to the March 10th Lakeville Area Schools uh school board work session. Um we're meeting early tonight as all of us in this room know, but there's township elections tonight. Um so we moved our meeting up to four o'clock. We do need to end by 6 at the absolute latest to comply with state law. I believe it's
state law. Yes, thank you. Um and I had learned a fun fact yesterday on NPR. I was telling Matt that um all counties in Minnesota have townships except Henipin. So it's a big deal tonight for around the state. I didn't realize that. So
including our county Dakota. So with that, um we'll go around for roll call. I'm Amber Cameron, uh school board member. >> Brenda Alrech, admin services. >> Paul Carbone, school board member. >> Carly Anderson, school board. >> Aaron Casper, National Insurance Services.
>> Tracy Broald, executive director of teaching and learning. Uh, Matt Swanson, school board member. >> Emily McDonald, assistant superintendent. >> Brian Thompson, school board. >> Lucas Yoho, operations. >> Michelle Humphrey, executive director of student services. >> Kim Baker, school board.
>> Bill Hungren, executive director of dental services. >> Michael Bowman, superintendent. >> Great. Thanks, everyone. Um, we have three things on our agenda tonight. uh medical and dental renewal, the ELA core resource recommendation for grades 9 through 12, and the quarterly uh data
review in an effort to try to get through all of these. Uh we're going to shoot for allocating around 30 minutes per topic. And we'll we see we'll see how we do. Um uh that way we can hopefully end by six o'clock. Uh well, we have to end by six o'clock. So with
that, um I would like to thank Aaron Casper for joining us today. I also learned Aaron is um not in your role. why you're here, but you're chair of the Enra Prairie School Board, which I think gives context for >> to to everything that we do here. So, I appreciate that. Um, Erin is a consultant with the National Insurance
Services, um, and is here to talk about the medical and dental renewal for our district. >> Thank you, Chair Cameron, and, uh, members of the board as well as the administrative team. So, I'll go ahead and kick us off. I think in your, uh, respective packets, you've got, uh, kind of just some talking points here. Uh it
it probably we we'll give you some share some information and kind of our process and and our analysis and our recommendations as you'll be considering >> um some action at a future meeting, a business meeting, but really just we'll open it up for some questions too. And I just want to say before I get into the
the information [laughter] um I really appreciate you having me out. I know this is u I think year four or five that I've been out um either in an actual uh business meeting to talk through some information or in a a board work session. So do appreciate that. It just gives all of us an opportunity to kind
of get our hands around the topic. I mean, we recognize that it's your second largest budget bucket uh here at the district. So it's important one and I'm sure all of us have been hearing what's going on out in the uh marketplace. So, uh, with that, uh, really the context
for our medical insurance here, um, for the next meeting and here today is really our required, uh, statutory, um, bid requirement to go out and, um, bid out our administrative services, our stop-loss insurance, as well as our
pharmaceutical uh, pharmacy benefit manager. Uh, it's a it's a PEP statute. It's designed to go ahead and create uh fully insured uh plans as well as pulled plans that are not PEEP and then uh also self-insured plans. So, we've got a little uniqueness that we are
self-insured. So, we're really just bidding out the those components. So, we have to do that every two years unless there is agreement by the largest bargaining unit to wave that um uh statute or that requirement. So, we did
um go out for that process in 2026 and we have structured our bid responses to have an initial response as well as a best and final response. And the reason we do that is that we've found probably 80% of the time those uh best and final
response there typically is a revision or two by multiple carriers uh which is ultimately better for the members as well as the the district uh from a plan sponsor perspective. So when we went out um for bid uh this year uh we received
uh seven responses including our incumbent uh provider which is Blue Cross Blue Shield, Health Partners, Healthy Easy, Medica, PEEP, United Healthcare uh and Crumb Specialty um which brought uh Express Scripts to the table and I'll talk about that here
momentarily and especi essentially what Crumbdale Specialty does is they are a firm that manages the pharmacy benefit benefit manager. That is something that National Insurance Services wouldn't do. Uh they have a team of pharmacists that basically evaluate um their programming,
their script offering in terms of their formulary. So they essentially manage the the PBM or the pharmacy benefit manager. Uh we did have five best and final responses on the secondary uh bid and uh of those respondents um our most
competitive responses were Bluec Cross Blue Shield, our incumbent healthy Z which is a third party administrator uh and then specifically on the pharmacy benefit component it was Chromedale and Express Scripts when we did our analysis
and we were taking a look at certainly cost bottom line cost but also assessment of risk within the plan. uh and presented that to district administration as well as the representative insurance committee. Um it was our recommendation that we remain uh with Blue Cross Blue Shield in the
administrative component of the plan as well as the stop-loss but carve out the uh pharmacy benefit manager with express scripts. uh we feel that we're going to be able to get a a bigger um uh rebate
uh from them as well as um additional maximize our additional cost savings uh in that in that type of environment. We have done that probably a handful of times with some other um uh districts throughout the state and it's been successful uh in that and I would say
their process and transition is extremely thorough. Uh and we're trying to minimize the impact to our members as much as we possibly can. Um, what I can share with you tonight, and I got this information today, earlier this morning,
is that of all of ouries that we're currently utilizing, we're going to have a 98.5% coverage. So, essentially 499ies um and eight um we will are are not going to be covering. Um so, there will be some options for those folks. And
then from a uh total uh script perspective, um we're capturing uh 99 or 99.8% 8% of our retail claim scripts. So there there is a formulary change which is the pharmaceutical listing. There's always changes to that. Even actively
while we're remain in one uh with one provider uh in any type of transition, there's always a change. That's a little bit of heartburn for folks. Um it's going to be minimum at at best. So we'll be we'll be proactive in communicating that. Um assuming uh the board approves that recommendation.
uh the medical market uh that we've seen is experiencing um still significant increases and adjustments in the fully insured market in the poolled environment. Uh medical trend has gone up. Uh right now uh the carriers that we're talking to um we're pegging medical trend in u the low
double digits. So around that 11 12% range and that's even here in the seven county uh metro metropolitan area. you get outstate and greater Minnesota and where they don't have as much access uh and you have declining things like declining enrollment uh and uh it it's
actually even even higher than that. So um that's just kind of the state of the state kind of where we're at. uh our specialty drug classes as well as uh GLP-1s um and uh those types of uh you know for diabetic treatment as well as weight
loss have seen an incredible growth uh in the in the marketplace overall. Um and that is where we're experiencing some of our uh increased spend here uh at Lakeville as well. So when we take a look at um our our
plan performance uh which is again driving um our our claims experience over the last 12 months um we've seen higher uh utilization uh over and beyond the 12 previous months. And remember we take 24 months of total data. We we
bring that together. We more heavily weight the most recent 12-month period and then we run it through a formula to come up with kind of where our revenue needs to be and where we are today. And that's that's essentially our difference. >> Can I can I Yeah. So when you say the last 12 months, are we talking about
February 28th through last February 28th or are you talking about school year starting July 1st until end of June? >> Yeah. So that that's a great question. Uh I I I'm pulling up I'm going on memory here. Um we're not going February to February because this is in a lag
position. So more than likely we're pulling in December data. December. So almost a calendar year. >> Calendar year. Yeah. And just so just to put in context, we're always looking at 24 months. When we get a new month's uh of worth of claims data, the oldest month falls off. So it's a rolling 24
month. >> Okay. So we're always we're always moving forward. >> The only thing that would really impact our our renewal is the further away we are actually from our renewal, which is 71 or July 1st, is the more trend we have to build into that plan, that model um to account for the months that we
haven't yet incurred. >> Yeah. So in a perfect world, we would renew June 30th, but we can't do that because that's not how the world works. So we always have lag in our position. So we have to model that on a go forward basis. So we do the same thing as an underwriter would do. >> So So that $3 million delta variance
over the past 12 months. Is that including I'm assuming that that includes the outlier that we had last year, but we don't really know. I mean >> Yeah. Yeah. Help me through that because we're spending 20 we're spending $3 million more than the last three the last >> Yeah. >> 12 months is what I read. Is that right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So, yeah. So, the most recent 12 months 29.7 million compared to 26.8 million. >> Yeah. Compared to the previous 12 months behind that. So, the 29 million is the outlier month or a year was what I'm trying to get to. But do we know
since you know September how are we compared to not the previous 12 months but the previous previous 12 months because I'm trying to gauge if like are we are we in a is our outlier year last year going to be the standard you know
what I mean does that make sense? >> Yeah I would say it's going to be the standard. >> Okay. Uh and the reason being is is so you know right now if medical trends at 12% and you take our essentially $30 million group you know you can put 12% on top of that group.
>> Yeah. You know that's that's what we're looking at. So unfortunately I wish I could tell you something different Mr. Thompson but the the I think it's going to be the new norm. >> The new norm. So, so then so can I ask the last 12 months is it because claims just went higher because the utilization
was higher or because the cost was higher that we recognized towards the tail end of that month meaning that this up this the current cycle that we're in if the utilization stays the same uh we're and then the cost is actually going to be increased again. It's going
to be higher than what we actually had last year. But if the utilization actually drops because compared to last year then the cost actually should be lower. I'm just trying to like I'm not saying your $35 million estimate is wrong, but I'm like do we have a chance that it might be lower than 35? That's all. >> We'd like to see that, >> right? [laughter] Yes.
