Good evening. I would like to call to order this school board work session for today, April 13th, 2026. Our first order of business is to approve the board agenda. Is there a motion to approve the board agenda as presented?
Good evening. I would like to call to order this In Noa Henipin School Board work session for today, April 13, 2026. Our first order of business is to approve the board agenda. Is there a motion to approve the board agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> We have a motion from co-chair
Langenfeld. Is there a second? >> Second >> with a second from Director Arco. Any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose say no. With six in favor and zero opposed, the agenda is approved.
Members, the next item on our agenda, item number three, the consent agenda. As normal, members can remove items for separate consideration and discussion if that's their desire. Is there a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented?
So move. We have a motion from director Adet. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a second from director Simon. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose say no. With six in favor and
zero opposed. Our consent agenda is approved. Our next agenda item is item four, work session. And we will begin with 4A learning and achievement K12 literacy plan update CAPY data review and read
act plans for 202627. Welcome Sarah Hunter, executive director of learning and achievement and achievement and learning and the coordinators. Um, thank you.
>> Good evening. Is it on? Yes. Okay. Good evening, co-chairs Hulkman and Langenfeld, Superintendent McIntyre, members of the board, and members of the public here and on watching online. Um, my colleague, uh, Marty and I have the great privilege of sharing with you for
the first time, um, the results of our CAPY Read Basics screening. Um, and we're I've been talking about this at several board meetings up um, you know, before tonight, but one of the things that feels the most important I think to both of us um, and to our educators
throughout the system is that we now have actionable data that can be used um, to inform both uh, core tier one literacy instruction um, where there's a need that is larger than a small group and a small group intervention. So, I'm really excited to be here to talk about
this tonight and to see um how we can use this data to um change students outcomes. All right. So, um the the CAPY read basics assessment is a part of um the state legislation related to the read act. So, it is um the process of we we
of course need to be screening our students. So we're using u both a universal screener and then CAPY as a screener and diagnostic to identify students who may need additional support in the areas of um in the area of literacy to then intervene and then it's our responsibility as a school district
to progress monitor um for students who need additional support in reading such that we can meet the goal of all Minnesota students reading at or above grade level every year. So, Capy Reed basics um again it's it's the required screener for the state of
Minnesota for grades 4 through 12. But the beautiful thing about it is actually provides diagnostic information that is um designed for secondary students. So, we haven't had data that is um actionable at that level before um from a literacy perspective. Really, we've only had data that's this um next day
actionable in say grades like K through two. uh helps us identify the root causes of our secondary students reading difficulties so that we can make changes for them. So just in terms of the structure of the assessment, students work through six subtests and the subtests are the skills
and the subtest names are on the left. Um each test takes between five and eight minutes and then down if you look at the last two they're a bit longer. um reading efficiently efficiency is the only um subtest that's a part of CAPTY that does have a time component right so
the rest of these that's just the average time that it takes a student but because reading efficiency we are looking for that sort of fluency right um there is a um there's a timed component on that one and uh all of the tests are read to self right so we are truly looking for what is a student able
to do on their So, we're looking at um the sort of combination of we need students to have word recognition skills, language comprehension skills, and that those components all together um make a a reader who is able to comprehend text. So, we'll the next few clicks I think
will show the subtests below each of those components. Yep. So the first two subtests are a part of the word recognition strand. Vocabulary and morphology are part of language comprehension which builds into reading comprehension. Our goal would be
to have all of our students um as reader um learners who are able to read to learn right as opposed to learning to read. And I'm going to hand it over to Marty to do a part a portion of Nope. Nope. I'm not. I'm gonna walk through the data first because I I do love my
data. So, um, what you're seeing on the screen right now is the percent of ANOA Henipin students. So, I'm going to I'm going to focus on the left set of bars just to sort of orient us all to the to the graph. Um, the 60% which is that first bar that we have 60% of our fourth
grade students who are performing at or above the 50th percentile. 50th percentile is just a commonly used benchmark, right, to see um to measure ourselves as compared to other um districts and systems across the nation. So if I'm looking at word recognition and decoding, 60% of Anoka Henipin's
students were at or above the 50th percentile. Um so really the sort of the gauge that we're looking at on this um slide is if you look over at reading efficiency, which is that fifth subtest, um we want to pay attention to the fact that our seventh and eighth graders are at 41% of our students who are at or
above the 50th percentile. So that's an area we need to dig into more and we'll talk a little bit more about that in the next set of u of data. So this is the like general scale that feels helpful. This is one of the tools that we use when we're um orienting any um educator at our system to what read
basics um how to read a read basic score. So for students in grades in grade four um who are considered in like weak in that particular skill that's between a scale score of 190 and 227. Then our students in fourth grade who
are between 227 and 242 are in low average. when we think about who the students are who we need uh to prep be providing intervention for, it's the students who fall into those two categories of weak and low average. Um and then you'll notice that there's one other scale for all grades 5 through 12.
Part of the reason for that is that um the assumption is that you know many of these skills are taught up through fourth grade, right? So that benchmark stays the same from fifth through 12th grade and we're just looking for students to increase their proficiency in those grades. All right. So we um on again we're sort
of highlighting the left side here. So this is the same same data but framed a little bit differently. And this is how CATY would frame it for us to take action. Um so I'm going to start with the grade four line again. So in um our fourth graders, you see the bar goes up
to about 59%. So 59% of our fourth graders um performed in the weak and low average performance B bands um in the word recognition and decoding. Reason we wanted to show this um and the 50th percentile mark like 50th percentile is
a mark we can look at to compare ourselves across across the nation. However, what we're looking at here is the number of our own students who need and deserve intervention. So again, if we start with fourth grade, about 59% of our students um are are showing up as
needing some additional support in the area of word recognition and decoding. I do want to name what that little small bar above is. That's the national percentile for a proficient level of performance. So we are um it's it's good that we are below that line because this
is um we want our numbers to go down, right? So this is looks a little different from the other one. We want no none of our students to need intervention right over time. So we are just below um the amount of students in the nationwide that uh require
intervention say in fourth grade and you'll see again in fifth grade we're slightly below that line. Um we're a little closer to it than national bar gets closer to us in eighth grade. Um so that' be you know indicating that um we have some work to do as we move up towards eighth grade and ensuring that
our students are gaining those skills. If you look at the next slide, it shows this all of this data. So this is all six subtests. What you're seeing in each subtest is sort of that like drop over time. That's good. Um what that shows is that um as
we would expect, many of these skills are still being taught in upper elementary, right? So fewer of our students already have these skills. They we this is why we have functional morphology that we are now implementing for the first time this fall or this year. Um and then as we get towards 8th
grade, fewer and fewer of our students are showing up as needing um these interventions. Um what that does say is that some of what we're doing is working. We just need it to continue to work better and better for the students. So say for example in word recognition and decoding, we still have about 30% of
our students in 8th grade who need intervention in word recognition and decoding. This is the data that now my team and teams across the district um in schools and then in grade levels are able to see at the right at the site and then grade level and then classroom level um to
take action and um create small group interventions andor whole class interventions. Now I'm handing it over to Marty and then we will um have time for questions of course um when when you have them. >> Yep. Okay. So this slide you're looking at the decoding threshold bottleneck. Um
the red line is that score of 235 for grades 5 through 12. What this shows us is that students um who are below that 235 line are struggling to decode the words. They're having a hard time reading the words on the page. And
because they can't do that or they're struggling with it, they're spending so much effort trying to read the words they're not able to comprehend in their other subject areas or at grade level texts. So, um, what this shows us is that some of these students may have
been fine with their decoding skills in early elementary, but as we moved from second grade to third grade, the focus changed to comprehension. And then all of a sudden, our texts got longer and the words got more complicated. So they what this shows us is that it would be
really important for us to implement a multi-elabic word reading decoding strategy in our uh third through 8th grade classes to help them be able to read those longer words so that they can understand what they're reading.
It's another version of the same visual. So this is just a scatter plot of showing that that bottleneck. >> Okay. And this is the flowchart that Capy provides for us. It makes um understanding our scores really clear for teachers and their teams. So, you
read this flowchart from left to right and it shows you exactly which skills you should be targeting to help a student move along um their their continuum of reading skills in order to become an efficient reader who can comprehend what they're reading. So, um
what we're look looking at right now is that most of our students are falling in that multi-elabic word intervention area. And so because of that in our initial implementation that's what we're focusing on this year as we're getting our initial data results we're focusing
on the multi-elabic word word reading intervention and that is something that can take place in our ELA classrooms and in social studies science and any time a teacher is teaching new vocabulary they can take that word and help them um with
this strategy and then as we move forward uh with more data and we become more efficient in our strategies, then we can differentiate more and focus on our fluency interventions and comprehension. And eventually hopefully it'll be something that we're using in
our with our tier three students and not needing it in our tier one anymore. And this just shows you uh that we've started training our teachers and admin um and how to understand the CAPY data and what instructional decisions to make
based on it. And then we're continuing to do this work through next year as well. >> Great. What questions do you have for us? All right. Well, thank you for that information and yeah, board members, thoughts, questions that you have about
this information. Director Arco. >> Um, so how we score this makes sense? I'm just curious in what way does do like these test scores or these results what way do we expect them to correlate
to like the MCA tests at all if at all? They might not. I'm just curious. >> That's a great question. Um I would say we wouldn't we would only use um the fact that a student doesn't need intervention as an indicator that they
may or may not be proficient, but it doesn't have that direct correlation. The assessment that we use um to correlate to predicted proficiency on the MCA is our FastBridge assessment or MAP um in 9th through 12th grade. Yeah, this data is um a more granular data set
that's more classroom level than than predictive. It um can be used to predict um that a student has the skills needed to now read to learn versus learn to read, right? That's sort of the the level that we would use this for. Director Simon. >> Thanks, Linda. Thanks for the
presentation. The data is really interesting. Um, >> so that we just started CAPD, correct? >> Okay. So, um, I'm just curious about um, cohorts, right? So in the future as we continue to do the capping because it's
just interesting the reading efficiency one where 63% in grade four and 41% grade eight it'll be >> very interesting to see year-over-year how the cohort does each year right yes um and then it'll probably be a better predictor of what we may need to do um
throughout our system right to change to get it so I just wanted to make sure of that that we're we're going to be doing that and then also so beyond this you know beyond next steps So you guys have the data, you know what training you need to do, you know where you need to focus.
