Principals from Highland, North Park, Valley View and Columbia Academy and leaders for the secondary schools presented the Columbia Heights Public Schools’ Vision 2030 elementary and secondary updates, reporting data on multilingual learners, assessment growth and family engagement and laying out district goals for the 2025–26 school year.

Highland’s principal reported a steady increase in multilingual learners (near 50%) and said 56% of students made typical or aggressive literacy growth on FASTBridge last year and over 60% in math. Highland’s goals for June 2026 include 65% typical/aggressive growth and at least 40% proficiency as measured by the district’s FASTBridge assessments. North Park highlighted improved attendance and high family-survey results; Valley View noted a higher English‑learner share (about 65%) and said EL students are making strong gains on access testing compared with state averages. Columbia Academy and secondary leaders described PLC restructuring, functional morphology instruction for literacy, and plans to scale evidence-based curriculum and assessments across grades.

Several principals said district work to align curriculum, assessment and PLC cycles aims to provide clearer, grade‑to‑grade progression and to set realistic, data‑driven goals. The district is partnering with a University of Minnesota researcher to better interpret assessment results for multilingual learners and to use triangulated data (FASTBridge, PLC unit data, access/MCA) to set attainable targets. Principals outlined concrete targets: elementary schools generally set 60–65% typical/aggressive growth goals and at least 40% proficiency targets for spring 2026; secondary schools set smaller-percentage increases (5–7%) aimed at continuous improvement.

Board members questioned measurement details and how FASTBridge growth translates to statewide MCA results; principals explained that FASTBridge offers timely, formative information three times a year while MCA results arrive too late for real-time instructional adjustments. District leaders emphasized the PLC process, intervention blocks that do not pull students out of core instruction, and efforts to avoid scheduling conflicts that would reduce access to tier‑1 instruction. The presentations were informational; no formal board actions were taken at the meeting.