>> Of course. >> Yeah. I'm just like, >> all right. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Totally. Yeah. Is it are more people using or is the services more expensive? Yes. >> Or both? >> And the answer to that is >> And the answer to that is both. Yeah. So, what we've seen is we've seen um
higher frequency and um higher costs within our high claimments. Now, we've got stop-loss protection at $200,000 cap level, right, to help us on those specific instances. >> That's per claim, not per per uh >> per member, right? That's that's per member. That's not per claim.
>> Well, it's it's per member. >> Okay. >> Right. So, what happens is, you know, and and I I've got some data just actually right here. So, if you actually come down on page three, those that have it, uh you know, our so our total member claims under $50,000. Okay. Yeah.
threshold 15.7 million or just under 3600 members. So that's a belly button 3,585. While total member claims over 50,000 >> represents 14.7 million or 110 membersh.
>> Right. Last year, if you recall, it was actually a little bit little bit worse percentage-wise, but we had 80 members. Now we've got 110. >> Yeah. It's it's not unusual for a smaller number of uh the population to be the higher volume of claims. I mean
that happens a lot. >> Correct. It's the 8020 rule. It >> it is the 8020 rule. Right. But my question is this. Um you've got almost an even split 16 million 15 million roughly. Uh 110 members versus 35 almost
3600 members in that um 110 member population. Are are we looking at is Blue Cross looking at um the the top five or 10 procedures that are driving those claims
and driving that utilization? And are they looking at anything to uh wrap their arms around those procedures and see if there's some way they can lower cost? Whether that has to do with the >> I don't think it's their job. >> No, no, it is their job. No, no, no. It
it is an insurance company's job to work with providers and contract with providers to keep to keep procedural costs low and it and it and it is um it is their job to look at benefits and manage care programs within within plans
and to make recommendations to say this would um A would lower B by C. Um so so there the insurance company particularly Blue Cross would have some responsibility here to to hopefully come
up with maybe some suggestions. So so there in lies my question. >> Yeah. So they they do you know providers do have um cost containment cost management programs internally. They do have those. >> However, we're not we're not talking about the you know the $25,000 claims,
right? We're talking about the 250 and up claims, $500,000 claims. just inherently because of what that claim represents, it's it's difficult to manage because there's generally a very high cost specialty drug associated with
that particular claim and the andor some surgical procedures that are that could be pretty expensive. So, are they managing that? Yes, they are. But it's still a giant number on a per member basis, right? So I think we we have we
have probably we have more we have we have more opportunity to manage the the 80% versus the 20%. Because the 20% is kind of the 20%. It's the cancers, it's the conditions, it's the ortho, it's the or not the ortho but the
orthopedic. So it's those it's those things that are that are just happening uh and they kind of have a cost derived to them. >> Yeah. So so reverse my question. Yeah. >> Then what are they doing with the 3,600 members? >> A healthy
>> same question, but you know, is there something that's that they can do to create impact since since it's self-insured and every time something happens, uh, Bill writes a check for whatever that amount is, >> right? >> You know, what is Blue Cross doing? >> Um, and and I'm not saying that in a
derogatory sense. I'm just I'm asking the question. >> Yeah. the so there there's inherently um management programs within various providers and I will say this some do a better job than others uh as a self-insured plan it's it's really up to
us to try to make sure >> that's our job >> yeah to make >> and and and leverage out those programs what I can tell you you know we're currently in a carvedin model which basically means blue cross blue shield does our administration they do our stop loss and they do the PBM and all that is
essentially behind the curtain now we do have some transparency that but and I'm not saying anything bad about Blue Cross, okay? Because they they in a carved in model, that's how they operate. It's really up to us uh to challenge them to manage their plans and and I would say the one of the main
reasons why we're recommending a a carveout option for for our members and our plan is because we've given them the opportunity to manage the pharmaceutical side [cough] and and we [clears throat] haven't really seen that come to fruition. >> So now we have to take that into um our own hands and force that and Really what
that's going to mean is it's it's going to be uh going to mean much more transparency for us as a plan sponsor and certainly we can roll that up to the board too in some reports. >> Transparency and then guarantees on performance of exactly what you're talking about exactly
>> in terms of the management there. So, the the trade-off for that, the trade-off for the savings is going to be, and it's real, and we've talked about it in the insurance committee, is that some of our members, not all, but some of our members are going to are going to experience some friction within
the system, right, in terms of how they access and how they've traditionally access um pharmaceuticals or been approved for those things. or they may have to do certain things to be able to receive a certain pharmaceutical, right, within a within a either a a diabetes
diagnosis or a weight loss um program. It's not that they're there to decline it, it's there to manage it. Do do we have at the district someone who's responsible for managing this the the utilization the um uh not to encourage them that they shouldn't go to
healthcare because if they got to go they got to go but like just to understand we have anything that yeah to manage the 35 $30 million claims >> scenario I I would say >> because if it's on us and if we don't have anybody then we're not even like
we're not doing our part. >> So it's it's a it's a combination of things. So I I would say do we have a dedicated person that just does this? No. Other than the fact that we do rely on you know again some programs are better than others within the with
underneath the uh carrier umbrella. Um we have deployed strategies. So that's where you know you kind of rely on us to say as an organization and consulting firm to say hey we need to deploy this strategy we need to deploy this these levers to go ahead and try to mitigate
those costs. And to a large degree, I think we've done a phenomenal job. We've really received from my from my lens anyways um really good participation and engagement from our existing representative insurance committee and their members and the communication
whether it's coming out of Brenda's department in the HR uh folks folks you know getting that those messaging out because we've seen that uh manifest itself in our increased utilization as well as participation in the various levers and programs that we've deployed
at the end of the day. I'm sorry. >> No, >> at the end of the day, it it's the utilization is a byproduct of just members that need to go see a doctor and then also the plan design that we have. The plan design that we have uh gives our members the flexibility
to take advantage of healthcare needs when they need to and and that's just the way the plan design is set up. >> And because of that, the utilization then is probably maybe higher than maybe typical. >> Yeah. Well, you know, so we we have we have rich plans in here. There's there's
no doubt about that. Uh we do have uh and we have seen and we will see for sure in this next open enrollment period. Um we're going to see migration within our existing population. We saw that last open enrollment. [clears throat] So, you know, people are going to move when they're impacted in
their pocketbook. That that's what's going to happen or something else, but mostly it's financial uh and there is convenience. So, the way that we have our plan structured today, um, you know, that's that's that's been our culture here. Uh, and it's kind of where we're at now. We do have a high deductible
health plan, a $4,000 plan, we're going to see more migration over to that, uh, plan that I would anticipate that. Absolutely. As as as premium increases impact pay, um, people are going to make make some decisions. Uh and uh but but
what I would would caution um here is that even if so if we have a half a million dollar claim or a $300,000 claim >> whether I'm on a $500 deductible or am I on a $4,000 deductible >> we just had a $300,000 claim or $500,000. >> Right. So that that's going to that's
going to impact us no matter what. Uh and ultimately we just try to have to figure out how can we create an environment within our population that we can try to mitigate or reduce the the chances of those >> and that goes back to your 80% saying how do we make sure that they don't
become the 20 but of those that are in the 20%. How do we ensure that we've got programs or is there a dedicated resource within our team that is ensuring that those 20% are managing so that we minimize the amount of 400 $500,000 cares that might that might
turn into that >> and that's difficult right that's difficult because that's a that's an undiagnosed cancer diagnosis that comes comes up you know in June of 2026 right and you know and how insurance works of course is that the the 3500 to 3,600
people that are using it less or half, right? They're they're putting in that revenue to help the 20% and any one of us around this table can be and maybe we have been we can be one of the 20% at some point in time,
>> right? So it's uh it's it's a it's a tricky uh discussion. And then of course we we have statutory uh constrictions on on what we can and cannot do in terms of um changing our plans. We have statutory
limitations uh relative to aggregate value. So we we have to live within the confines of the law. Um so what we're what we're doing is we're we're trying to manage the best we can with with the tools that we have access to, right? And I think the the biggest thing and you'll
see here momentarily the the biggest one for us that is going to be a big thing because uh you know pharmaceutical spend represents I think it was last year 31% of our total spend and 30% this year. Uh we see that and we're projecting that to grow. Our GOP1 category in of itself you
know almost grew to a million dollars year-over-year. Uh and that that was not only the number of participants the additional scripts but also the cost associated with that. So, we kind of had rising tides everywhere, >> right? And I'm not that's zero judgment
on I mean that's between a member and their physician. So, I'm not I'm just telling you kind of where where some cost drivers are. We peg that we estimated that it would be about a $500,000 increase. Well, it was about $800,000 increase. >> So, that trend line is scary. Do do you
think that the the 110 that we had that made up that 20% last year or the past 12 months are we on trajectory to have 110 as well for this upcoming or are we looking at are we going to potentially go back to 89 because once you have something are
you considered out after the procedure is done or XYZ and or back in maintenance mode and then my second question is that u uh no I'll leave it as that. Go ahead. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So, what I would tell you, how we look at it is that it's the new norm until until we see the data
tell us it's not. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And and that is is that's just we we can't afford to be wrong in terms of >> um underpegging our revenue. We just can't do that. A, I'm not going to be sitting at this table anymore, and B,
you're going to be having a huge hole to fill. >> So, we we just can't afford to do that. If that answers your question. >> Yeah. You have a question. >> Yeah. um back on the high-risisk group or the the higherend claims. I know we have a $200,000 stop loss for each individual claimant. Um but even there,
I mean, if you have 75 people at $200,000, you know, we're at $15 million already. Yeah. >> Is it is it not possible to get a lower stop loss? >> So, just too expensive. That makes it >> Yeah. So, what I Yeah. So, that's a
great question. So, I was I was You kind of threw me for a loop. we went the other way. So often times people ask, "Well, we're at 200,000." Well, it makes sense the premiums on the stop loss are going to go down if we raise the stop loss up, right? So, we're leverage up the stop loss.