>> That's awesome. What about other things like beyond like structurally? Are you also looking at what the time we're spending in elementary versus the time we're spending in middle school? Like what you know are there other larger
things or maybe structural things that you guys are thinking about or that all of this data will help point you to? Does that make sense? It does. That's a great question. I think um yes and um so a couple things. One um Marty mentioned the need for in some cases whole class
intervention, right? So there are there are cohorts of students um particularly as we were looking at the data um in say fourth and fifth grade, right? You have many many classrooms where um enough of the class needs a multi-elabic word intervention that that's just that's now
tier one, right? That becomes a part of your literacy block. Um, so I think thinking about intentionally using that component of the literacy block for intervening on those specific skills. Um, when I think about um, another sort of structural thing that we we are thinking about and will be planning for
over the summer is um, what do our secondary intervention courses look like? Um, what what materials now match with these skills that we know our students don't have? And um to the your earlier point um one of the things we'll be doing is we will now be able to track
students who enter an intervention course and then take CAPY. It's three times a year starting next year. Um the goal would be that we see students um move so far that they are able to exit that intervention as opposed to I know we had a conversation at the board table a few weeks ago about students who just
end up stuck right in um in an intervention sort of forever. Um and that should never be how um an intervention works. that's on us, right, if our intervention isn't working. So, you know, we're thinking about um materials that align with the um the data that we now have um support that
our secondary literacy specialists can provide both for what happens in core classrooms um that is related to the skills that students have um or need um and then what happens in small group and course based intervention. >> Director,
>> follow-up question. Um, so I think I I have a good basis of what happens in secondary, right? So if if a student is um under uh grade level in reading, right? They go into that the basic course, right? I I forget what it's called, but um the basic course plus
plus they also have the regular course. So maybe they can't do um an elective or something like that, right? So there's like a second scoop, right? And some specific intervention to help them catch up to where they are. That's middle school. Y >> um >> what do we do in elementary? So if so if
a child is under reading level, do they get that second scoop? Do we do other interventions, do they have to take summer school? Like what what do we all do? >> Um potentially all of the above, but yes. So they get a second scoop um inside of the um the literacy block
where there is an intervention time when any students are each of each student in a small group is getting what they need. Often that time is called win time. What I need time, right? So um yes, there are um intentional blocks of time inside of the elementary students day um where
they can be provided intervention um both in reading and then students who need that intervention in math >> and there supplemental teachers >> and yes and supple so supplement schools that have um title funds have often have supplemental teachers who provide um additional even another additional scoop
of intervention andor they're part of a cadre of folks who make those groups even smaller >> and there's and yes and lits etc. Yeah. >> Yeah. So re early intervention is like the where you're going to get your biggest bang for your buck right like catching them early is what we really
hope to do. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And that's where I just think of not a question just a comment from that where I think of kind of structural where I say structural because is what we're doing and what we have done the right thing to do. Do we need to do more? Do we need to do it differently?
So, um I always say outside of the current educational box thinking like what >> what can we do? I mean pilot or systemwide. So I I know you guys are thinking of that and I just at least this one board member wants to encourage that.
>> Well, the the fact that all sites are using Bridge to Read now is huge. Like that's going to make a big difference. And then the fact that we've started a knowledgebased curriculum, students are now going to be building that foundational knowledge skill. they're going to be able to hear a >> they're going to be exposed to a lot
more vocabulary words so that when they're going to read those multi-elabic words, they're going to have something to draw on. So, I do think we're going to start seeing a shift. It takes time, but >> the kids are really um enjoying the new curriculum. They're going home talking about it with their families. And so, I
think like Yeah, I think it's going to be good. >> Well, I and I I agree with you. I think that exposure and um because some some kids may not get that right. So that exposure to vocabulary and understanding that I think is going to make a huge difference. >> Thanks. >> And I think too we're in so this moment
for Anoka Henipin in particular is um we have a lot of new things happening in literacy right so we have as as Marty mentioned bridge to read and functional morphology we have a knowledge building curriculum and now we have the gift of a data tool that provides us the data that we need in order to determine whether
things are moving. So in some ways the data we presented here this evening it it is baseline but it is actionable baseline right um where so you will see data from from CAPI three times a year starting next year and my hope would be the questions you're asking is about
like what percent of our students have moved because the hope would be that's the story we're telling um is now how are we um tweaking what it is that we're doing as opposed to needing to start from scratch. >> I'm going to one last followup. Sorry,
Casey. Um, I agree the data is very important, but I'm going to um say what I hear from many teachers that we test a lot, right? So, I know I made it last time we talked about this. You have the fast, you have the CAPD, fast is the predictor of the MCA, but it's a
predictor. It doesn't give actionable items like right away. So, I would just also say let's um let's emphasize instruction and maybe not testing it test as little as we have to. Thanks. And just a side note on that, one of the nice things about CAFTY is you can pick
one subtest. So if they're if we're focusing on the word decoding, it's a five minute test. So that's really nice, too. You don't have to give them all again. >> Director Duchaine, >> thank you. And uh that sort of led right into where my questions were going. So
you already kind of answered it, but I just wanted to reconfirm. So the three times a year >> standard would be all of the subtests >> starting next year. Yes. >> Starting next year. And then additionally, if we needed to or if a classroom teacher decided, I'd really like to know more about this right now
in this moment, they could pick one of the subtests. Correct. >> Every six weeks is as most as you can do it. Yes. >> Every six weeks. >> Yes. Okay. If they want. >> So if I were doing a right small group um multi-elabic word inter word recognition intervention, I could then six weeks later use just that subtest,
right, to to check, right? And if you as a teacher had chosen to do that and then your trianual time was coming up, would that one that your students had just done say a few weeks ago count into that and they would take one less?
>> Only if it's inside of the assessment window because we do want those those to be um comparable, right, within with So we what we will need to do is provide really good guidance so that we don't end up doubling up in a short period. >> Exactly. Well, and I and I appreciate you jumping right to that because that's
exactly what I was going to say and it ties with what Director Simon was saying is just we we have this great curriculum. We have these great uh professionals who are trained and ready and excited about this work. We want them focused on instruction and what their classes need. And so it sounds like you're on top of that and I
appreciate the the need and the push for guidance. Thank you. You're welcome. >> Director Adette. >> Hi. Thank you. Um just a couple questions about the screening test itself. >> Um does does the Reed Act require this
specific test? >> It does. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um do do we do we know anything about it from another life or you know have have either of you used it before and I mean I'm just kind of curious how it maybe was selected and >> how credible it is etc.
>> Some other systems used it ahead of it being required by the state. It is a nationally normed assessment, so it's not specific to Minnesota. So, it has um a good amount of data behind it that can that um can be used to sort of check, right, for um for normed purposes. Um we
used it in my former district um a year ahead of the mandate um because of the fact that we had the similar gap to what we're experiencing here, which is um lack of actionable data for um upper elementary and middle school students. and the the educators that found it the
most useful um there were reading intervention teachers at the secondary level just folks who have been you know like hungry for data that is um that I can use tomorrow to decide what to teach for my students. So that's the experience that I have had with it and um now again at the end of this year all
of the state of Minnesota's data will be a part of their um their data. >> Okay. um with respect to I don't know what slide it is here but it's the first one with all of the graphs uh it talks about being at or above the 50th percentile is what is
what is the significance of 50th percentile >> often if you think of a normative curve right that's the that is average the middle right it it um it is often just used to show whether or not you are below or above what the the median is
>> okay so that particular one graph is simply showing And then >> some of the others like where we get into whether or not we're going to do intervention, it's based on this >> score of two is it 250? >> Yes. >> Yep.
>> Um it on the on this uh screen or what what's the significance of 250? It seemed like that was in this bottle picture that was pointing or 235 it was pointing to. >> So 235 is the red. So that would be and so then yeah 250 to 235 they're
>> they're make you know they're they're not super hurt I guess you kind of call them the bubble kids right they're close they need a little extra push to get there but >> um yeah >> but the score of 235 says okay you're struggling to decode words that's what that score tells you it's not really related to anything other than the
diagnostic itself which says if you can only score 235 it means >> that's your and also it does go like if you're below 210 like you're still at a level where you're working on hearing the sounds in words. And if you're between 210 and 235, you're you're
working on your phonics >> decoding words. So there there it gets a little bit granular, but >> yeah. Um does the 235 is it just a it's otherwise not a >> it's not like a meaningful number?
>> It's meaningful within the >> within the context of this assessment. Yeah. >> And that is why they picked CAT D2 is because it had a cut score. a lot of other assessments don't have that and that they wanted that. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. >> You're welcome.
