Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Academic Intervention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board backs middle‑school intervention proposal after meeting finds 42% of middle‑schoolers failing at least one class
Summary
A board member presented a plan to implement tiered academic supports and retention rules after reporting 100 of 236 middle‑school students (42%) were failing at least one class; the board approved the program materials while deferring funding specifics for after grant allocation review.
At the Gwinn Area Community Schools meeting, a presenter identified only as TJ told the board that a grade‑report run that afternoon showed 100 of the district’s 236 middle‑school students — about 42% — were failing at least one class, and proposed a tiered academic and attendance program to address the problem.
“As of 4:00 this evening, I ran a failing grade report just for middle school. Unfortunately, 100 out of our 236 middle schoolers are failing at least one class, which equates to 42%,” TJ said, explaining the proposal’s rationale.
The proposed plan ties into the district’s MTSS work and includes academic‑success tiers, retention recommendations for students who do not earn required core semester credits, attendance tiers modeled after the high‑school program, a discipline rubric for grades 6–12, and expanded remediation options (homework help, Saturday school and targeted counter‑time classes). TJ asked the board to approve the program framework and to allow staffing changes that would provide an intervention specialist and paid supervision for after‑school supports.
Board members generally supported the concept as proactive and aligned with board goals for accountability, attendance and academics. Several members said they were uncomfortable approving an increased hourly rate for noncertified supervisory pay ($35/hour was discussed) until the district could confirm grant allocations and reallocate funding if necessary. Administration said the grant (at‑risk funding) can be adjusted but that reallocation would require tradeoffs in the existing grant budget.
The board voted to approve the program materials (pages 1–2) while excluding the funding/compensation line until the district confirms the grant allocation for next year. The motion carried. Board members asked staff to return with budget‑specific language when the grant allocation is finalized.
The decision is procedural: it authorizes the framework and signals board support while preserving fiscal review of any new pay rates or position funding.
Next steps: staff will continue planning implementation details, timeline and staffing and will present any required budget adjustments when the at‑risk grant allocation is finalized.