>> There's a there's a there's a calculation we use to to to we never want to leverage our stop-loss premium um to try to save some plan expenses. And the reason being is we can get burned by that >> 200,000. We would not recommend going
below a $200,000 stop-loss uh because the amount because a anyone that would try to underwrite us at let's say $150,000, they've seen our experience. They they're going to know what we've done and they're going to say, "Whoa, whoa, you're going to hit this and they're they're just going to adjust
their premium prices to capture that that profit point." So, for us, the only direction we're going to go is we're going to go up eventually, but this is when we do it. we we will leverage up that that individual stop-loss amount when we have a return to a lesser claims
activity, right? Not when we're currently in the thick of it because that that can be dangerous. Um and then what are we saving versus what are we gaining um in that type of environment? >> I mean, so is that going to be based on, you know, the age of our employees
though, like the average age of employees? because isn't it somewhat unpredictable as far as what that top 20% is going to be? >> It's not necessarily going to be based on the average age of our our our demographic. It's really going to be where how have we utilized our stop
loss. So out of 110, how many hit that 200,000? And remember that was 110 was over 50,000, not all 200. So it it's really we've got a we've got a a formula, a calculation, a model that basically is going to tell us when does
this make sense. We actually have two models that we pump it through. So we're we're doing that analysis, >> you know, every renewal cycle. >> But for now, um it it would be a potential bigger cash flow hit for us at a time when we really can't afford to
take that cash flow risk. Um, if we were to leverage that up, >> do we want to have a dash? >> I mean, right. >> I know car Oh, sorry. Do you have a followup to that one? >> Well, just along the same I mean, there are there other other strategies that districts have used to, you know,
address a high-risisk group. [snorts] >> I mean, like paying their deductible, their deductible to be on the high deductible plan. >> Yeah, there's there there's there's some out there. We're actually looking at some right now, not only for Lakeville, but also a handful of other districts that have had a a a
higher [snorts] frequency of high-cost claimants where um and and I'm just going to paint it at the 10,000 foot level where the law says you can't you can't provide anything less to an employee and it has to be uniform in [snorts] application so
somewhat voluntary but there there there might be and it's not known yet there might be some strategies that we could use to identify some um chronic high-cost claimants to to redirect direct them >> and basically make their out of pocket
and their care covered. That would be a less impact on the overall plan. So there they are out there. Uh because is it is it the copay plan that's kind of killing us? >> Well, it's and so I'm not talking about the the the plans that we have availability like the $20 copay and the
500 and the 4,000. What I would say to that is kind of what I mentioned earlier. If we're going to have a $300,000 claim, it doesn't matter if it's on a $20 co-pay plan or it's on the 4,000 plan. That the amount of that is dimminus. It doesn't the differential is
is small. >> Um so it it it does impact how we're used to act how our members are used to accessing care. >> Yeah. >> Right. And right, wrong or indifferent, we're in a paternalistic environment. We
have been for historically. And uh you know this is debatable but the but the fact is is that you know when we compare ourselves often to the private sector our benefits are higher in value and our salaries are less in value and and you
know if we if we assume that that is a a reasonable um point of discussion there's you know and then of course we have as well everyone is well aware you know we have a a collectively bargain environment here right so takes takes two parties to agree to an an agreement,
right? So, we we have that going on as well and over time and we have to identify our priorities, right? If we want >> Oh, can I I'm just going to do a time check because we got two other things we need to go through today. >> Uh I know Carly has been waiting to ask a question. So, I'm wondering Aaron if we could
>> I wasn't I was giving you a five minute. >> Oh, you're you're g Okay, we're [laughter] past. >> She will say she has five questions. She wants >> I'm wondering if we could >> I can I can move it. we could um you know spend five more minutes getting to what the recommendation to the board will be that we need to consider for
approval correct at the end of this month. >> Absolutely. All right. Great Cameron. Yeah. Yeah. So what what I would say is on the bottom of page three there that is exactly that um we've run the financials. We shared this with district administration and um you know the
insurance committee. Um we're recommending an aggregate increase of 15% uh effective 71 for our plan. Um, all three of our plans are going to be impacted that by that slightly differently. Uh, we're associating a premium equivalent to the value associated with that plan in comparison
to the other two that are being offered. Um, so really what that means is that, you know, one plan might be at 13.8, one plan might be at 17.5, one plan might be at 15.8. There's going to be variabilities in there. Couple reasons we need to do that. We need to we need to protect uh revenue and we need to
align the rates meaning making sure that the the the premium equivalent price that we're charging for that plan is equal to that plan value in relationship to the other two that are being offered. That's an insurancey thing. But we need to do that because we will see alignment
>> um well I would say we're going to see realignment in our existing uh enrollment. So the cost of the co-ay plan, what I'm hearing is will be higher than >> actually the opposite. The our our higher our highest deductible plan is actually going to get the largest
increase. And our our $20 co-pay plan, and it's only a percentage or two, is going to be probably the lesser of the two. And again, that's a formulaic um modeling. It doesn't seem that that would be the right way to do it, >> but it's again, it's all based on value.
So that would make that's raw dollars, right? So a smaller percentage on a smaller a higher percentage on a smaller amount raw dollars >> less than a higher >> a lower percentage on a high dollar amount. >> You got it. >> So it's still raw dollars. >> Correct. >> Yeah.
>> Correct. Yeah. So we are recommending uh that 15% um in the aggregate that that accounts to a $4.6 million um increase uh assuming our current current plan enrollment. So, we're taking people where they're at today, right, with the
plans, etc. And we do know that we're going to we're going to have that. >> I'm going to I'm going to save page four. You can you can take a look at that on your own and certainly if you've got follow-up questions, you can. I'm going to concentrate on uh page five with the remaining time. I've got a
couple things that we've talked about previously. We've got healthiest you which is our virtual care for our you know what we're what we're communicating to our members and and the association the teach association has done a great job the other bargaining units have done a great job of really getting this out to the members. We can see that in our
in our enrollments we can see that in our utilization. Uh this is our first stop for non-emergent care. This that's the that's what we're communicating. Uh we were able to have a 100% claims removal of 400 just under $425,000
last year for a benefit that we are not paying for by the way for a program. We we've negotiated that with Blue Cross and they do have um some payment there. We are going to have to chip in a little bit at our 71 renewal. We are taking the pharmacy away. That's our
recommendation. So it's 175,000. Uh but then also our other program there is Amplify um through Salarte Health. Um we've seen we've seen a a a rather uh large uptick in um this this type of
program. In this one we're we're essentially paying cash prices for a lot of common um procedures, conditions, those types of things. Uh and um we do have some savings there. Uh and you can see there Q3 2025. We don't have Q4 yet.
Um, we should have that momentarily. Uh, came in at just under $630,000. So, uh, a lot of our members are using it. The one thing I say where we've got the the opportunity is our dependent. So, dependent spouses, dependent children, primarily 18 to age 26. If we we have a
hard time getting to them because we don't really have a venue to do that. So, if they can go ahead and increase their membership and participation in the program, that's higher uh claims redirection. I got just one more financial question more more for maybe both of you and Bill. Um who determines
the 15% increase is that even is that going to be enough? Because if all things were equal and actually we're not because prices are going up and we anticipate utilization potentially go up. Um if they both do go up or do you projecting are our the the savings
account balance to be after a whole year has gone by with this increase? Is the increase to be just break even or is it increase to actually put more money into this account? >> Slightly. I think we've got a a couple points in there, two to three points in there to try to add. But how we
determine that is we've got two different models that we run it through and they do the same thing. They look at things slightly different within our plan model and then we kind of it's a an art and a science. So right now we're running at 99% claims to revenue,
>> right? But then we've got to account for for increasing costs to your point as well as administrative expenses. So, um, we feel comfortable with the 15. Um, and I would say, you know, as we kind of take a look out, if we continue on this on this track, we're we're going to have to stabilize again. So, we're probably
again trends at 12%. We're probably looking at another double digit. >> So, so, but if it's 12% and we're putting putting 15 uh, and the utilization and the costs are all going all going up, like that puts zero in your savings account. I mean, is that >> you're saying you're estimating 1% is what you're saying.
>> We're we've got within that 15% we've got two to 300 basis points built in. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And so what I would say too is that >> we should have 30% in our savings account in that account. >> It's, you know, we we've intentionally ran our plan kind of on the screws over
the last 5 years. Um, and there's a there's a variety of reasons why we've done that. um notwithstanding our collectively bargain process and kind of what we have. So it's it's it's difficult, you know. So for instance, what if next year we see that return to
maybe more of a norm. >> We what what happens there is is then we're able to build into our fund 20 reserve. >> Um we will we will stabilize. I mean that's going to happen. It's just is it going to be after this next plan year or is it going to be after the next one?
>> Right. >> Well, I guess the bottom line is like there's no consequences for you guys. If you lose money and you don't project correctly and we're and we're negative a million or$2 million dollars, you like you don't get fired, do you? >> Oh, I for sure we could. >> I mean, you can. Yeah, we absolutely could.