>> Co-chair Langanger. >> Thank you for your presentation. I think as I as I looked at the subtests um and I know they're very they're easy to obviously uh s have your student take. They're very short. Can you just briefly
say what that looks like? So, I'm going to sit down for my first and we just had students do this word recognition and decoding. What was I asked to do? And maybe just walk very quickly through those without a lot of detail, but just so people out there and families can
understand what we're asking kids to know and be able to do. >> So, with the the word recognition test is probably the one that's would be most confusing for the first time you took it, right? It's going to have a word, let's say class, and if it's then
They'll say, "Is it a real word? Is it a nonsense word? Or is it a word that looks like a real word?" So, if it's spelled K Lasss, the students would have to pick that last choice, right? It sounds like a real word, but it's spelled wrong. So, that's something that
um students will get better at as they take the test more than once. But that's just an example in that case. So, we're looking at can they decode the word and do they know how to spell it really. Um, and then vocabulary, it's much like you would assume it's a like they do a what
does this word mean and give choices. So, it's it's multiple choice. >> Um, the morphology, they're looking at like prefixes and suffixes for those words. Um, and then um you're testing me now. The next one is the sentence uh
reading processing. in that one. Um, they read a sentence and they have to fill a word in the blank. So, they're using context clues then to to fill in to read the sentence and fill in the word. The reading efficiency test that the tricky part about that one is that
they'll read a sentence, they have to fill in the word, and then it gives them another sentence to fill in the word, and it keeps building. So, if a student doesn't realize that they're building on, they might go back and start rereading again. And remember, this is the test that they get timed on. So
they're trying to test their fluency. So this is another one that they may get better at as they understand how to take the test. So they're testing how fast and act they >> how fast they can read that and accurately enter the word that they're
missing. And then the last one is comprehension. And um it's just like you would assume. There's a few passages with about six to eight questions for each passage. and they're mostly um questions that are right there in the text. They don't get too complicated for
this for this assessment. >> So that's why it's maybe a little bit hard to predict MCAs because MCA's questions would be much more advanced. >> Yeah. >> And then is it all done on computer then? >> Yes, it is. Yep. >> So that also those skills for maybe students that wouldn't have the skills,
the younger children may not be a skilled user. I mean, maybe they are now. When we initially started using computers for assessments, it wasn't always the easiest, especially for the little ones. They're probably much more adept at that as now. And the other thing you talked about the word
recognition and the spelling and I know we talked about this the other day too is that because of social media a lot of words are spelled sometimes differently encoded in so you know and so that's that'll be interesting to see um if we
see that. I I just be curious about that if you know we see things spelled differently online sometimes for sure and and it sounds the same. So anyway, it's a little confusing. Thanks for that. I just think people, you know, you try to figure out how you could
administer those and what you're actually looking for. And it really dovetales into what director Duchain was talking about is that the teacher then can use their experience and expertise to identify where they need to go with
these subtests. It's it's really >> you'd be very able to do that with these kinds of assessments. So well done. Thank you. appreciate that. And I wasn't challenging you, but bravo. She knew them all in a row >> in order. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> So, just a thought. So grateful to those people who um working in the district who looked ahead and foresaw like we should get some the necessary training behind the science of reading um before the read act even happened. And we
started training our teachers and and moving things forward in that. And now we have this new curriculum which you say the kids are excited by. It sounds like teachers are as well and it has the the tools that are necessary to address um these concerns that that we have. So
just thinking of that it's been not even one full year that they've worked through having this. So it's not surprising that you know we can't see gains. We wouldn't we don't even have anything to compare yet to see those gains. But to um director Simon's
question, we really also see a need here concern. So when we talk about tier one interventions, that would be for everyone. And looking at this the word recognition as um you said it takes effort to decode. If it takes effort to decode, then you can't comprehend. So
that's like our step one. And if as we look at these scores, you know, something like 59% are weak or low average in our fourth grade, something more than 60% in our fifth grade. Those are kids that are working with that new curriculum. So
hopefully we'll see great gains there. >> Um, but as we look at the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade, we don't yet have anything in place. We don't have any curricular materials yet. Is that true? we have reading intervention courses in place and so teachers are using high
quality materials to meet students needs but they didn't have the data to match with that right so I would say the gap there is not uh you know really talented and um expert reading teachers who didn't have a tool that said this skill
they were having to do some of the figuring out of that themselves I think and I'm so grateful for them I I think if we think look back to some data that we got at the beginning of the year. I think we've been phasing out those courses. Does that sound right to
>> any board members that data? >> It that may be the conversation around for students receiving special education services who were in a different reading course in middle school. We've um those students are now being served in a in a reading licensed reading teachers reading class. And so some of those
sections are co-taught now with a a special educator and a um a core teacher who has a reading license. Um, so that it's not necessarily that we were phasing out the student the number of students receiving the support, it was where and and with whom. >> Okay, good. I'll probably double back
and look at that. But I'm glad because we need it looks like we're going to need those courses, especially since um >> these students haven't had the opportunity to interact with that science of reading curriculum at the elementary school. And I think also, you know, >> we need to get that training to those
secondary teachers, which is in place. They're getting that next. But so while while we have those things in place, I guess kind of to what um director Simon was pointing out, we've got some good things in place, but we really want to accelerate. We the question I would
reiterate is yeah, what can we do? Can we how are we thinking outside of the box to expand because it looks like again sixth grade data shows that right now we're approaching 50%. So, approaching half of our students, half of our students aren't in those
intervention courses. What can we do to get those kids the help that they need? You did address some good things that we're going to have some interventions in um just everyday courses, which I applaud. That sounds fantastic. >> Looks to me like we want to get it as
many places as often as possible. So, I guess my um plea to everyone out there, not just you two wonderful people, but everyone who's working in the literacy space, bring something to us. Bring us some ideas so that we can ignite this process
forward and get these kids all the learning that they need. >> Agreed. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Other questions or comments from board members? Okay, wonderful. Well, thank you for the presentation.
>> Thanks, Marty. >> I get to stay. >> Our next agenda item is 4B, learning and achievement curriculum adoption process. We welcome again Sarah Hunter, executive director of learning and achievement and
learning and achievement coordinators. Good evening again. Um I want to have an opportunity to um introduce the team. Um we are here to um provide an update on our curriculum adoption process which is um
in it is being enacted in in social studies right now. But we are we are um here to field questions and talk with you about the process itself. Um and what I'll do is maybe have each of you introduce yourselves. These are members of the learning and achievement team. >> Hi, my name is Kevin Bros, learning and
achievement coordinator. I'm supporting uh social studies and health and a little bit of business and a little family and consumer science. >> I'm Sarah Gomez, learning achievement coordinator. I support social studies and also science. Good evening. and Nored uh learn learning and achievement
coordinator supporting science, social studies and health. Okay, maybe move to the next slide. So, we presented um a few months ago to the board uh an overview of the igniting the process uh portion of our curriculum
adoption process. Um and so I think we what we wanted to make sure we do for you all um this evening is update you on um or a andor field questions right about the process itself um and give you an update about you know what what work
has been done thus far um in the event that there is time for that as well in um the content of social studies. So I might just I will frame um to like put us in space and time. Um we are currently at Thursday night at recommend
um with our curriculum adoption committee for social studies. So we've walked through analyzing a need. So I may back us up to um the impetus for um bringing you all an updated process and then how we have implemented these first few steps. So um at the beginning of
this year we were asked by this board um to bring to you we brought to you an updated process. Um part of the reason for the need for the process was not um to make major changes to something that had been working but was to make some um minor tweaks and um there were places where there was a a little bit of
redundancy. Right? So all of the the major components of our um former curriculum adoption process are here. Um and we knew um because of um the pandemic and the years following um we are a bit behind not through the fault of this system at all, right? But just
there were delays and and pauses um in curriculum adoption processes because of um the the pandemic itself, right? So um we now have sort of a backlog of um curriculums that are ready um teachers who are ready to have uh new materials and um the the specific need that this
group um the reason we are working with social studies educators this year is a change in standards. So um we look at when you look at analyzing a need um we have sort of three ways that we might uh need to begin a curriculum adoption process. Uh standards may have changed.
So now our our materials don't match with the standards. our student data may show that the materials we're using aren't working. Right? So, if we're seeing um stagnant or um declining student data andor that our resources are just too old and and or are out of print, right? So, one of those three
things in this case for social studies, um it's it's like the first and the third, right? So, we have new standards um that must be implemented in the fall. And then we have in some cases um resources that I think I had described to you when when we met a few months ago that are literally falling apart for
sixth grade because they've just been in classrooms and been loved and um used by students for so many years. Um so, knowing that need um we produced a resource. >> So, I'm actually going to interrupt right there. um at this point and I'm
looking for insight from board members here as well to see um if we can work through this because we want this curriculum adoption process to work well for every course so that we get quality materials in the hands of our students and to our educators so that they have
um ease and confidence in the curricula they're u presenting to students. So, if we look back to the process that we just saw from the literacy piece, um it actually wasn't initiated by any of those um three things that were pointed there. Um assess the standards, the
data, and the current resources. Again, I'm I'm not sure who instigated that process. Um I can't remember the names, and I think it was prior to me being on the board at all to say the science of reading tells us that our reading materials are not sufficient. that the
data the most recent information of the science of learning is telling us we need something different. Um so one thing that I have been um trying to ask for clarity on that analyze need point that that we really should have
something there at this initiating point to say well how what are we looking at with the evolving world of um how the brain learns best? How are we analyzing the materials that we have to to focus on that portion of student learning? So,
can you help us um how could we maybe get that um clarified or delineated in this process? >> You go ahead. So, to start, I would say like for for for literacy, so I'll like
maybe walk back to that process. um that was likely very closely related to uh read Act legislation, right? And this district jumping in early because um many of us in education um had been hearing, right, about science of reading um before it became like known to to
everybody in the in the grocery store, right? So, um I was listening to a podcast before we had ReadAct training, right? and was so struck by the fact that my own practice didn't include um what students actually need in order to learn to read. Um that instate
instigated one state legislation, two in and many districts across the state um who didn't have most of us didn't have resources that aligned with the science of reading. um the same sort of sea change in how um students learn um
hasn't come in in every content area, right? That's sort of unique to um reading and reading in this country over the last decade or so I would say in in in my career. Um and so when I think about that process, um what it's it's I
might align that with data, right? like our student data and our students not knowing how to read at the way that or the level that we need them to be is what I would say like brought in that that process. Um in terms of all the like our other content areas um these
are the major areas or reasons that we might um begin a curriculum adoption process. So it just feels like the the stage is a little different. >> Well, I think I'm going to ask maybe if any um other board members want to jump in here. I'm not certain if they're thinking in this same space but um as I
am a teacher and kind of in this space right now the the cognitive science is burgeoning. So you're absolutely right it really um has come to a head and a lot of information like you said even the grocery store you might hear about the science of learning but that same thing is happening in in all content
areas. Um the kind of threeish decades of s and and uh it really hasn't necessarily caught up in all places yet. Uh, but I guess I'm looking for how can we make certain that we are we continue to be on the forefront that that Anoka
Henipin School District not only was um maybe setting the pace in um helping our students get this newest science in literacy, but we want to make certain that at least I think I'm asking board members what your thoughts are here. I think we want to
have that as part of our process so that we can continue to be a leader um to guide our students forward in in the newest science of learning. >> Go ahead. as I as I think about it and it's and
it's this content that we've been talking about whether it be whatever it is I know we spent a lot of time last year looking at science curriculum and and what what I see as major difference when I start to look at the new curriculum that's being brought forward
in social studies but in other areas as well what the way I was taught and many of the things that I was knowledge based >> which is vitally important important, >> but it's not it's not enough. We want kids to critically think, to ask
questions, to dive deeper in content, and to to take in the world. So, when I look at the social studies curriculum, for example, it it is very clear to me that we're shifting from just knowledge
to knowledge and skills. And so the driver is is and the the piece the standards I believe were written to to take to be able to take the information and to apply it not just to read it.
