Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Improvement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves expansion of school improvement teams contract over objections on evidence and funding
Summary
After questions about outcome data and why general funds replaced improvement funds, the State Board voted 5–2 to amend a contract to expand a school teams improvement program to 20 teams for math and literacy supports.
The State Board voted to amend and expand a contract to support school improvement teams aimed at increasing math and literacy outcomes, despite several members questioning the evidence base and funding changes behind the expansion.
The contract item (pulled from the consent agenda earlier in the meeting) proposed increasing participation from 10 to 20 school teams, funded this year from general funds rather than the originally discussed improvement funds. Shirley Vargas, school transformation officer, said the program provider (District Management Group, referenced in the packet) has produced positive results in prior work with other districts and that newly released accountability results identified more schools that would be eligible for the intervention.
Board members pressed staff for outcome data before expanding the contract. Vargas said the teams in the current cohort have just begun their work and that NDE can share prior results from other districts and the annual report submitted to the legislature. Finance officer Bryce Wilson offered to circulate audited financial reports and to provide the learning community's fiscal filings on request.
The roll call recorded five board members voting to amend and expand the contract and two voting no; board members Kirk Penner and Lisa Schonhoff were recorded as the two 'no' votes. The motion carried and the contract expansion will proceed for a one‑year period.
Why it matters: The expansion directs additional state resources to targeted school improvement work and highlights board interest in seeing outcome evidence before scaling programs. The split vote indicates continuing board scrutiny about procurement, cost and demonstrable student impact.
What’s next: Staff will provide prior evaluation reports, an annual improvement program report to the legislature, and financial documentation to board members who requested more detailed evidence.