>> I or I get fired. I mean, if we're if we're not projecting correctly and we're in the negatives of again, the school the community gets is responsible for it. Our taxpayers have to pay that for sure >> coming out of our general savings account. And so I'm not saying 15%
>> is the wrong number. I just want to make sure are we is that is that enough for based on the percentage 12% that you're seeing the 110% utilization and then pretty much the negative $500 that we have $500,000 in the savings account for
the health insurance fund where we technically need that to be about $9 million. I mean that's where it needs to be. >> I think the last two years were 5%. Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. Correct. I think the last three to four Yeah. We've been we've been kind of Yeah. This is the anomaly. This is the anomaly year. I mean,
>> you know, we we've got over $2 million in GLP1 utilization, right? It wasn't there. You're >> saying the anomaly year, but we're I'm like I'm not hearing the data that says we're having another anomaly anomaly I mean a nominal year >> a normal year back to >> back back to the normal. And if that's
the case, then we need to have the funding for that >> or you just do another 15% next year, >> right? >> I mean, that's that's the problem. It's going to be on the back side. >> That's exactly right. So if if we to to your point >> um you know we could propose a 25 or a 20 and and that's happening out there in
the market by the way. >> Yeah. Right. >> 25s are happening out there. >> We you know that fivepoint differential from a 15 to a 20. We our models are saying we can we can withstand that, right? We we can do that. It's we're
we're comfortable with a 15. That's what our models are saying >> with no but but [clears throat] you're not using 15% to add to the fund balance. is 15% for utilization and risk. >> So we can always add to the fund balance, right? I mean there's nothing that precludes us from making a making a
decision. >> Does your model include adding money to the fund balance? That's the question. Or does your model just mean based on utilization and price increase? This is what it's going to be for you guys to >> uh break even in regards to revenue and expense expenses. That's what I'm trying to get to. >> Yeah, we've got play of two to 3%.
>> Is that is that enough? The my answer to that is yes. >> We would say yes >> and I think that's why the recommendation's coming forward, right? And then >> we assess and readjust next time around. >> Yeah, >> it's a big >> I mean this is like will be a continued
conversation, right? As as insurance continues to do this. >> All right, I'm going to give us question two more minutes and then if people have more questions in between now and the next meeting it can get sent to Bowman. >> Yeah. >> Is that okay? >> I mean at what point um does the self-insured model not work well? I mean
when do we hit that mark? >> You know that I think that another way of asking it is what's your alternative? >> Yeah. So if the alter the alternative is is that you go back into the fully insured marketplace. They're going to take a look at the existing data points
that that we have today. Uh instead of uh instead of a 15% we'd probably be looking at a 30%. And we don't have any of the upside in the fully insured marketplace. >> Yeah. We have upside here. If we go 15 and we perform at 10, we just add it.
Right. If we go 15 and we perform as expected, you know, then we then we're you're absolutely right. We're assessing at a 12 to 15% next year. >> Yeah. >> Until we stabilize. That's exactly what we're doing. We we we prefer not to give ourselves a 20 plus and then
underperform. it. I mean, there's a there is always that risk, >> but we're trying to hedge against, you know, having higher claims. >> That's what insurance is, right? It's all about risk. >> That's right. That's right. >> And and I know we're short on time, so turn your camera off. All I would do is
you've got the data here. The Delta uh uh the Delta Dental Program. Um we are recommending a 3% nominal increase. That's a that's a trend increase. Um we're starting to build back up into our fund a little bit, about 35 grand so far this year. So really what that means,
this is this is peanuts. This is rounding error when we're talking about a $30 million uh self-insured medical plan, but really looking at um you know a single dental rate going from $50 to 5150 per month and a family going from 142 to 14625. >> Okay,
>> that's our recommendation. >> Um and and hopefully after this year we can go back to zeros. >> Great. So this will come to the next board meeting. >> Yes. uh for consideration for approval. So between now and >> sorry, help me with the date. I think
March 24th. And I know you're on vacation, so you'll not be here, >> but if there are questions in between, um Senator Bowman. Um >> yeah, we'll answer. Yeah, we'll we'll get to get the answer. >> Does that work for everybody? >> Okay. >> Thanks so much, Aaron. >> Thank you. Thank you everybody. Appreciate it.
>> Okay, great. All right. Um moving on to the next topic, ELA core resource recommendation. Uh this was on our last meeting if you remember um and we decided to table discussion on this just because of time and so um we'll work through the
discussion at tonight's meeting and um we have uh uh director Brovald and um director what's your title Sandy I'm sorry I don't director you're not director are you director also >> I'm confused too I mean
>> both director I'm sorry executive director global and director >> teaching and learning leaders. >> Teaching leaders [laughter] um to walk us through um the recommended curriculum, but what I've also asked um just because there's been questions sent
I know to Bowman about um about our curriculum review process. So wanting Tracy and team to review with the whole board what is our approved process. um go through that and then
discuss um the the recommended resource that you're bringing forward. Um I think as you discuss I think it's important and I know Tonyy's not here. I was going to mention to him but the rest of us um in April revise the policy related to curriculum. So policy 606 was revised
and approved by this board. Um and that's I think where a lot of uh your direction is stemming from. So with that, can I turn it over to you? >> Yeah. Okay. Great. >> Thank you. Um as D uh Chair Cameron said, uh we are providing an update for you on the uh ELA core resource um
adoption and around the instructional resource um uh adoption process for uh grades 9 through 12. Policy 606, which governs this work, talks about the school board leveraging the expertise of
professional staff. And so I have two of those professional staff here with us today. Um Sandy Georgie is our director of teaching and learning and Natalie Nelson is one of our teaching and learning coordinators. We did ask some teachers to come and be part of the
presentation but they had conferences tonight so that was more important for them to be there for that. Um the presentation could be found in board book or it's also online if uh you want to follow along with that. Uh this work with our ELA teachers has been underway
for several years now and it does reflect the leadership um of our staff alignment to Minnesota standards and our district literacy priorities. Our goal tonight is to review the process that has been followed, share the recommended
instructional resource and outline our steps, our next steps for implementation. And as outlined in district policy, our school board's role is governance and approval while the professional staff lead the review and the evaluation
process of um of the resource. So if you're following along on the slides, I'm on SL I'm moving to slide two. So as I stated, uh policy district policy 606 textbooks and instructional materials is what we're following to to guide us in
this process. The policy does establish a very clear framework on how instructional materials are reviewed and recommended. And according to that policy, it outlines that the superintendent is responsible for estab establishing that process and then
professional educators lead the evaluation and recommendation of materials. In the policy, you'll also see that it emphasizes that materials must support the district's educational goals, meet the needs of students, re uh uh I'm
sorry, reflect diverse perspectives, and remain within the budget. That one Bill really likes. [laughter] Um the board's role is to remain uh informed throughout the process and then approve the final recommendation once
the review is completed. Sandy is going to take you through the next slide which shares the resource adoption process and how we aligned our process to policy 606. >> Um good afternoon everyone. Thank you for having us here this evening. Um as
um Tracy had mentioned, if you'd like to follow along, we are on the third slide. Um what you'll notice is the action steps that we have within the resource adoption process. Obviously, our first step is to go through a standardsbased
review process. Um, that began in 2024. Um, we'll continue through 2027. Um, and for sure we would revisit as needed the needs for ELA, but when you think about the predictive cycle um that the state of Minnesota puts forward for
us, full implementation of those standards are for this year. We're still working through that implementation process. Obviously, teachers are part of that process. Um, and is led um by Natalie Nelson. She's amazing in the work that she does with our ELA folks.