It's good you know good information to have and to know. However, what does it really mean to me as a person that so that's my takeaway. So when we look at the curriculum, I think to me the the
driver for this, I mean the data for literacy was the data. No one loved that data. It was like really time to change and our resources weren't meeting it and everyone knew that, but we didn't know where to go. Um at least not right away.
And then and then looking at the standards themselves. the standards whether they change for whatever content area is really looking at that high level of what really changed. I mean sometimes the not the granularity of the specific standards when you go look at
textbooks you're not saying I mean this is my experience and you don't take each standard then try to find it in the book you look for big big content knowledge which is vitally important and then you also look to see
if that kind of information the questions you know there are kids who are just you know curious curious curious and they're going to go there anyway. But there are many kids that that you know I was one of a really good memorizer for example and so I didn't
always think about what it really meant you know whether it be whether it be um social studies math I mean we're teaching math the same way now through processes like that. So for me when we analyze it I would assume when you're
looking for a curriculum you're looking for those skills you're looking for that versus a specific standard the stand you know that the standards change to drive you there many social studies teachers in all reality quite frankly have been
doing this for years and this way am I right or I mean you know because right so so then the question becomes what does our curriculum look like and will it drive kids to be able to critically think and about what the world is around
them? Then it's from that process we eventually come to a textbook that has the knowledge and the skill to drive it. And then I think it's vitally important to make sure it fits what the district
has already in place. So it isn't new learning, new learning, new, you know, unless it's totally different, but that typically isn't the case. And then only until then can you then start to do the writing and the the understanding by
design where you look at backward design and say okay >> what do all Anoka henipin kids need to know and be able to do with this. >> So that's that's my takeaway and understanding of how this works. But
when I look at analyze the need, I do think about what we're really talking about here. And it's the we say the standards, but having a deeper a deeper understanding of that I think is so vitally important. And that's what the
science of reading did for all of us. But it's also when we look at science, we look at health, we look at any curriculum, it's it's how do I take what I know and then use it and apply it to
my own context of life. So all right, director Duchaine, >> thanks. So it sounds like what you're talking about uh coacher hookman is under this this graphic that kind of explains the process for analyzing the need is maybe just like an additional
comma an additional ad of like evidence-based research as another impetus which I'm imagine is already a part of what you're doing behind the scenes but maybe it's just not wasn't one of the three that made it onto this graphic because I know we've talked many times about the the research and the
work that you all do um pulling together like using the science of reading as the example that's very evident based research that explains what is um kind of best best in class for for student learning. >> Is that am I capturing correctly sort of what you were saying there? Yeah.
>> And if I may, you bring up a really good point, Coacher Hookman, that um the science of reading is about unlocking the code for for literacy and we have a knowledge building curriculum that is more what you were referencing Dr. Langenfeld um that is really about that
application of of knowledge right so we we have both and right and so when we're thinking comprehensively with any other content area we're really thinking about we're thinking about both and and I would say truly social studies is literacy you cannot do social studies
without reading right and and critically thinking it's what it is so I think we're really lucky to be in the position that the 2020 um ELA standards were implemented prior to the 2021 social studies standards. >> Just a comment. I really appreciate the
question. Maybe to drill it down further. Can you explain I I think um the piece that I think just was called out was whether the state changes something we step back and say what's the best practice evidence-based approach to instruction regardless of
the content area math you name it we start there with what's the best what's the science tell us I would assume that starts I mean from my understanding and how our team's working the team's digging into that the study committee digs into that as a in that first bullet
So I I I like the idea of adding in you know I don't want to make it longer but adding in that what's the best available research best practice evidence-based approach you're evaluating that along with what has the state changed on us for example in any of the standards whether it's math or reading or social
studies we're grounding ourselves in best practice and what content changes are there as a very foundational piece at the very beginning of this process and maybe it just needs to be a little more explicit because my understanding is that is exactly what the teams are doing
>> when you really task analyze the work. Our old 41st step process probably had that more called out in one of those 41 steps. Um, and I I'm I know the team's doing that before we even asked for any all call. We're like, what has changed?
What has changed from an instruction best practice standpoint? What has changed from the requirements? >> Mirroring those together. So, as I say that out loud, I see head nods. Can you just maybe speak to my am I on track with the approach? >> Sure. >> Dependent independent of the content
area. >> I mean I can I can start a little bit here. I mean some of the other research um in training and best practices um the C3 framework is a piece of that um which is put out by the National Council of Social Studies. Um we have all had
training on repeatable routines which are also best practices built-in scaffolding literacybased reading, writing, speaking, listening um in a social studies context. So we have already uh begun working with our uh
secondary uh department leads on writing instructional focus goals around that and putting plans in place for uh additional training and professional development going into next fall. So just to wrap that part up, I I also
understand that that's kind of how you train the study committees to get a consistent knowledge base in that committee. It's usually 40 people or roughly. >> Yes. >> Um so as they move forward in the process, there are there's a common understanding what are best practices of the research tell us before you start
getting into materials. >> Yeah. So on March 10th, um I have that date right? >> March 10th, everything's blending together now. Um, we did do a a training. We led a training for um 40 to
50 uh members of our study committee. Talked through the process. We talked through what the shifts were and what those look like and the instructional moves within those um kind of big picture. We um broke down our rubric for
the materials so they understood what those pieces were. So, oh, go ahead. Director Adet, >> you brought up the rubric. That was actually a question I had. So, it says, "Apply in a noipin rubric to identify
best aligned resources." Can you talk to us about what that means? >> Sarah, do you want to take that one? >> Yeah. Um, so our rubric is aligned to um the aird reports rubric. Um and so we looked at like criterion one for example
is um standards alignment uh which is criterion one on that American Institute for Research rubric as well as ours. Uh we also took a look at the district strategic priority of improving literacy at all grade levels. And one thing we focused intentionally on with the study
committee is to make sure they had a solid understanding of disciplinary literacy and what that looks like in the updated standards and ships. Um for example um the conversations with the committee members really noted that there was a primary emphasis on um when
we showed a standard comparison u the 2011 standards are really content driven but they're written at DK levels one and two whereas the 2021 standard examples if you really look at them they're written with content knowledge and application of knowledge. Um, and with
that the students would have to understand the content through a literacy lens of like a geographer or a historian or a political scientist. And so when we trained the committee on our rubric, we really honed in on those points and make sure and made sure that it aligned to the Anoka Henipin
strategic priorities. >> So that's specific in reference to social studies. >> Yes. >> Are are we I guess we're we're mixing concepts here. So are we talking about this process or social studies the we're just talking about the process I that
that part is that intermixing is not helping um so if you just spoke to the rubric just in broad terms what are we trying to do an ana henipin rubric what are we what are we trying to in in any subject
matter how how does how what are we attempting to do there I'm not I'm not famili familiar with that. So that's what I'm trying to understand. Sorry about that. >> That's okay. I think with the Anoka Henipin rubric, uh, we're trying to align to best practices with high quality instructional materials. So when
we look at the air ed reports rubric, we have a lot of alignment with that in terms of standards alignment, social studies practices, assessments, but the rubric also um has other key considerations like teacher supports, accessibility for our diverse learners in the district and overall ease of
usability for our teachers and for our students. So is comprehensive of all of those pieces uh pedagogical and best instructional practices and like is it easy for our teachers and students to utilize um to support that literacy lens of social studies.
>> Okay. So so for this an noa henipin rubric uh broadly who who who is responsible for making that >> our team in partnership with R so from a data collection perspective. Um, and
then sort of what what Sarah was referring to is sourcing uh using national rubrics to make sure that our work is in alignment with what is pretty fairly industry standard. The other thing I think um that you brought up um director Adet is the I think the one thing from um how we've described the
the social studies rubric specifically. The only thing you would really need to swap out is the term social studies in terms of best practices in a content area. we would still want to be um aligning with standards and best practices in the content. Um and then the other components around teacher
usability etc. those are those would be true across the board. The only um shift would be what is true for that particular content. >> Okay. So in this first step will the board have uh input into analyzing the need and the
the rubric? Is was that intended? And if so, how will we have input? >> It was shared for input um I want to say in prior to our March 10th meeting.
The draft rubric was shared prior to the March 10th. >> I'm speaking generally again. >> So prior to any curriculum adoption process, I think we would use the practice we had this this spring, which was to share it with the board for feedback prior to training the committee.
