Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Performance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District outlines continuous improvement goals: FastBridge, interventions and a focus on moving students into 'on‑track' categories
Summary
Pequot Lakes administrators presented building-level goals and intervention plans across elementary, middle and high schools, emphasizing FastBridge assessment data, targeted interventions (STMath, I‑Ready, Lexia), and pilot MTSS and co-teaching approaches to raise on‑track percentages.
District administrators presented a continuous improvement briefing that set specific, measurement‑linked goals for each school: an elementary building aim to maintain current 'on track' students and increase that group by roughly 6 percentage points; a middle‑school cohort growth target of about 5 percentage points; and a high‑school target to increase the share of students 'on track' in math (grades 9–11) by 4 percent.
"We want to maintain all students who are currently considered on track or low risk ... and then also 6% of the building add to that," the elementary presenter said, explaining that the target was derived from grade‑level data and the district's shift from STAR to FastBridge assessments in some grades.
Administrators explained intervention structures: short, intensive three‑week fall interventions that reached roughly 170 students this year (math and literacy), six‑week targeted cycles, biweekly progress monitoring, and a mix of push‑in and pull‑out models. Classroom tools include STMath (conceptual, visual math support), I‑Ready (diagnostic and adaptive instruction for upper elementary), Lexia (foundational literacy), and FastBridge for screening and progress monitoring. Staff emphasized that some instruments are timed (FastBridge has timed elements) and therefore do not map one‑to‑one to the state's MCA performance measures.
Middle‑school leaders described scheduling changes (longer class minutes and a block literacy model for grades 5–6), increased co‑teaching with special education staff to create small‑group opportunities during class, and a move from pull‑out to push‑in intervention in some grades to maximize instructional minutes.
High‑school staff highlighted complications in interpreting graduation‑rate statistics (cohort definition, external providers such as Freshwater affecting state reporting) and noted a pilot intervention that pulled targeted students into structured study‑hall workshops for math support, which showed promising results in raising on‑track status for participants. The high school is piloting CAPY screening for students scoring below the low‑threshold on FastBridge to determine specific reading needs and appropriate interventions.
Board members asked about the relationship between FastBridge and MCAs, screen time concerns with platform‑based interventions and whether classroom teachers might be 'teaching to the test.' Administrators responded that assessments measure different constructs (timed fluency vs. standards performance) and that the district is pursuing curriculum alignment, instructional coaching and fidelity checks to strengthen transfer to standard assessments.
Administrators asked board members and parents to attend conferences and data‑review opportunities where teachers will share targeted home activities and individualized intervention plans.
The presentation closed with a call to monitor results at the December review and report progress back to the board in May.
