Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Instructional Programs And Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board endorses assessment changes and approves final year of outside coaching to train district staff
Summary
The board discussed the district integrated action plan (Title I/SIAP), approved a plan to adopt a new benchmark system (DNA with FastBridge screening), and approved a one-year Instructional Empowerment (IE) contract intended to train a local Model of Instruction coach to sustain improvements.
At the workshop portion of the April 17 meeting the district presented its integrated action plan and Title I requirements, explaining how school rubrics feed district goals and how Title I allocations are determined. Jen described the Title I process: “Title 1 funds are determined by the percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch,” and explained how schools set 3–5 action steps per subject and develop district-level supports from those school plans.
Staff said the district committee reviewed at least three benchmarking vendors and recommended a platform called DNA plus FastBridge screening for progress monitoring. The superintendent noted DNA is aligned with state standards, offers parent-friendly reports, and—after year one implementation costs—should reduce the district’s annual assessment license cost compared with the current Galileo product.
Board members then debated a proposed contract with Instructional Empowerment (IE) for about $1.032 million to provide coaching, district leadership services, DL-suite licenses and 401-level professional-development kits. Staff framed the IE contract as the final year of outside support designed to train an internal MOI coach who could sustain the work locally. Several trustees urged caution about outsourcing while others said the multi-year nature of instructional change required completing the planned sequence of training. Barb Zarczicki summarized skepticism about results, saying she reviewed cohort scores and questioned whether the outside investment had produced the required gains. Other members pointed to incremental improvements and argued for finishing the cycle to train in-house staff.
After discussion the board approved the IE contract for 2025–26. Staff emphasized that $650,000 of the contract is restricted to professional development and cannot be converted to base salaries. The superintendent said the district will continue to ‘‘braid’’ grant funds to maximize staffing and sustain coaches once local staff are trained.
The board also approved a new instructional coach job description focused on student achievement and special-education coaching, and directed staff to post the position.