Thank you, >> Director. >> Thank you, Director Hulman or Cochair Hulkman. Um, thank you guys for putting together this graphic. It's very easy to read. Um, okay. So, I'm looking through kind of the granular
details of how this plays out. And I have noticed that in the igniting the process part, the last portion says recommend select top two resources for pilot. So maybe I missed this or maybe I'm just not understanding it, but is there like a
board approval or vote or anything before we go from igniting the process to step one? >> That is a great question. So thank you for asking. Yes. um our intention and what had been on the the plan for social studies specifically, but I'll say for any content area, yes, would be
following the committee um looking at all of the data um and identifying whether there are um two clear um front runners for any content area in any grade level. We would then bring that proposal um to the board for review. Um
so specifically in this case this Thursday night is the night that the committee will review that data and the planned um date to bring that to you all as a board is two weeks from this evening. >> Okay, that makes sense. I appreciate the answer. Um
so at I know we're talking about the process but I think this kind of plays a role in how the the implementation of this process goes. At previous board meetings, we've discussed, for example, social studies and this idea of minimal compliance has been thrown out. Um, has
that been a consideration at all? I should uh emphasize the key word there is compliance. Has the idea of minimal compliance been considered at all in any of for igniting the process for any of the social studies curriculum that you guys are uh reviewing?
I think that so when we would make a plan for how um how each standard is to be taught would be when we're writing our UBDs which isn't until after we have chosen curricula. Um that the the process of doing curriculum writing and the creation of the UBDs is time
inensive and relatively speaking expensive in terms of teacher time. Um so we our plan is um to get to a point where we can bring two resources forward for pilot and then we would have teacher teams work on aligning those resources
to the standards. Um and um depending on board direction on what that process looks like. Um I know that that was a term that was was used last August when we first spoke about about social studies. >> That makes sense. Um I guess and then just one last followup.
So um I guess as you're reviewing material to even select possible resources that can be considered or voted on. There must be some idea in because at that last work session it was
explained even the curriculum we have now it's there's too many state standards to exhaustively cover all of them so some are emphasized or not. Um I'm curious if that idea even now is being considered
like what has there been any consideration at all into which of the benchmarks or standards I guess for any not even social studies for any of the curriculum that might be emphasized or not because I would suspect that would play at least some role in choosing curriculum like books or whatever
>> or is that just not yet is that not until step one for example? No, it's a totally fair question and I think um it does relate to all content areas. So I will stay content agnostic um associated with that question. So there are a ton of standards in each content area and um
the recommendation now is not to prioritize um that there are there it's sort of a misnomer um that there are you know we what we used to call them is like priority standards or right like your power standards um and that that is not a practice that is currently being
used. Um that doesn't mean though of course in you know the the like the real world of a classroom that every standard gets the same amount of time in a classroom. The way that um we would recommend that educators make decisions about the amount of time is based on student understanding. Um, and because
at the at the end of the day, we are expected to teach the the standards and so you identify which of the standards your students need the most um work on in order to make sure when they walk across the stage at graduation, they have had access to all of the standards. >> Thank you. That helps.
>> I'm actually going to jump in. So, something that um I'd like to go back to is um I feel like we're just putting we're moving too quickly in in what's happening with this curriculum adoption process. Um right now we're sitting at
the table and we're still kind of juggling through as a board trying to say, "Hey, we should add on analyze need. We should add on um what evidence-based reasoning is there?" And in that process, as a board, we want to
be able to ensure that there is an evidence-based process moving forward. Again, looking back to what happened with the literacy adoption that that was abundantly clear for us, like, hey, here's the evidence. Here's how reading has changed. The process that we're was
being used before in teaching literacy was not um scientifically vetted. Um it now we have a better process and we're moving forward with that. As you pointed out, so much of what you do in social studies is literacy. And yet, the
professional development for our secondary teachers in literacy hasn't been completed yet. So, in purchasing or moving forward in any of this process, I think we need to make certain that we're we're getting those pieces in place. For
example, I heard that um old standards standards in the past were um DO, which is depth of knowledge levels one and two, which are recalling and producing and applying knowledge. And yet we just saw data today that
that's so much of what our kids need that we saw the weak and low skills of our sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students. It's we're approaching 50% of our kids need that. So, as I look at this process, and
again, looking to hear what everyone on the board is thinking of this, we really want to make certain that we're hitting that that evidence-based piece strong out of the gate so that any materials that we purchase, which are so very expensive and so crucial to
effectively supporting our teachers and getting the success that we want to see for our students. that that is the foundation of this curriculum adoption process. Um, so I well I'm looking for more input and
thoughts from board members on what they think about um how can in my opinion I think we want to bolster that need for making certain that we're using evidence-based and not just um collective or here's what people across the nation think is a good idea but what
does the science say is the best way to instruct. Um, so I as one member of this board would like to see that strengthen in this curriculum adoption process. Director Duchaine, >> thank thank you. Um, I think it's
important to clarify that my summary of what you were asking for was more about updating just this graphic and not about updating the process because I think it was very clear from the answers we got from Superintendent McIntyre as well as the learning and achievement uh development team here that that is a key
part of the process that is already happening and they explained the different trainings and the different uh focuses that they have on that evidence-based um approach to curriculum uh choice. So, and and I would also say the the concept of this being rushed or
or being too fast is um is really board imposed, right? We had started this social for social studies as an example knowing that we're just talking about the curriculum adoption process generally. We had started social studies two years ago and the board um paused
that work until now and now we're up to the timeline that the students um will be required to have those new standards for graduation. Um and so our our team is I think working through that process
um in a way that would allow board access to information the rubric insights. you know, you've heard about the pieces after director Arco asked that we'll come back to the board. Um I, you know, I think that's a very logical and very thoughtful way of doing all of
this work in the timeline that's uh afforded to you all now um before that standard implementation is is required. >> Director Adet, >> so my question then might be then your feeling that it's rushed doesn't matter.
Is that is I don't I don't understand that that part of it. If if if a board member thinks the process is being rushed, do we just say it's not? I don't get that. Yeah. I to address I do still think it's
rushed because I I have not seen and I perhaps you all have found and can present us with such things although I have been asking to find that data the evidence base so from
my perspective I'm not satisfied with the curriculum adoption process which is why we have paused other adoptions Director, >> could I ask a followup to your point, Director Hookman? Um, and maybe you could even articulate
because you were going down a path of um, you know, our our readers struggle in a certain place in let's say in middle school. So, how might you if if you can maybe paint the picture of what it might look like to evaluate a particular
curriculum such as social studies for our district with respect to what we know about reading at this time. Could does it make sense? Like I think you were what I think you were trying to say is perhaps for our social studies now it's
an opportunity to I don't know what's the word reinforce the reading concepts that are needed right now and you know we might not be at the same place of where the current social studies standards sort of um project to go but I
I I only think that's what you were saying maybe I'm wrong. So I think what I'm trying to sort through is the information that we're we're being presented tonight. Yeah. When we um we're learning about the reading and which is the foundational skill of everything. I mean we want to ensure
that our graduates are leaving with a robust and strong um ability to read. So that literacy piece where they're comprehending their vocabulary, their morphology, their process, those things that were listed and at that time when we ask questions about it is these
things are going to be implemented in all courses. That was what was just presented. And so I think if I were to more clearly say that needs to be our starting point here then or I my opinion then is if literacy
is going to be tier one instruction throughout all courses then that should be part of our curriculum adoption process is to say here is explicitly how we are going to use the evidence-based reading
in these courses to support the content knowledge. Director Simon, >> thanks. Um, I mean, I can only give my perspective and I'm not trying to denigrate anyone else's perspective, so I'll only give mine, but um um I was at
the Was it was it March 10th? March 10th >> on that on that meeting. I wasn't able to make the second one, but the March 10th meeting. Um, so I guess a couple things. Um, I agree and what I heard tonight and what I saw at that meeting was um I I don't think it's rushed. Um,
that it was utilizing um, uh, best practices and current data to be able to choose the um, material. And of course, there's more work past the material, right? There's teacher training, there is writing UBDs, there's
a lot behind just the materials. But one thing that I was really impressed with at that March 10th meeting and we heard it here tonight is that um a big part of choosing the materials for the committee was literacy and utilizing um Anoka
Henipin strategic direction on literacy. So, and and again, six, seven, and eight, you're not in a silo, right? Uh social studies isn't in a silo on teaching kids to read, right? So, we have if a kids, you guys correct me if I'm wrong, I may not be an expert at this, but if a kid comes in under grade
level, they're going to get reading strategies. They're going to get ELA. The CAPD is going to say where we need to specifically do this and then that will all be translated to other courses, science, social studies, whatever that help support that and emphasize that,
right? Um, and if they need help in those areas, I know there's there's um intervention things that they go to, intervention teachers, if you will, in each content area that they can reinforce that also. So um I do at least what I've seen I do think that um the
process was robust. I think it did follow um data and it did follow specifically as social studies is so much reading and reading comprehension. It did follow um our board's direction on that and the supports are I think
they're in place but I think you guys are putting even better supports in place in the ELA and area for middle school too. So, um, trying to see if I missed any of the questions. And then I do know that, and this isn't content
specific, but, um, Zach asked a good question about the pilot. I talked about that at the meeting, too, where I said, you know, pilot typically if we have to spend any money on materials, that's that's the board to approve, too. So, that's one step point. A lot of times, you do have to spend a little bit of
money to pilot things, especially big social studies books, I would guess. Um and then um bringing it forward. The UBD is definitely every content area. This board has agreed with the superintendent that UBDs come before the board before they're implemented in our schools. So I
guess I think I addressed everything, but at least that's my perspective and where I'm at. >> Coach Langfeld. >> Thank you. Um, as I've reflected and I spent quite a bit of time trying to learn where you've been as well.