Um, in addition, you'll have noticed that in your Friday notes um that are provided to you by um Superintendent Bowman, we did provide updates to the school board on November 21st as well as January 16th and then again on February
20th as it relates to where we are um with our process. Um in addition um with our um standardsbased review process if you remember um when I have visited with you before we have different phases and one of the phases includes um a really
robust research of what potential um field test materials we would like to bring forward to teachers. Um that's work that really Natalie has led with her expertise and skill. Um and it was det decided upon based on our resource rubric as well as what is out there for
best practice. We looked at ED reports which is showing green lights on both of these that we brought forward for a field test. So both HMH and common lit um were brought forward and the teachers did a field test. Um Natalie will be speaking to that in just a moment. Um in
addition we had a community review. So we did have um these resources available with some digital links to the community for the full month of December, December 1st through the 31st. We also had a Google form um which allows the community members to um make any
comments or any feedback that they might have. Um in addition, if a board member wanted to or a board member or community member wanted to come in and look at the actual resources, we certainly could accommodate that as well. We work closely with our communication department. Um director Grace Olsen and
her team are amazing and they supported us with a communication campaign such as 194 now, 194 connect. I think they have 194 pride. I'm really trying to keep up with all [laughter] the amazing things that Grace does. Um
and she had um those pieces put in place to inform our community on December 5th, December 11th, and December 12th. Um in addition, we have both Cari and Paul um our directors here on the board of ed our school board um who are part of our
teaching and learning council. And then on January 12th, we did a full presentation not only of the 912 ELA resources, but the ones that will be coming forward with you at the middle level for EL and then for social studies both at the elementary and the secondary. And that took place on
January 12th. Um, our community members were part of that robust presentation and had opportunities as well to provide feedback as to what those resources were. Um and then um we also brought in some samples um that we had that were print and then they had access to those
digital links. And then we come to um where we are now in the spring of the year um is our recommendation to the school board. Um I'm going to turn it over to Natalie. You'll notice that um on the next slide um is talking a little
bit about some of our key indicators. We do have a resource rubric that our teachers co-create with us when we're looking for what are those key things that um we want to see in a core resource. Obviously, it's standards, alignment, and all those things. Um but Natalie's going to hit upon um what are
some of the pieces that our teachers stated when they went through the field test and um their place of making that recommendation um based on our resource rubric. So, I will turn it over to Natalie. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for having me. Um, my name is Natalie Nelson
and I'm the secondary literacy coordinator here in Lakeville. Um, I was very recently in a classroom at Lakeville North and this is my first year as the literacy coordinator here. Um, I have personal experience teaching from both common lit and the HM into
literature um, resource as well. I'm in my first year here um, and I lead the 6th through 12th grade ELA teams as Sandy mentioned through curriculum review and the standards review process. Um, our team is currently seeking schoolboard approval for this as our core ELA resource in 9 through 12 for
multiple reasons. Not only is this a high quality instructional resource for our tier one instruction, but it also serves as a teacher planning guide for re-engagement and for reteing students in tier 1 instruction. This curriculum also serves as a knowledge building
curriculum that incorporates complex texts in a variety of contexts so that we can support our students learning in the real world. I have also collaborated with other districts to learn about how this curriculum is successful in their worlds and how it's utilized with
secondary students in other Twin Cities schools. Um, however, as much as I have lots of background knowledge and awareness of this, um, there is value in hearing from our educators, um, that had piloted this platform, um, and I wanted their voices to be heard even though they couldn't be here tonight. Um, so
our teachers as they were evaluating, um, Common Lit 360 after using it with students, um, shared some comments with me through a Google form. So, I took some of those comments to help share with you regarding the bullet points that are on the slide that you're looking at. Um, so in regards to meeting
grade level standards, including engaging literary and informational text, um, a few comments that stood out to me were Common Lit has a great collection of texts for all grade levels and opens access to a variety of texts to meet readers needs. When combined with the assessment series, teachers get
a continual reading comprehension growth check. Student thinking has been challenged, and I've seen and heard firsthand rich discussions between students with ideas being challenged and also being validated. This curriculum does this curriculum allow students to choose texts and explore diverse
perspectives. It has varied representation included with texts and the unit plans show provided show a variety of perspectives and viewpoints to help students see both canonical texts which are those that are considered part of the ELA cannon and modern texts both short and long. Does
this curriculum integrate reading, writing, discussion and meaningful tasks? Assessments are varied, aligned to lessons and content and time manageable and the data that's available is presented in a very teacher friendly format down to the very individual student. This curriculum provides
teacher guidance, assessments, and culturally responsive supports. Teachers shared materials are welldesigned to on their own merits. However, they can be edited or customized to fit delivery and instructional methodologies. Assessments allow for tracking data across time. I
have found their teacher keys and instructions very helpful. Directions for lessons and instructional materials are detailed and grounded in authentic connections to real world experiences. Does this curriculum support student growth? I do support common lit for
adoption in our district because of its reading skills tracking ability and its flexibility with assignments. The ondemand PD videos are extremely helpful and specific to unit lessons, topics, assessments, and common lit tech features. One of the question or one of the areas that we are looking for as
well is um does this curriculum align to evidence-based literacy instruction. And part of what's important to note with this is that our sixth through 12th grade teachers have not been through read training at this point because that is considered phase two um of the
redact. So um the information on this was pulled primarily from me from what I look at with common lit. I have gone through redact training and looking at the different ways that it builds knowledge, topics, themes, using Scar Bro's reading rope, which is essential.
Um, explicit vocabulary instruction, um, using verbal reasoning across many texts, and then also practicing writing um, in a variety of different situations. Um, and then does it support our state standards? It does. um 41
school districts in Minnesota have have adopted Common Lit um and for full adoption and they have very clear um alignment documents that um are very easily accessible should you like to see those. Um this curriculum utilizes
differentiated enriched re-engagement strategies. The teachers commented that it was good on scaffolding and building unit knowledge. Um, units are scaffolded with detailed plans and they allow what's called flex time to show to slow things down and allow for opportunities
to retach or differentiate. And then finally, is it easy to use? Um, the materials are structured and formatted consistently across all documents. The teacher documents mimic student documents, so it's not visually cluttered. And it integrates with Google
Docs, Slideex, uses supplementary videos. It's a dynamic platform that allows work to take place within the program itself, but documents can also be copied into school student Google accounts or printed if necessary. So,
those were just some fe some things that I thought were important to note from our teachers that have used this and done a great job of testing this out with our students. >> Um, if you're >> Ryan, do you have a question about that? >> I do throw the data, but I can wait if there's more. >> Yeah, we just have a >> Do you want to finish? Yeah. Okay,
>> just Okay, perfect. Um, one of the other pieces that we want to share with you is what does that budget allocation look like for this core resource? Common lit 360 is a digital platform. Um, but it also offers and allows for print um as
well. So, we can print those things for students. And in addition to the common lit 360 digital platform, we will be looking at a process um within our district to be able to have a selection committee for additional whole class and choice novels. Choice novels and
perspective taking is a requirement within those standards. So there will be some additional supplementary pieces to the common lit digital platform. It roughly is 600 or excuse me 60,000 over three years. Um and then as I mentioned I talked about the novel and the whole
class and the choice for a 912 perspective that would be around 87 for next fiscal year. We would continue that until we felt we had a large enough a repository um for our teachers to be able to choose from. Um in addition the professional learning with that
consultant fee through um common lit is about um 5,300. And then of course when we want to work with our teachers to be able to do the alignment documents with the scope and sequence, the pacing, making sure the common assessments are aligned, etc. is about um 50 grand for that release time
for having the teachers um come together and work. Um it's about 202,000. Um and as Bill said, he goes, "That's very reasonable, Sandy." He said, "You did a nice [laughter] job." So um the other piece um as we maybe transition um
in just a moment to any questions that you might have, what we are looking for for next steps um is your approval. Um and we really want to be thinking about pacing because as Natalie mentioned, the Department of Education has um created a
timeline that phase two teachers, which are secondary teachers, um will participate in read next year. And so we really want to make sure as teaching and learning we're creating a manageable workload for our teachers and that we're sequencing this work um and that it is
consistent and robust experiences for our students. So upon approval right away Natalie is going to be working um with our teachers. They're excited for that even this spring to start doing some of that alignment. And then we will continue that work in the summer for summer curriculum writing so that we can
pace that so that they can um implement a new curriculum, feel like they have some of those pieces um already addressed and then being able to um then focus some of their time on that readact um training that will be coming. >> Great.
>> Okay. >> All right. All right, we're ready for >> So, I've got three questions and so I I'll just share them and then we can kind of come back to any of those where it makes sense. Uh, at the last board meeting, I did pull this out out of the consent agenda. Uh, not because I was not in favor of it, but I think just
because the magnitude and the scope of this particular curriculum in my mind doesn't warrant to just be thrown in the consent agenda. While it might have been the process or is the process, uh, personally, I didn't think it was it was um it would be a good opportunity to make sure we talk through this and we're
we are all um aligned because it's going to impact, you know, 4,000 high school students or potentially and so forth. So, um it might make sense for us as a board to come back and revisit that policy. I have no concerns with how you guys uh identified did the research, but
I think it's the approval process that I would like us to uh revisit. When we make a paragraph change to a schoolboard policy, we do two readings just to make sure that the community is informed of what's going on. And when we've got curriculum at this particular scope, uh
maybe a two meeting process might be warranted so that the community can see. I was hoping to have a presentation like this during board meeting that would have been 10 minutes then I would like to cool fine stamp you're good to go. So that's what I was envisioning two weeks ago but that that's just from my perspective. So that that's the first
comment. Um the second question that I had was the the data correlation. So, while there's 41 districts that have common lit, have have you um was there data that kind of validated, okay, here's our MCA scores before common lit, here's what it is afterwards, and then
did you see was there a trend in year two and three with the implementation uh that it continued on? And is there a correlation with common lip being implemented? Four years later, they were able to um correlate ACT scores or SAT
scores from an English perspective to see did that improve. And then the last question that I have was $200,000, great value. >> [laughter] >> If you had a million dollars in the budget, [clears throat] uh, can we allocate 800
back to teaching and learning and let them decide where else that money could go if if it was already earmarked for their department? So, that was just a question. That's all. Those are my thoughts. >> Can we get to I hear I think number one is I appreciate the comment. Number two, I think is something hopefully someone
can answer. Yeah. Number three I think is a exercise in how do we want to spend money if we had imagine if we had a pot of money right and I think there's lots of things on the table that has been thrown out so I think at some point we can have a discussion about what might be possible I don't think there's going
to be a lot of >> given given the budget conversations we had like we're we're not having to cut but we're not lush right so so maybe focus on question two for right is that okay Brian for right now >> okay that's fair >> question two's question too. >> No, no,
change in performance. She's >> Yeah. How how has this tool been used to evaluate performance on standardized testing in other districts or or the tool as a whole? >> For sure. Um I think I we might be able to take it even one step further, Brian, and I'll let Natalie chime in as well.
