DMPS data team urges pause for monitoring redesign, proposes problem‑bound evaluation focused on K–8 literacy

District data staff presented research and a proposed change to the board’s monitoring approach at an open work session following the regular meeting on June 16.

Dr. Kaylee Kuster, a program evaluator who described dissertation work using multilevel, longitudinal models, told the board that published empirical research offers limited causal evidence that any particular school‑board governance model consistently drives student outcomes. Drawing on DMPS data, she reported several district‑relevant findings: screening tools (FastBridge CBM) are meaningfully correlated with ISASP ELA outcomes but not perfectly (her analysis attributed about 56 percent of fourth‑grade ISASP variance to second‑ and third‑grade CBM reading and roughly 71 percent for the tested middle‑school ELA measure); cohort‑to‑cohort differences are widespread (both before and after the pandemic) and can materially affect year‑over‑year comparisons; and students who exited ELL services tended to outperform peers, while schools where more multilingual learners exited showed better outcomes for all students—evidence Kuster described as consistent with benefits from language‑rich practices.

Because ISASP and FastBridge are adopting new cut scores and reporting standards for FY27, the presenters said many existing board monitoring indicators will lack multi‑year comparable points next year. The district’s proposal is to use the coming change window to pause some routine monitoring formats and instead launch a problem‑bound evaluation focused on K–8 literacy. Under the plan the district would produce three types of public products: (1) timely informational assessment reports (grade/demographic breakdowns and trends), (2) evaluation progress and findings presented to the board by the superintendent (in‑depth problem‑bound analysis), and (3) continued reporting on other board goals where data permit. Presenters proposed quarterly public updates and more rapid interim assessment reporting so the board can act on formative findings rather than relying solely on older, multi‑year comparisons.

“We have a lot of ambitions and aspirations for the shared work that we do together,” Kuster told the board, adding that the empirical literature “is not evidence‑based” enough to offer a one‑size‑fits‑all governance prescription and that DMPS must study itself and iterate locally. Joe Sturgis, director of assessment, emphasized that the approach would be formative and iterative: “What we’re talking about is the potential of moving towards that cycle of inquiry where the data is right now and it’s live and what we’re learning about that and going to do about that in the coming months.”

Board members responded with substantive questions about scope, capacity and measurement. Several members expressed support for further study and asked for more detail; staff said the initial evaluation will focus on literacy as the highest‑leverage problem with the existing staffing footprint and that expanding scope would require additional capacity. The presenters committed to quarterly, public updates and to gathering board questions over the next week; they said the topic will be revisited at the board’s June 26 retreat.

What this means for the board: staff recommended the board consider adopting cohort‑aware interpretations of monitoring results, accept a temporary redesign of reporting formats while the evaluation is conducted, and receive quarterly formative updates. The district did not adopt any formal change to the board’s monitoring policy during the June 16 session; the presentation was put forward for study and discussion ahead of decisions at the retreat.