Unfortunately, that March 10th meeting seems to have been a really critically important meeting that I wish I would have been there. Um, but I know we all had some conflicting things going. One of the things that has come up and I've contemplated it and I've asked questions
about it is to understand where the the how do you measure the quality of the content that you're looking at? How do you look at that and what students will be learning just from a content standards, you know, kind of
thing. And I know that someone showed me a sheet of the Anoka Henipin content. And so what are what did you ask the teachers or you had more than teachers, you had a whole collective crew of really wonderful people who know their
stuff come in and look what what did you ask them to do? Because I think this is like we had talked about, you know, this the science behind it and the research and I know you looked at the American Institute of of Research and their whole
piece about best practice in in um social studies curriculum per se, but they they'll they have best practice in every area. So then the question is what what did you ask them to look at you know and they and you had that document
that showed Anoka Henipin if you could speak to that. I think that grounding piece is so important and it goes really to me it goes back to those foundational pieces that that really dovetail with the literacy piece and vocab and those
kind of things. Just Yeah, if you could share that that'd be great. >> I can start us off. I think the thank you for saying that our process has been really intentionally open and robust and we've really tried to invite everybody in to be a part of this along the way,
every board member, community members. So in this analyzing the need place, what I think you're referencing is we we we realize that we had a a standard shift. So we need to move forward. We have an all call in that place. What
historically has been done is you've got all these resources you have to sift through. Some some don't necessarily meet our our criteria, what you're exactly asking for um uh co-chair uh Hulman that they don't they don't meet
our minimum criteria. So when we set up room 157, it became kind of a hub for the resources we received. We had each course understanding. So the the um units of study in um
in addition we had the standards and then we had resources and any so the physical resources and then any online access that vendors were were to provide. So the initial round was for for anybody the district leadership that
I spoke of earlier to go through and only eliminate the things that didn't um align to those those pieces. Then we went to um had the opportunity to invite the entire team in to train them as you spoke of on the rubric, train them on
the shifts and the standards the kind of how those those processes go hand in hand. And then we had the vendors come in and present, right? So they knew what they were looking for because what has been done sometimes in the past with
with processes and I'm not necessarily saying in an Oka henipin, but I've worked in other systems, you don't go through that where you hear from the vendor to understand how the the resource can be implemented. So you don't necessarily understand what the content is nor do you understand the
alignment. So really hearing from them gave our committee members that an opportunity to dive in and understand, you know, um is this usable? Is this aligned? Would this serve our students best? Right. And then the the next layer
was we had the opportunity to invite our community members in last um uh April 8th. Was that last week? It's all kind of blending. um community members to provide that same type of feedback and and vendors came there again. So I and
simultaneous to this as you know many of you were fortunate enough to join us in room 157 and we continue to open that invitation for anyone who's not yet yet been able to do that but to walk alongside us to look at what that that process looks like and how we analyze um
those resources. >> Yeah, of course. Thank you for the question. >> So, as I look at this process and as we're just discussing the curriculum adoption process, um I'm I'm going to continue to
struggle with the adoption process and all those pieces that people have been working hard on. I will continue to say the rubric will not be sufficient because I don't think it we've gone back to that
foundational piece to say we're using evidence-based instruction here and the reason the although you've said this robust process has happened and all those things have been considered I think simply that comment about the the um understanding
of um of the process of learning I think just just isn't matching up with the science that's evolved though how the brain learns best and when teachers have that understanding when they have that training um learning is going to go so
much smoother and and what I go what I can point to is the so many people like you wonderful people sitting at the table tonight when we had reading people in the past and they're There were so many of us who didn't even know that the
curriculum, the way that we were teaching reading wasn't efficient. It wasn't the way that kids learn. They didn't even know. They didn't even know until they got the letters training, the OLA training. It's a no fault of their own. The teachers were given um bad
lessons in their teacher training at college. And that's because those people didn't know yet. the wealth of knowledge that we have now of how learning works best in my opinion needs to underpin any curriculum that we're purchasing. And so
a rubric that does not lean on the science of learning on how the brain works best is not going to be able to sort out what materials are best in my opinion. And that's the reason that I continue um I'm not approve the process
right now because I don't think that we have that clarity, that understanding in my opinion of what we need to be looking for in the materials to put in the hands of teachers to present to our students. Um again just to point to another um
evidence that perhaps this isn't coming through um is the idea of direct instruction of giving the students the vocabulary and the those foundational literacy pieces before we ask them to do anything else in so many of the
materials that continue to come out. I continue to see the word inquiry and inquiry according to the science of learning is not the way that students learn. They have to have that direct instruction. So for these reasons, I am not satisfied with this curriculum
adoption process. Director Arco, >> I wholeheartedly concur. I've raised many concerns in the past about direct instruction versus a lack of direct instruction and all my concerns have fallen on deaf ears. But um also going to the rubric and to address some of
director Duchaine's concerns um I want to just talk about the idea of what it means to just actually build out a rubric that we can implement and know that is actually meeting state standards and teaching our students well. So because we've talked about it in the past um I'm just going to continue to
use I guess seventh grade social study standards to illustrate the point. So MDE has released this document. Anybody can look it up. Um it gives standards and benchmarks for each of those standards for each of the grades like things they want the students to learn. Just want to read one out loud to
illustrate the point. So in grade seven for strand five ethnic studies code 7.5.23.1 the benchmark specifically says examine the benefits and consequences of power and privilege on issues associated with poverty, income, and the accumulation of
wealth. Okay, so just take that at face value for a minute. that is written in a vague way that it doesn't really it doesn't answer the question of how do you know if students learn this in the first place. It just says teach them
this. The number of paths that you can take that are almost limitless. So to give an example you could take I know probably what the people who wrote this thought they intended to have taught. You could just take the standard narrative of there's systemic, you know,
there's systems in place that have created systemic disparities and oppression and that's why we have all these disparities nowadays. That would be one direction. another direction. If I were a teacher and I were simply given this vague of a benchmark, I would be like, "Okay, well, we can actually use the Japanese Americans during World War
II who were sadly and very unjustly put in internment camps, had their businesses taken away from them, um things that they worked for, their jobs taken away, fortunes lost, and as soon as that injustice was over and they were released, um they made one of the the quickest turnarounds perhaps of any
demographic in American history to once again um find uh just economic wealth and prosperity. And they did it. You could go on and on in details about how they did this, but one of the key things that they didn't do is they didn't adopt a victim mentality and feel bad for
themselves after it was over. They just got back to work and fixed everything despite being treated unjustly. So, if I were teaching this, I would go that direction with it and say, "Look at what you can do to still succeed even if people or systems are treating you unfairly." And look at what an
inspiration that is. Am I meeting the standard if I do that? I certainly think I am. Don't see why we can't teach that. But here's the real key. It doesn't really matter if you agree or disagree. The the key is the state of Minnesota, rather the politicians and the bureaucrats of the
state of Minnesota did such a poor job writing these standards that even when you download their document and read it verbatim, you can't actually say if we're meeting them or not, no matter what you teach the students, because they don't tell you what all needs to be taught. They don't give you any indication of how you know if it was
taught. Um, so to give an example, I'll again make one up to if if I were in charge and I had to give specific criteria. Say I wanted to verify that fourth graders could multiply. I would say, okay, give them a 10-minute multiplication test with every combination of the numbers 0 to 10 being
multiplied together, and they need to get at least 85% right on that test. And if they can do that, then we know those those fourth graders can do multiplication. Do you see what I did there that the state of Minnesota doesn't do with all these standards? I actually gave the criteria that says how you know if the students know the
material. So they don't do that. So even if we want to teach the material, the state of Minnesota didn't really give us enough information to be able to do it in the first place. They just give these very vague standards that you can take in wildly different directions depending on how you interpret it. And then the
second kind of irony of all this, this again is true of even not just social studies but any standard. The MCA tests which is a state administered test for state standards would suggest that not only are things either plateau or things
are plateauing or only getting worse as time goes on. And yet the state doesn't seem to care. They do nothing about it. They just report the numbers. Twothirds of our students can't pass a math test and yet we go ahead and graduate them anyways. And so it it's particularly odd
then that the state issues standards in math or whatever subject and even a test to tell for meeting the standards and then every school district across the state proves every year that we're not even getting close to meeting the standards and then we just go on and graduate everybody anyways and the state of Minnesota doesn't care. So I would
say as much work as we have to do the state of Minnesota has significantly more work to do for all the reasons I've mentioned. And then finally, um I you you've said many times, uh Director Deshaine to ask questions. And so I I have I do that I make a point to
do that. One of the questions I've asked, this is an outstanding question. Still haven't gotten an answer for well over a year at this point. I've asked what does minimal compliance and balancing the this divisive social studies curriculum look like? Just what is that? Not we're going to do it. Just
tell me what it looks like. Never gotten an answer to that question. In fact, I think I'm not the only board member who's who's asked that question. And so to Director Hulman's point or co-chair Hulkman's point, when we have a rubric that's being developed despite having these unanswered questions, despite having all of these structural flaws to
how MDE wrote this stuff in the first place, I don't even know how we can say we're meeting the standards when Minnesota can't even say if we're meeting the standards because of how bad of a job they did writing this curriculum. And so I'm very interested in how these rubrics
are being built and set up because that is actually going to determine what's taught in the classroom and what what curriculum and materials we ultimately get. So I completely agree with Director Hulman. I think we're rushing through this simp I in fact I would go on further and at the risk of being being arrogant and not knowing what I'm
talking about. I would suspect that for many many many years now in the district we have not had a good curriculum adoption process because again just for the reasons I posed how do you even know you're meeting the standards in the first place if Minnesota can't tell you're meeting them and yet we just take
for granted that we are teach students all this stuff fail twothirds of them and then graduate them anyways so there are some serious structural flaws with how this is set up and I I would want to rework the whole Coach Langanger,
>> thank you. As we reflect on this, I know that you referenced to the uh ED report and air report within those standards in those documents. I would assume that there's more