Um, one of the things particularly, um, in our process, um, our Lakeville South teachers when they were doing their field testing, they did some pre and they did some post assessments to see where their students were. And during that short period of time of just field
testing, common lit, they were able to see an increase as it relates to student achievement just within the data that we are collecting internally. Um, we were able to see those pieces. I don't know if you want to elaborate on that, Natalie, if I missed anything. >> Yeah, I think that the important thing
to note with this, the districts that I've spoken to have recently adopted it due to the curriculum alignment that's required of the state. So, the long-term data is in any of those districts isn't present. Most of them are in their first year of adoption. So, I think that's
also just a key everybody starts with that conversation. We just started adopt we just adopted this this year. We haven't seen the growth. The nice part about common lit is that even now we can collect a variety of ways and viewpoints to see student growth on Minnesota
standards through the classroom view. So the teachers have used those data points to check and see specific standards. Are they teaching those? And they've gotten they've shown me like scatter plot data or um pie chart data that shows the growth. Um and one of the data points I
talked to them after they gave their final exam in January. they had used it and they' piloted it for a couple months and they saw that um almost all of their students had shown growth through the platform. So they went from literally yellow to green in the platform on those
standards. So showing proficiency immediately in some areas was very trans was very apparent to us um as we looked at the data but I think that the teachers are also seeing the benefit of that data then what do you do with it because data is also such a large story
when it comes to a student and so the takeaway commonly also provides grouping suggestions for students and then targeted lessons towards what specific skills could you teach a student who is struggling with this specific state standard. Um, and so it gives you specific lessons to follow up with that
can individualize and personalize the instruction for the student following the whole class tier one instruction. Then what's that re-engagement that comes after it? [laughter] >> You want to finish and then go to Paul. >> I just wanted to add one thing to what Natalie had to say. We have to keep in
mind that this is the first year that the new 2020 um ELA standards are implemented. So in the spring of 2026, that's a whole new MCA assessment based on these new standards. So even
comparing it to past MCA assessments, they're really very different standards in and complexity. >> Could I also add in one more piece? I I I want to be very careful in correlating a product to student achievement because
it does revolve around the professional development that we're providing to our teachers. the extent that the teachers know and understand the standards that they're teaching to that rigor. So there's instructional components to um uh to looking at that data as well. It's
not just about the resource, it's about everything else that we provide for those teachers. Continued coaching from the principles in their building. Um so there's a lot of variables in that uh uh student achievement um increasing than just a textbook.
>> Yeah. Um, and Tracy, that's a good point. Um, this is a tool. You still need a carpenter to build the house. Yes. Correct. >> So, and and that's really your point, which is a good idea. Um, but I want to come back to to a comment you made. Um, very hopeful
>> comment in regards to South and seeing uh an increase in in proficiency, success, whatever the word is. [clears throat] Just wet our appetites. What What does that mean? 5% 10% 1%
flatline. I mean, what what did they see? They obviously saw something. What What was it? >> Um, we'd have to pull up that particular presentation that they gave. They did a PLC presentation um in front of their admins as part of our TDE work that we
have, right? Um, from what I recall, I think, um, Natalie is pulling it up right now. We can, um, do you want to talk a little bit about the scatter plot? >> Yeah. Um so basically the view that I'm looking at there are some student names on here so I want to be conscious of that but um basically as you look at the
scatter plot uh teach this teacher can see you can see like the blue and the red here there's anse dots all here these students all increased. So there were about one two three four five six students that actually did not show any growth in that particular period of time
and there's no students that declined. So items like this, again, it's very easy to just gravitate to this and look at, oh, this tells a whole story. But then there's also other pieces that go along with this story, too, to see where are those students at because some of
them we noticed afterwards are very um wonderfully proficient students, but um and they just didn't show any growth. And then the largest growth was actually happening in some of our significantly struggling students. Okay. So, was that an N of like 12 people or 12 students?
>> So, this was I think he had 20 he had 27 students total in this. >> So, it's a really small sample. >> So, the rest they were just pilot. >> Are you saying the rest of the students improved then? >> Mhm. >> 21. >> So, 21 improved. >> Okay. I might have >> And we need to remember that this was
just a field test. A small sampling of students for a short period of time. But what is promising is some of that preliminary data is showing that um these different strategies and these resources are making a difference for our students. I >> I'm assuming other states are using
this, right? I mean and and have they had then so then they must have some sort of track record >> as well if they've been doing it for 45 >> and many of those things will come up on the ed reports which is kind of a national research hub where you can do
some research ahead of time and then they have different criteria um based on that and um we wouldn't have brought common lit forward if it wasn't already a good product. Matt. Yeah. >> Uh I mean I have a lot of questions but on that line I mean I'm assuming there
are a number of resources that districts are using because >> how many districts are in the state? I mean >> about 350. >> Yeah. And so a little over 10%. Um I mean did would you get presentations from these different companies saying like >> look at the results we're getting?
>> I mean $200,000 is I mean if it was a million dollars but it's shown to be twice as successful. I mean, I think that's something you could convince the board. >> Um, >> but was I guess when you're comparing it to other options out there, you know, how did it stack up? I know we we tried
two or looked at two, >> but did you look at the top six or the top seven and then are the top Sorry. >> I mean, and compare like, okay, this is what the top >> 10 performing districts are doing in the state or what they're using. >> Did they did you did they talk about
this at the TAC meeting? I'm just cur like >> we did a process. >> I'm just curious like I'm just curious like how does this >> the overall process and >> maybe like it'd be helpful from the board members on those committees to like share bigger summaries about those meet not to put you both on the spot but
like it's good to have it now and when you go to the meetings to give updates on what happens at TAC in detail like >> following the meetings the TAC meetings. >> Yeah. Like you know how we do board updates. I feel like having updates from your committee involvement would be like that would have helped I think bring the rest of the board along right now
>> and yeah and just for like the board members sake like I see 606 [clears throat] >> we entrust the staff to go and and find >> the curriculum that they're going to recommend but we still have to approve it you know right >> so just yeah and approving the texts and
so I know I asked for a list of the books >> um and was provided great great information so I I feel like that should be a starting demos for the board like hey these are the texts that are going to be used and I do have some additional questions about that but sorry if you want to go back to the selection >> process one of the pieces that we do
even before [clears throat] we narrow down what it might be the two or three resources that we might bring um forward to the teachers is the coordinators spend a considerable amount of time researching what is out there um and looking at all sorts of different
metrics whether it's ED reports what works clearing house IES studies um and So we do spend some time with that. The other piece that we do is we bring in those vendors to learn more from those vendors. Um we also then um identify
what other districts might be using that and then we call those other districts and then we meet with them. We get kind of a feel for where they are at. We also belong to a consortium called the Minnesota Area Curriculum Leaders. We lean on that heavily. We send out surveys. In fact, we're doing that one
right now for elementary health because that's going to be coming down. um it just got sent to our curriculum leaders across the state to ask what are you considering for the new health standards? What are you using now? What might you be considering? Why are you considering those pieces? So, we really
look at multiple sources um before we narrow it down. Once we take all of those pieces, look at our resource rubric, juxosition it to those resources. We identify which ones rise to the top um because we can't have our teachers field test all of those. Um that would become, you know, very
difficult. So we try to narrow it [clears throat and cough] down to two to three um to be able to field test throughout the year. The other thing we want to consider is um the experience for the student. If the teacher is field testing a multitude of resources, it becomes more challenging also for that
teacher to keep consistency within their classroom tool. >> Do [clears throat] I do >> one more question then Carly, do you had a question? I was just g I will just comment that um I think in terms of my participation with TAC I don't have any ability to compare curricula just to be
honest like in terms of what's better that I don't feel like that's my role at all obviously but um in the meetings what stood out to me which I did bring to our um board reports was the thoughtfulness around the process and what I felt was very thorough vetting
and really talking I think some of my questions had to do like which districts are we talking to? Are these our peer districts? And I feel like the process itself has been very thorough and thoughtful. So that was what I could share. >> Thanks. >> Yeah. >> Okay. M um I [clears throat] was
provided with a scope and sequence table uh for grades 9 through 12 which I think is very helpful and maybe that could be shared with the board too. Um that shows you know a number of texts for different units throughout the year. Um, I was just wondering because I know
there's some discussion on or a comment on page 10 where it says students choose texts and I was wondering how, you know, additional texts or resources, you know,
are integrated into that and then how, you know, we're able to maintain a consistency of what's actually being introduced to the students across the different schools. >> You know, for tracking purposes. >> Yeah, for sure. I appreciate that um the in our current environment um we really
don't have a consistent and a cohesive way as it looks at um whether they're whole group novels or whether they're choice novels. So um Natalie and I have been working closely um and we have developed um a novel selection committee um and it's representative um of our
teachers across um both our middle and our high school level. We also have um some digital media specialists that are on there um because they have some expertise as it relates to print. Um we have some administration that are on there as well. Um and then Natalie leads
that process. We have a rubric that we look at um as it relates to which text we might want to select. And in fact, that first meeting is going to be coming up. Um Natalie just sent something out with a couple of dates um to be able to bring this team together. What we want to have is a repository of whole group
novels so that we can develop um some curriculum around those so that teachers can check them out. They know that they've been highly vetted, that they're aligned um to what we would expect for complexity for that particular developmental age level. Um and that they're also meeting um some of the
other needs as it relates to the key shifts in the standards for the ELA's. And one of the biggest shifts is teaching multiple perspectives as well as making sure that students have choice in choosing their text. So we want to be able to have a variety or repository of text so that students can actually
choose maybe what they might want to read in addition to whole group instruction. >> Those are in your hand texts, right? >> Say that again. >> Yes, they're in your hand. [laughter] >> Yes, they're not dig. >> No, I'm always going to have >> Yes, they're in they're in your hands text. Is it and then like students would be expected to do assignments that are
maybe similar but based on their text kind of like when we used to do book reports right every student write their own book but do you explain what that might look like yeah common lit does have some whole class alignments that it clearly suggests like you're seeing those in the scope and sequence document
um and so those are really important to pay attention to but we're also aware that there are some Minnesota specific needs because our state standards are unique to our state. Um so for example, there are multiple state standards in 9 through 12 that call out that we need to
