Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears in-depth presentation on Denali Learning model and district implementation
Summary
The Denali Borough School District board spent its work session on the Denali Learning modelits history, components and partnership choicesfollowed by questions about evidence of student outcomes and next steps for implementation.
Karen, the district presenter, led a work session that traced the Denali Learning model from its 2016 origins through the strategic-planning cycles that produced the district's current vision for student-centered, personalized learning.
The presentation laid out five core dimensions: student-centered focus, authentic learning experiences, flexible learning environments, teacher professional practice, and character/competency development. Karen said the model emerged from a distributed leadership process involving families, students, teachers, administrators and community members and that the district vetted multiple partners before selecting EL Education (Yale Education) to help clarify and operationalize the model. "I can describe what the Denali learning model is," she told the board, urging members to use shared criteria and classroom-aligned rubrics when evaluating materials and curriculum.
The nut of the discussion was practical implementation. Karen described classroom practices now in place student-engaged assessment, celebrations of learning, expeditionary curriculum design, and increased teacher collaboration and she noted that the district uses technology platforms (elementary and middle-school math platforms and Lexia for reading) to support personalized learning paths. Board members pressed for evidence tying the model to longer-term outcomes: one member asked whether graduates who experienced Denali Learning fare better post-secondary; Karen said the district has not completed a longitudinal follow-up and recommended starting targeted alumni outreach in May.
Administration also highlighted constraints and clarifications: pandemic-era interruptions and three different state assessments complicate direct year-over-year comparisons of proficiency scores; in some small schools low participation in state testing can distort subgroup measures, creating the appearance of underperformance where the key issue is missing data. Superintendent Dan and business staff outlined the district's plan to track proficiency and growth metrics while continuing investments in attendance initiatives and curriculum review.
The board thanked Karen for a thorough refresher and asked administration to return with proposed measures and a timeline for a follow-up report that would include alumni outreach and comparisons to peer districts.
The presentation is expected to inform curriculum and budget discussions in 2025.