granularity. So for example, when I look at the air report that you received, I can see very specifically under standard alignment materials present a clear pathway for educators to address the content and skills in coherent sequence
grounded in standards. Okay. So, there's a lot more underneath that um within that framework. Also, things like materials provide regular and varied opportunities for students to engage in
evidence-based reasoning and discourse, that kind of thing. And then I start to look within that. So, for me, it's more than just that bucket, you know. And the question is I I I believe there's a document that reflects this more deeply
and that would be something that I think we all really need to have to to go back and look deeper at what's been done. I I really look at that and think materials building knowledge. Here's another one. Materials provide opportunities for
students to build knowledge about content and concept through the analysis of a coherent selection of sequenced strategically sequenced discipline specific for both primary and secondary
learning. So are you using that and I you know and I believe you are because I saw it. That's the kind of thing that I think is not necessarily clear in the current document. that is a very high level. So it goes back to what are the teachers eval the tools and the depth
underneath um that as well because quite frankly and and I know director Arco I send you a really good document on both the combination of direct instruction and inquiry and how important they both are you know I mean they really are
there's no you you again that direct instruction is vitally important we talked about it in the grounding in and the science. So when I that was the one thing I went and looked for because that's so important and then we can take
those the the vocab words within there in that framework and so forth. So to me it goes back to um having a deeper dive in what what's there and then we can say okay this is missing or this is not or
or you know I don't I don't feel I have the depth of knowledge to be able to go deeper than what this is. I can do a high level of curriculum and instruction and I do have been teaching it since 2007. So I kind of know a little bit
about it at a university level. But this is the kind of thing to make sure that it's it's much deeper. It's not as as simple as it might look on the on the first brush if you're just looking at a rubric. And that's really important
though for our community to understand. We all want our kids to have that knowledge. And to the point of standards, they they do seem I I'm not disagreeing. They seem you can take them in many different ways and interpret them. I I agree with that. Um and I've
looked at them all as well. So there's a lot to unpack here. Um and I and my point is that a lot of work has been done and I think it's really important that we have have again I appreciate that the opportunity um for us to I'm I
want to come back and look some more um I would appreciate that um just to make sure that um what the what I'm hearing from fellow board members um is is I believe it's there. I believe but if
I've not seen it or heard it you know in the same way I you know and I might be interpreting what I see it's it's my perspective it's not you know to to to belittle anybody else's pers perspectives because each person's perspective raises another thought point
that you know I want to go back and look at. So anyway, I'll stop at that. But I do think a tremendous amount of work is done has been done and I do think that um we have we have to figure this out pretty swiftly because quite frankly
we're pretty far behind. Um and we've been we just it's very close in my head and I think that we just need a little more a deeper look at what's already there. Um, that would be my thought, but
I I don't think we stop. I I don't think that's helpful. So, >> Director Sim, >> thanks, Linda. A lot of great discussion. Um, one thing I want to comment on is at at least um
my um my perception and and the way I go about it as one board member about the process, right? So specifically state standards versus what a noah henipin does. So 7th grade um new standards were mentioned specifically um the ethnic
studies standards of 7.5.23.1 and um all of us for two years now have had the UBD documents that no henipin wrote for seventh grade. We have approved the materials but we have not approved uh implementing the new
standards and um so every board member has this they we can read exactly how Anoka Henipin is asking us asking the board because it will come before the board uh to implement every standard and I'll just give an example of 7.5.23.1
23.1 um some of the topics and there's in these documents there's links to everything. So if they want to show a video there's a link to the video you can watch it. I've um I've d dove into seventh grade. I finished all of seventh grade um previously and I'm redoing it.
Um but some of the things they're covering are African-Americans gain a voice by gaining a vote. Um talks about pie v Ferguson talks about amendment articles during reconstruction. There's a lot more in there. I won't list all of
them, but um this is something that at least I know we talked we've talked about not recently but two years ago and then a little bit that um allird members can look at this and see if they're okay with how Anoka Hannipin is implementing
that see if we can get to four votes and if we can't there's potential compromise we can make in there. So I just put it out there for every board member. I am willing to work with all of you. I think outside of a meeting, I can only work with two of you at one time, but I'm
really willing to work with you on these specific I guess 7th and 11th is the ones that we had out there that we've already implemented new materials. Maybe we start there and it becomes um maybe it can become a template, right, for how we work in the future. So, at least
specific to um Minnesota standards and how ANOM implements them. I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. Director Desaine, thank you. Um, Director Simon, thanks for raising that because I think that brings back an important point of um, what we were trying to do with this curriculum
adoption process discussion and sort of grounding in the timeline where we're at, which part of the process we're in for social studies, knowing that because we're using this process currently for social studies, it was an easy way to illustrate what the process is and how it works. It kind of is like real time
updates of what what's going on. I think for us the the phase we're in here, right, with the recommend because you've gotten through that beginning piece without materials to pilot, without materials for our teachers and our study committee and our experts to look at and
get into, we can't get to the next stage. Like we can't get to these UBDs like we have for seventh grade and 11th grade because we did approve materials to be used. We we did pilots prior to that. So then then people can actually spend their time diving into those um
those nuances and the intricacies of how complex the standards are and how um many approaches there could be to get at the learning that we want our students to have. So then we can get into a thoughtful discussion about well what does that look like and how could we be uh in alignment with the standards in a
way that the majority of this board can support. I I think we're we're sort of jumping ahead to that like yellow highlighted section on this curriculum adoption process stage uh when we're we're trying to be grounded in the fact that we need to continue moving forward
to get materials in place so that that teachers can look at them and start seeing what examples are there in these materials because we know curriculum writers or I'll call it textbook writers maybe that's a better differentiator textbook writers generally are not writing specific for Minnesota
standards. Some might be and I think in social studies we saw that and I did appreciate that opportunity to come to the room, look through the materials and get some background information on all of the work and all of the documentation that's behind this one-page overview of the process that we're talking about
today. It is um it it is enlightening and has a ton of information behind it that was super helpful for me as a board member as I was preparing for this work that's ahead of us. So, I I think that's just an important reminder for all of us like we're we're at we're at the stage
where we can get some actual books in our hands. We all have the opportunity to look at those books. Uh I like the idea, Director Simon, that you had of we have this example. We've had it for years from seventh grade that we could use that as a starting place to say, "Okay, we've written now some UBDs for
seventh grade using materials that the board approved. Let's talk through those and see what the majority of the board can line up behind for some of the the standards that might have more questions or more concerns uh around them. Director Aro.
>> So to kind of respond to both of the thoughts you guys put forward, I'm still just going to go back to we've asked many times for just what is minimal compliance and the fact that you have board members, multiple actually that have asked for this and have not received an answer. Um kind of pulls the
rug out from under the idea of asking questions. And then also it it that is this for me that is the starting point for what like director Simon you were bringing up. So, because you presented, okay, here's a bunch of things that have been selected for one of the ethnic
study strands. Okay. Um, but I want to know what before we even debate or discuss what may or may not be included anywhere, just what is minimal compliance for that? I'm just curious what is minimal compliance? Haven't got an answer to the question. And that is for me is going to frame the entire
discussion. >> Okay. Okay. Well, thank you so much for this discussion. Um just to we'll be looking forward um hopefully for answers for some of these questions. Uh one piece that I just would have another question that hopefully um you can come
back at another point with an answer for us is when materials are recommended and um two are offered. How do we know that those materials will address the
literacy needs that we have to address the tier one literacy aspects that we need to cover in all of our secondary courses um when the teachers haven't yet been trained in the science of learning. So
just how we're going to put all those pieces together um would be interesting to find out. So thank you all for your time. Our next agenda item is 4C 2026 property liability and cyber insurance.
Um, this renewal proposal will be presented by Greg Cole, chief operations officer. Good evening, co-chair Hulman, uh Superintendent McIntyre, members of the board. Um tonight, uh this is an update
uh to our annual insurance renewal process. We will not I'm not asking for a uh board decision right now. Uh the hope would be uh that after our presentation and opportunity for board members to ask questions or get clarification that this would go on the
consent agenda for approval at the next board meeting on April 27th. So again, not asking for uh any decisions tonight. Um you have a board briefing uh before you with some highlights with regard to uh the process
this year. Uh just a reminder, we uh have our renewal for insurance for uh property liability uh and cyber uh coverage on May 1st annually. Uh in the past, that used to be uh in January.
That was changed uh at the recommendation of our brokerage firm, Willis Towers Watson, to get favorable pricing. Uh that that's an optimal time of year uh for us to be doing that. Um this year uh we I'll just kind of go
through the different coverages and where we uh stand currently. Um this year uh we uh for property insurance we had uh two uh bids. Um we had one from
our incumbent insurer uh affiliated FM and one from uh CHUB uh which is an insurance company that we have worked with in the past. Um this particular uh competition for property insurance um resulted in a pretty favorable position
for us. Um and that competition between the two uh basically uh resulted in affiliated affiliated FM coming in with a slightly better um number than CHUB uh
in addition with for similarly situated um coverage and uh um deductibles and uh the reduction was about 180 $8,000 reduction um from what we were
paying in the past. Um this was a 20% drop and that's kind of re resulted from two two things which are true for all of these coverages. One has to do with um how we perform as a school district. Um
so affiliated brings out teams of engineers to our facilities. They go through those with us. they make recommendations on things that we could do to help our position and insurability. Um, sometimes we take those uh recommendations.
Very often they're free recommendations. These are things that we can do with regard to our to our practices. sometimes they're very expensive and they may not give us the return on investment that we we think they they should but the information is tremendously helpful and that is a service uh that is somewhat unique to uh
affiliated FM. So at this time based on the fact that their bid is lower and the and the coverage is the same and we get that uh service we are recommending at this time that we remain with affiliated FM on the property insurance
uh for liabilility and casualty insurance. Um our our incumbent Liberty Mutual um provided a general liability uh uh uptick of about 9% for school leaders. it was an uptick of about 18%
and for our auto coverage an increase of 23%. Those are in alignment with uh national trends for similarly situated uh coverages for entities our size.
