We used that, combined with looking at some other metrics … that were recommended,” Simonson said, naming a three‑part identification strategy: an ability screener (NNAT3), an achievement metric (STAR), and classroom‑level performance checks (Number Corner for K–5 and IXL at middle school).

Simonson said the NNAT3 was chosen because it is a nonverbal screener aimed at reasoning and problem‑solving and therefore reduces the impact of language or cultural differences on initial screening. The district will compile a student data profile across those measures to identify candidates for targeted supports.

Staff repeatedly framed advanced learning as inclusive and dynamic, preferring the term “advanced learning” over “gifted and talented” to emphasize supports and access. They also said all targeted supports must be provided during the school day and free of charge to families. “That includes some of our secondary programming around our early college credit … making sure that … those opportunities were free and there were no barriers for families,” Simonson said.

On service delivery, the district said it will use a push‑in model—providing supports within the general classroom rather than creating separate pull‑out groups. Presenters and several board members said the push‑in approach supports inclusivity and teacher collaboration. Staff characterized acceleration as a tier‑3 intervention, to be used only after other supports have been tried and when students show consistent data‑based need. They cautioned against premature acceleration that can leave gaps in conceptual knowledge.

The presentation also described the district's new family advisory and an advanced learning team with representation from each K–8 site. Staff said the family advisory asked for more transparency; the district has posted an advanced learning page on the BASD website and plans to expand materials and resources there. The board was told the district is one quarter into implementing targeted supports and will present a results policy and monitoring report this spring.

Board members asked for evidence that the push‑in model and the identification approach avoid past problems with tracking and premature acceleration. The presentation closed with next steps: continued data review, expanded programming across other domains of giftedness, and sharing results with the board and community.

Why it matters: the district is redesigning how it identifies and supports students who need advanced challenges. The choices the board hears now—screeners selected, norms used, and service delivery models—will affect which students receive targeted supports and how teachers deliver instruction.

What’s next: staff said they will return with monitoring results in the spring and will continue to add resources and clarifications on the district website.