Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Metrics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews first‑quarter QBR; trustees press for supports after rise in in‑progress failing rates
Summary
District staff presented the first Quarterly Business Review showing updated proficiency and growth indicators. Trustees flagged increases in in‑progress failing rates at middle and high school, the removal of the "least harmful F," and gaps in tier‑2/3 MTSS supports; staff said they are expanding early warning systems, interventions (win time, BAR program) and standards‑based review processes.
Lakeville Area Schools staff presented the district’s first Quarterly Business Review (QBR) on Dec. 2, walking through baseline spring metrics, updated quarterly proficiency figures and planned action steps for student supports.
Teaching and learning leaders explained the QBR layout — purpose, results, narrative analysis and action steps — and identified areas of focus for the board. Trustees raised two headline concerns: (1) the difference between FastBridge growth numbers shown last spring and newly reported quarterly proficiency figures, and (2) in‑progress failure rates that appear elevated (board members cited roughly 6.5% of middle school students failing one or more classes and more than 18% at the high school in current progress grades).
Staff said the spring report showed growth percentiles while the updated quarterly numbers reflect proficiency; growth cannot be reported until spring testing is complete. Regarding failing grades, staff said the district removed its prior "least harmful F," which had previously converted some zeros to 50% and that change has shifted in‑progress failure percentages upward. Teaching and learning leaders described multiple interventions: an Early Warning System dashboard that triangulates grades, attendance and behavior; intervention support teams; targeted supports at secondary schools (APs and counselors following up with flagged students); "win time" re‑teach sessions; and a ninth‑grade BAR (Building Assets, Reducing Risks) program.
Board members pressed whether existing MTSS tier‑2 and tier‑3 resources are sufficient. Staff acknowledged gaps in tier‑2/3 capacity and professional development needs and said work is underway to build consistent tier‑1 instruction, improve resource adoption under standards‑based review, and to align secondary curricula with new state science standards. Staff also reported outreach to partner universities on concurrent enrollment while noting credentialing and staffing constraints.
The board asked staff to return with disaggregated data where possible (attendance, MCA/FastBridge overlap, credit recovery participation) and to prioritize which interventions should be resourced if the board elects to seek additional funds. No formal decisions were taken; staff will follow up with additional disaggregations and action‑planning materials.