um focus on perspectives specifically Dakota and Inisha tribal perspectives and so those are not most um platforms or publishing companies or vendors have not done a great job of fulfilling that state standard requirement um which we
legally have to do. So we are working within those accommodations as well um and using the support of our wonderful um American Indian liaison that we have through Amy Kishmeer um and doing work with that um to support that. So, that's
one of the um places that we're working to try to see, do we need more whole class, but choice novels um Common Lit does give some suggestions for choice novels, but we want to make sure that they're um appropriate. They're for our they're meeting our state standards. Um
and then they're also going to be something that every teacher in every site can also use. Um because right now that has not been the expectation. We have um a little bit of everything going on everywhere. So, we're trying to align everything so that no matter which
middle middle school you go to, which high school you go to, you have access to the same texts or the same choices in texts that students have elsewhere. >> How is [clears throat] that integrated then? Um as far as you have all class novels that they're going to read
>> and then you'll just have a okay, once we read that then we're going to switch to choice novel and you have >> the choice out of 15 novels or something like that. That's a great question. [laughter] Um, one of the ways in which we do this is we have and a lot of those scope and sequence units, um, common lit addresses
like big thematic units. Um, and so, uh, we pick best practice shows that you should pick about four to six texts that have a similar theme or big idea, um, through different perspectives and that student engagement increases when you offer the variety of choices. So, a
student, as we all know, 16-year-olds don't be like to be told what to do. So, when you hand them a text that they feel like there's been some choice involved with, that gives them more empowerment to want to read. And I've seen this play out in my own classroom many times. It's
wonderful. Um, but it does need some direction and there is too much and there can be um and obviously when you give everyone the same book, that's not choice. So we want to have um I [clears throat] call it controlled choice where you offer the pathways to
them that you as the novel selection committee have curated and then you offer them that pathway. Um but they're usually or best practice is to have them along the same lines common theme common big idea common focus so they all no
one's missing out on something related to that unit of study if that helps. doing a time check. Yeah. [laughter] 20 after almost. Are there any last? Do you have a question? I do one more. >> One more question. And then if there are more questions, can we get them to you, Michael, between now and the board
meeting? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, so I just have two. Uh, first question is that um so it's it's a digital platform. The book the books are online. Is that >> how novels that we were just speaking of would be as you said in front of the
kids um in paper and then um >> 87. Oh yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yes. And then one of the things about Common Lit 360 is that it does not come with your um standard textbook like we don't hand the big thousandpage document to
students because that's not part of the platform. Um what they do is they say if you these are the different texts that we offer and as I mentioned before it can be printed. So it also integrates with Google Docs so that teachers have slideshows that are easily integrated with the tools that we have like schooly
is our learning management system. So that is also um a component of it. But I do think that does impact the cost somewhat in that we are not handing a large pre-selected chunk of text to students. We can um differentiate and we
can retach and re-engage and choose to do things that are meeting students needs as we go through the platform. [cough] So it is all digital >> but those novels are not. So, so as things become more and more digital, I um I I want to make sure that I I always think about the parental choice and
parental involvement if they just they may or may not like for whatever reason the text offerings and stuff like that. Does a platform and maybe this is a separate conversation where maybe it's a district policy or how like do how do parents get involved in this knowing that now everything is digital. is are is their
access easier now to be able to say, "Oh, these are the seven books or these are the 10 things or the these are the themes that are that's going on?" And I'm not saying it needs to be integrated with uh Infinite Campus, but just, you know, where where do parents play a part in any of this or do how do they get
involved? So, if you're asking if a parent has an opportunity to maybe reconsider what um that particular resource would be, we do have a policy 630 that walks through our >> rec that would just apply that. >> Correct. Yes. >> Got it. Got it. All right. And then my
second my last question is, >> do we need to wait two weeks for them to keep going or is that something that can be made today? I I don't know. And so because I know that this was supposed to be done two weeks ago and then someone decided to pull it out of the consent agenda and
then [laughter] I don't know but um and while this is a working session and I just want to be mindful that this is a working session and we're not supposed to make decisions but I just also want to be mindful of >> can you can you wait another two more weeks? I don't know.
>> I Yes. Our our next meeting is right around that time. So I think we'll be okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yep. This the next meeting. >> Is the concern more the implementation of the program like training on the program itself? Because my understanding there's a digital platform. Is that what you're going to be training the teachers
on? Like here's the the program and how we teach. >> I think it's a little bit of that. Um as Natalie had mentioned, there's a really robust um assessment portion of the program um that really aligns to our state standards. So that's a really positive piece particularly when we were
looking at common assessments. So there will be some PD around that for sure. Um but I also think we really want our teachers to come together, look at that platform, look at those resources and really start doing the alignment, creating that scope and sequence, creating that pacing guide, making sure
that the units are [clears throat] developed at the robustness that they need to be. Are there any gaps which there will be because most resources are not you know there's going to be some spaces and then that's where we're thinking about that professional development. So it's an and >> because I guess the question for the
board would be is is our job just the approval of the texts themselves and not necessarily the how but the what >> correct? >> Yeah. >> So I mean I guess one of my requests would be just to get a list of all the texts that we're approving for use in the program.
I don't think you have that list, right? Because you said you're bringing together. >> We do have um that smaller list that was already sent to you, but then the selection committee will be generating the next list which will also come to you for sure. >> And they haven't even met yet. So, we
don't even know what those titles are. >> So, what we're approving next meeting is common lit. That's the only thing. >> Yes. >> And the last that we shared with you. >> Okay. >> Yes. So >> we should probably have a broader discussion around >> around the text
>> around the text because again I don't want to read 800 pages in a science book or a chemistry book but but I I but we should as a >> yeah I think it's a conversation around like what does the board want our role to be? I mean, I found this really helpful,
this chart showing the many steps that it that the community, parents, students, teachers, etc. us went through to get to here. And this is important, this process. So, I don't think we get to here and say, "Oh, we need to start over and start
reviewing every single sentence." I don't think that's in my opinion I think that's a discussion the board can have but this is the policy that we've supported right in terms of 606 and I appreciate like the updates from
TAC and board members going to these things to stay informed and [clears throat] reading Friday notes so that we're like we're we're following the process as well. It's not getting what what I don't want or any of us, I don't think, want is to get to a meeting like last week or two weeks ago and feel
like we've never heard of this. We've never seen this and I didn't even realize all of this had happened. And so this is helpful to know that like we're not getting it at the nth hour. Our job is to stay um plugged in through this
process. So maybe that's the conversation like how do we how does the board want to stay connected? Mhm. >> So we can have that. >> We did get the Friday notes and [clears throat] Superintendent Bowman has shared a lot of the information from
our our teaching. >> Yeah. >> Learning department. So I feel like part of it is we have >> it's not like we've been in the dark about this. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So So how does that come back to Matt's comment? I'm trying to connect the dots here. Matt, were you asking that we
approve um you know coming to 360 as as a framework >> but as a tool as a tool as a framework >> which you know fine okay but but then you had a second question or second comment in regards the texts that
fit into this program and >> which which I think that aligns more with what we're approve what our duty is under 123 BO9 N >> you know approving the texts for instruction but the what you know the how the framework is is kind of a
district and teachers >> your department >> so all the text lives with or what we're approving lives within this um online module correct so when you talk to other districts um like I think Wisetta uses this correct if I'm >> no Wisetta >> oh I thought they were one of them who
well whoever you talked to >> the biggest district I've talked to that uses this is Shakape they have adopted it and they that the whole package. This is what comes with it. The modules that Matt is refer that Mr. Swanson got it. [laughter] So how those answer
>> I mean I think if you look at the if you look at the sequence and scope you know that like that's great you know that's kind of what the question was okay what are we approving here and it's like okay 9th grade they're going to read these books and do these different units >> and it's like okay that makes sense to me you know cuz I don't need to do
>> so you've done all the research >> like read everything in three common 360 is that what you're trying I'm trying trying to understand like that >> no what our job is to approve the the text for instruction But the texts that we're approving are all in the the platform right now. >> Correct.
>> I think what you're speaking to right now resources. Yeah. But we don't know what those texts are, right? >> Yeah. We got sent the link where you could go to every page and read it. >> Yeah. Well, this is what they are. I mean, there's optional novels, right? >> No, no, no, no. We're not talking about the novels.
>> Oh, yeah. We're so our goal right now is just to assess if the recommendation to approve common lit novels correct unless they exist in that platform. >> Yes, there are novels that exist in the platform and I believe we shared those
with you in an email. >> So there's a whole website that you developed where anyone in the community including us can go read the tool. Correct. I mean I went to the nth grade and I read like a couple pages right and got a sense of what the tool looks like. Yeah. >> So, that's what we need to figure out is like
that's what we're that's what the recommendation is for next meeting is to approve this one curriculum resource, not the print novels. >> And I think what >> am I you're correct and I think >> maybe what you're referencing director and and you can correct me if I'm wrong
is that's our core resource and then we have maybe some core supplementary text that we want to add to with that. That's not what we're coming forward to the board with today. What we're coming with is the core resource and then when we get our selection committee to kind of build a repository of some choice
novels, then we'll share those what those selections look like moving forward. >> And would you follow a similar process as this for those resources? So with the um the core supplementary novels um in the sense that it would be somewhat similar,
we would put some things in Friday notes to let you know where we are with that process, what we're considering. Um we wouldn't necessarily go through like a full communication campaign because they're supplementary resources. It's not the core. So and we really have a
committee that's going to be selecting that. So then we would just bring it to you for approval. So it would kind of be an abbreviated process because it's supplementary to the core if that makes sense. >> Sorry, Carly and Kim. >> I just wanted to make one small point about or question question SL point with
this three-year contract. I know we're talking about the cost of it, which means in three years we're going to have to pay a fee again. And so how does this differ from when you did used to buy a big like how many years would we have that big tax years? [laughter]
>> You don't want to know that. Gatsby. >> I guess I'm wondering like just the book cover change >> for good or for bad with these digital subscriptions like this is probably something not just for ELA but like with other um curriculum coming down the pipeline.