On the cyber uh we're seeing about a 3% increase uh over last year again industry standard. One thing unique with cyber as well as the company AIG who is our incumbent um also provides uh our technical staff guidance on a regular
basis with regard to ways in which we can uh bolster our defenses against potential uh cyber threats. Um that is free uh service that we get and it is tremendously beneficial to us. um a similar type of situation that uh
affiliated FM provides us. Um so with that uh overall if we were to accept uh these three recommendation if you were to accept these three recommendations uh we would look we would be looking at
a proposed uh total insurance uh coverage package of $1,55,432 which would be down from what we currently pay at1,610,943 or a 6.5% % reduction uh in insurance
premiums uh from last year. I think since I started this in 2019, this is the first year we would be looking at a reduction. So with that, I would take any comments and questions from board members. >> Thank you for that information. Board
members, do you have any comments or questions? >> Director Duchaine, just a really brief comment. So, I think um just wanted a note of appreciation for working with our broker to figure out the best time of year for these renewals as a cost-savings initiative to try to find
um any opportunity that we can for for saving money. And uh additionally, the way that this is laid out, so it's really clear what kind of coverage we're talking about, where the numbers are coming from. Um I just I appreciated that it was easy to read and understand. Thank you. >> And I appreciate that. I just want to
mention one other thing. Um we do uh take very seriously the recommendations that we get um from these visiting teams because that's a cost savings for everybody. Um we we are we become a much more desirable organization to ensure um
long-term we don't necessarily pursue uh competition each year because there are very few players in this market. But we always want to be able, like we did with property this year, in future years, we will be wanting to uh get competition out there because we are a in a position
where we're doing the things that we need to be doing to uh protect our assets. >> Director Adette, >> hi. I just had one question on the property insurance. >> Um is is part of property insurance is our automotive property?
>> No, that is under the liability. So the liberty part is but what about the what about the physical damage of a vehicle? >> Um that so we have a specific automobile policy under the liability and it that includes that includes that that that
includes the physical piece of that or the equipment. >> Okay. Generally I' I've seen that separated where you're you're looking at what are you doing to ensure your physical property which is different than liability for accidents, claims, etc. And the reason I'm asking is it can
be uh advantageous to self-insure on the property damage. So you go out and you get into an accident and you break and you wreck the car. >> Sure. >> Um which is a totally separate part of somebody got hurt. >> Sure. Most people would not self-insure for somebody got hurt, but for the
property damage part of the car, if you look at, you know, uh somebody like Willis could could run the the numbers that on claims related to that and actually tell you whether or not uh a self-insured
uh segment for that property damage would be advantageous over the premium itself, just based upon your own actuarial history of what kind of losses have we have we had. Yeah, >> I've obviously had that done before, so that's why I wondered about it. But >> let me investigate that further.
>> You don't need to do it for this. I I'm on board with >> making this. It might be a It might be a down the road question. >> Oh, absolutely. I'll investigate it further with them. Thanks. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, thank you so very much. um presentation and
>> we will now um we're now nearing our next agenda item rather is 4 D language access plan. Welcome Jim Skellyy our executive director of communication and public relations and Tom Shaw director of student services.
Well, good evening. Uh, Superintendent McTire, co-chair Hogman, co-chair Langfeld, and members of the board. Uh, Mr. Skelling, Mr. Skellyy and I are here tonight to present the Anoka Henipin language access plan. Um, go to
the next slide. This plan details how we communicate with our families in Anoka Henipin that don't speak English as their primary language. A state statute requires us to create this plan and make it public. This plan is aligned with our mission and vision and organizes existing
communication systems and resources that we have in place for all of our families in in noman and it does not require any new funding. Language access plans are common uh around the nation in schools and private businesses and uh you can
find them especially in like healthcare and things like that to make sure that uh they are aligned with HIPPA and things like that. Um this slide is information that illustrates the scope and need of this plan. We have 3,500 English language
students in the district. We have 178 language languages spoken and we have 73,000 minutes of ondemand interpretations that are used in such things as um IEP meetings, conferences, and and welcoming families to our
district. Uh the language plan also helps staff efficiently communicate with families by utilizing technology to deliver district information. Here are some common formats of delivery. Uh we have phone and video on demand interpretation, document translation. An example of this
may be our special education handbook for parents and guardians. Uh district and school communication and email and newsletters. And then uh a real strength of ours is teacher communication. That's two-way. and our teachers can communicate um with families in uh many
different languages and explain complex things that are going in the co classroom real time. We've also found that parents enjoy texting a lot. Uh that is also part of the system. So just what is a language access plan? Uh we did include a copy in your background material to take a look at at
what it is, but it's a essentially just it's a written document that outlines the processes and procedures to ensure the effective language uh assistance to students and adults um who communicate in a language other than English. Um
so that is out there for community review as well as board review. Um, our plan is a 10-page document that basically um takes what we're currently doing in our district and puts it into a a document. So, this isn't anything new u for our community. It's just new in a
plan kind of in one document. Um, our overall goal in Noah Henipin has been to deliver language for non-English speakers at the same time that our English speaking families get that. So, when Mr. Shaw mentioned technology, that's primarily what that means. So, if
we're sending out a newsletter uh to the community, they have the ability to translate it. Our website trans, you can translate that yourself into those languages. Um, and these are things that we're purchasing for um, you know, for all people in our community to be able
to uh, connect with the school district. And then the two-way text messaging system, which allows for real-time translation, which has been a real benefit for u connecting parents and teachers and staff. And I think it's been a benefit for the staff as well as far as their effective um use of their
time. Um can we just go back one more? Um I just wanted to the main elements in this plan are um just defining what language access is and how languages are identified in our district, what services are provided, how families uh
are able to access communication, just the training and support that's available and then who to contact at the district if you have a language access need. And really our goals of this plan are simple. We want to increase connection uh to school for families and students
and improve uh parent and guardians participation in education which is a goal for kind of a foundational goal of the district. And then we're looking to improve academic achievement and social connection for students and families. This is a two-year this would be like a two-year plan. The statute says that the
board would review it again in two years. Um of course you could do that early if you'd like, but as Mr. Shaw mentioned, it's a state statute. So that's why we're here tonight to present the plan. So, um, if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. And our plan would then be to bring this back for
approval at a future meeting. >> Thank you for that presentation. Board members, do you have any comments or questions? >> Thank you. >> Wonderful. Thank you. >> Thank you. We are nearing our last board agenda item. Item five, board correspondence
and communication. Members, this is your opportunity to share happenings in your community, report on committee assignments, or other items of interest. Does anyone have anything to share? Director Arco, >> I was just going to mention so I've
tried this idea two times now where I just rent a study room at Johnsville Library and the community can come and just chat. I think I've had around 40 people or so total come. So, thank you to everybody who came and I'll probably keep doing something like this in the future. Not this week. I'm busy on
Saturday, but u I think it's a good thing to keep doing. So, thank you to everybody who has come. Coach Langangerfeld. >> Thank you. Um before us, board members, you have a a document that actually came from Hoover Elementary. The biomedical,
health, science, and engineering program over there. Their fourth grade students hosted in partnership with the American Red Cross, a wonderful blood drive. And I had the privilege to stop over there because my schedule allowed it. I know schedules are really hard sometimes to
get to all the places, but it was extraordinarily well done. Our fourth grade students take the lead on that and create all the planning around it and bring all the all the volunteers together and support. And we actually had in partnership with our fourth grade
students and the Red Cross, we had students from Rapids High School join as well as volunteers part of students from the health and occupations students of America program. HOSA were there as well as biomed students. um and
they were afforded the opportunity to learn quite a bit about blood donations and platelets and things through the different opportunities uh during this blood drive in partnership with American Red Cross. So, I just wanted to give Principal Minstrus and Vice Principal
Matt Thompson and the teachers and staff and curriculum coordinators and the amazing fourth graders big shout out. um they had uh every slot filled and then they also had some walk-ins. So, it was
um just wonderfully well done. Um I also had the privilege um along with Director Adet and maybe you want to talk about MAD City Money. Um it's actually a wonderful program that our district offers in financial literacy which we all know is very important working with
middle school students from AVID and Compass. um bringing students together and having them go through a full simulation where they have to uh purchase homes and uh opportunities uh like vacations if they have any money
left. Um and you were selling cars. Is that where >> Yeah. fun stuff. >> All the fun stuff. Um but there was a lot of activity there and quite frankly some students really were um really um trying to understand equity in home
ownership and so forth. So it's a really important parts of the work that is being done for our kids here in Anoka Henipin and extremely well done and I know many many volunteers were there but um was coordinated through Erica Dalan. A big shout out for her um through
Compass and Denise Collins here at the district as well. And you know I'm going to give a big shout out to the Polar Plunger that's sitting at the table. So, um, the Polar Plunge took place at Champlain Park High School, the fifth annual, and it is a fundraiser for
benefiting the unified club there, which is a very important club. Their advisor, shout out to Maya Miller for all her extraordinary work. Student staff, and then people just impulsively um, principal George uh, did the plunge.
Uh, principal Pñena was there in support. Uh the temperature was about 40 degrees that day. The day before it was 70. Um and then uh board member Duchaine also plunged as well. Um in her jeans. I
was impressed. Um but it it it really was a highly highly successful opportunity and um I was grateful to be there and see it. um extraordinary student involvement, cheering each other on and kids in the unified program going
in and supporting one another. Um really a wonderful thing to see in terms of interaction and support and just fellowship and wonderful things. And I heard they made a lot of money as well. So all good. All good.
Great things happening is really what I'm telling you. Those are just a few I saw. Okay, very good. Thank you. Um, the next item, item six, will be conducted in closed session. The executive session will be closed pursuant to Minnesota
statute 13D.03 to discuss labor negotiation strategies with the following open groups. Education office professionals, PAR educators, child nutrition site supervisors, and building supervisors.
The closed session will be held in the Michael Sullivan room. I would entertain a motion to move to close session. >> Thank you, Director Simon. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Director Arco. Is there any
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any oppose say no. With six in favor and zero opposed, we will move to the close session in the Michael Sullivan room. We will take a 5m minute break. The meeting
is recessed at 7:31.