Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mtss And Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weston presents MTSS staffing, CIL model and grade‑5 teaming options as board weighs class‑size tradeoffs
Summary
District leaders defended a multi‑tiered MTSS approach and the current Curriculum & Instruction Leader (CIL) staffing model while urging preservation of a two‑teacher fifth‑grade teaming model; board members pressed for monitoring metrics and enrollment impacts on class sizes.
District curriculum leaders used the budget workshop to explain how testing, MTSS, and staffing choices connect to instructional outcomes and enrollment planning.
Tina (district curriculum lead) explained that the MTSS framework combines Tier 1 high‑quality core instruction with targeted Tier 2 and intensive Tier 3 interventions informed by universal screening tools. "MTSS is a framework, it's a system on how we are responding to the needs of the students based on the resources," she said, stressing that the system is fluid and data‑driven. She cited NWEA (math/reading) and DIBELS (K–3 reading) as core screeners and LAS Links for multilingual learners.
On staffing, Tina outlined interventionist caseloads and frequencies (Tier 2: typically 3–4 sessions/week; Tier 3: 4–5 times/week with smaller groups). She said district snapshots show roughly 22% of K–5 students receiving literacy intervention and smaller percentages for math; the goal is to move students above intervention thresholds from fall to spring. Board members asked for longitudinal tracking and progress‑monitoring detail; Tina confirmed the district uses multiple monitoring levels (district, school, and student) and can provide additional data.
Tina also described the Curriculum & Instruction Leader (CIL) model. After a period with full‑time CILs, the district reduced those positions to 0.8 FTE in core areas to balance fiscal constraints and classroom coverage. "They are the Velcro between district‑level implementation and classroom support," Tina said, noting CILs coach teachers, analyze assessment data, and help translate curriculum investments into Tier 1 instruction. Board members cautioned that cutting support too far could harm student outcomes and asked for close monitoring of impact metrics.
Grade 5 teaming and enrollment: the board discussed whether to maintain an eight‑section two‑teacher dyad model at fifth grade (recommended by staff) or reduce sections for budget reasons. Jen Dimiko, representing the school leadership view, urged keeping the dyad model, saying it protects planning time, supports executive‑function development, and aligns instruction in math/science and reading/writing. "I feel very strongly that I would like to support this teaming model, and I would like to stay with those 2 teacher teams," Jen said. Staff presented medium, high, and low enrollment scenarios and warned that moving to an odd number of sections or triad models increases transitions and can reduce instruction time; board members requested more enrollment and class‑size projection detail to inform a future decision.
Other items: middle‑school teaming and the "workshop" block were defended as important to SEL and executive‑functioning work; high‑school elective thresholds (policy guideline of 15 students) permit flexibility, rotating offerings, and use of online providers for low‑demand courses. The board closed the section asking staff to provide additional metrics in the next staffing‑focused meeting.
Next procedural step: staff will attach supplemental charts (high/medium/low projections) to the public responses and provide additional data about class sizes and administrator FTE as part of the staffing section in the next meeting.