>> And the other thing we want to think about is what is best practice when you have an anthology as you're talking about. Those are just short excerpts. And one of the things we really want and we'll talk a little bit more with the um the QDR now the QDR is that we want to
get students in complex texts that are novel so they can build up our stamina. Um we are finding that in the current environment that we're in. Students just don't have the stamina to read full texts and to be in that complex piece.
And so when we were looking at this resource, certainly we want to have excerpts, short excerpts, and we want to have things from a variety of different genres, but we also want to make sure that they can actually be in a novel that is complex text that really is looking at language structure, sentence
structure, understanding, meaning, and really grappling at unique um content. And so that's where we really want to be focusing, and that's what the new standards are asking. So the shorter anthologies is probably not the best way that we want to go. >> It's got to be longer than YouTube
shorts. [laughter] >> Something. >> So this may cost more money over time, but it's more evidence-based in terms of making that progress that we need to see. That's what I'm hearing. >> And I think too that you'll find with
all resources moving forward, almost all of them have a digital platform. It's almost impossible. >> Some are seven years, some are three years. It's almost impossible [clears throat] to find a resource that you aren't tied to a digital platform. And that's actually a good thing because all the assessments are in there and it helps us
do the alignment and making sure that we're doing we're monitoring progress on those standards. So that really is a positive piece. >> Okay. >> So can I clarify the board is asking for like lists of what books are being used in this curriculum. Is that what the
question is? So, well, I think there's two things. I think there's there's the no the printed novels. Is that a good term to use? English teacher. Okay. That [laughter] that that um this committee will recommend will come to us as a list of
of novel titles. Correct. >> But then you have to approve the list. >> Correct. We have to approve that list. Yes. Right. Okay. Thank you. >> And then but then within this tool there are many novel 360. there's many novels and excerpts and etc. So, we're
approving the whole >> platform. Okay. I I just think that I would caution the board into getting into approving specific books for for curriculum or novels, the district has a process that if a parent or a community
member has an issue with a book that's read in the classroom, there's a process that they can go through and talk through it. um coming from someone who's read pretty much every book on the band list, um we can get into this like whole debate about what what's a good text and what's not a good text when there's lots
of opinions on that. So, I just there's lots of good literature that ends up on lists. So, I'm just stating my opinion. >> Okay, I'm going to move us to Okay, like 10 sec [laughter] question. >> Yeah. Um, so this next topic agenda.
Yes. I think it's going to be lengthy and I'm not like 30 minutes is not gonna be enough. Can I make a motion or not? I'm not a motion. Can I propose >> we punt it to next week. >> I would like us to start it if that's okay. And if we feel like we can't finish it, then we can >> move to the next. Okay. >> Okay.
>> All right. So that you Thank you for the transition though. >> Um, okay. Uh, this is also >> director exe Oh, thank you for being here. Executive director. Thank you, Natalie. >> Correct. You're taking us through this. >> I am. Yes. >> Um so,
>> as a reminder, um the board has asked for um quarterly review of data. You know, we we're frequently monitoring the budget through presentations from from Bill and so I think in this one you focused on um academic metrics and some
student service metrics. Um Oh, yeah. Come on up, Nicole. Oh, I thought it was just >> And so, [laughter] um, sorry, no, you're up. >> Given given where we are in the academic year, you've selected, um, um, sorry,
don't need to interrupt. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um, um Um, we have been, um, [laughter] >> I've been sorry. Um
um >> you've se you've selected metrics that have that we've have new data from from our the last time we did this. Correct. So that that's what this presentation is about. Thank you. Okay. [laughter] Um well we are um as uh director Cameron explained we are going to go through the
metrics that we have results from and to share with you um the the steps and process we are taking to analyze those metrics and um again I have district experts here with me um uh Sandy Broville Sandy Bro. Oh my god.
[laughter] Oh, that was my mother. My mother-in-law. Oh my gosh. Sandy Gorgie. Sorry. >> We are really close. We've gotten close over the last few few weeks. [laughter] And Nicole Adams are here and Nicole's our director of integrated continuous
improvement. Um, our goal with looking at this these metrics is in in this review is to really step back and look across several indicators to understand where we're seeing strengths, where we're seeing patterns, where our systems
may need adjustment to better support student learning. The review that we're doing is really about our systems and taking a look at where our system is strong, where we need some additional support. Um we're we're using this data
to understand instruction and how we're performing across schools and AC across different uh grade levels and across student groups. As we look at this data, we want to make sure that we remember
that some of these measures represent a snapshot in time. It doesn't give the whole picture of a student. It does give us helpful signals, but they don't capture the full picture of learning that's happening across our district. What is most important as we look at
this data is looking at the patterns over time and then using that information to guide our next steps. Um, I also want to acknowledge before we move forward the incredible work that's happening across the district to look at our systems and to make some systems
changes. Our teachers are spending so much time digging into our standards, creating scope and sequences, creating common assessments. They are learning about the Bridg's math program at elementary. They're engaging in the readact.
There's a lot of professional learning that's happening right now and it really reflects our staff's commitment to continuous improvement and making sure that we are doing the right things for student learning. As we moved into this QBR2, we came
together with several different groups. Teaching and learning at the district level, met with student support services and the in in ICI in in integrated continuous improvement team to really drill down into the data and the first
data that we have looked at is our literacy data from FastBridge and our failure rates, our course failure rates. So, we really had an opportunity to dig into that data. We also brought that data to our principal group or our DT.
And our DT includes our um senior staff team, our principles and also directors across uh the district to dig into that data and review it. And then Sandy and al I also reviewed that data with our teaching and learning um teams. And we
asked the group, sometimes when you're looking at data, it's really easy to jump to solutions and try to personalize that data or to determine what we're doing right, what we're doing wrong. And we really asked those groups to let's look at it from a systems perspective so
that we could figure out where in our system we're lacking or where in our system we can celebrate. So, as we continue to go through this process, we are going to continue to come back to data on a regular basis to to um make
sure we're analyzing that data, but most of all that we get to a point where we could really dig deeper into analyzing the root causes and identifying solutions as to how we best move forward. Please note that that work takes time.
We can't just look at the data and identify those solutions and how we're going to um solve any of our issues right away. We need to take time to really dig in to understand that data and then to begin to incorporate um all of the changes that we might need to
move forward. So we'll be looking at four areas of data in this QBR2. We'll be looking at fastbridge fall to winter scores. We'll be looking at end of semester grade point average for high school and a continuous grade point average for middle school. We'll be
looking at end of semester failure rates for high school and a continuous uh failure rate for middle school. And then we'll also be looking at attendance data. We won't get through all of that today, but we'll we'll do our best. And Nicole and Sandy, please jump in as as
you see fit. So, let's we're going to take a look first at FastBridge. And we are very very encouraged by our early literacy scores that we're seeing. Our overall profici proficiency as a district we are looking at 73.8%
proficiency. From fall to winter we we are looking at a decrease of about 0.5% from fall to winter across all of our levels which is K through grade nine. In math proficiency, we hit 75% proficiency
for winter and this decreased by 1% from fall to winter across all of those levels. As well, when we look at what's working across our district, as I said, we are really encouraged by our early literacy. our kindergarten growth, first
grade growth, and um second grade growth is showing that some of our foundational literacy systems in K2 are working and our students are making progress there. So that is a really big thing to celebrate. Um for us, we also are Go
ahead. >> Can I ask? Okay. What? So 78 69 76 and I know that the board last year shot for 90, but I just want to be realistic with like >> So our goals this year, is that what you're getting at? >> Well, yeah. I'm just
>> You set goals for this year. >> Last year. Well, >> well, we have goals for the 2526 academic year. >> Yes. For this school year. >> And so for K K1, it's 70.2%. And for 2 through 9, it's 75.4.
So we we're hitting our K1 but we are about 1.15% below our two through nine goal >> for fast bridge >> for fast bridge >> right so but but I but I'm trying to what I want to ask is what's a realistic and what's a good number because and so
I want to make sure that for those that are listening like we're not going to get to 90 like we knew that so >> I'm wondering if they can keep going and talk about that like maybe that can be part of what you're thinking about as you're presenting >> and I think you have some observations on where there's >> Yeah.
>> opportunities to drive that number higher. >> Yeah. >> And what might be a real >> what what are we working towards? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Is that okay, Ryan? They Okay. >> Yeah. And um as you uh think about it, we do want to disagregate our data so that we can look at where each grade
level is and how we can support each one of them. Um a as you can see here, we are seeing some stability in grades 7 through nine. Um I especially want to point out our ninth graders. um who went from 76.5% to 79.7%.
Um it's really encouraging to see that as we've been putting some pieces in place at 9th grade, from link crew um uh to to bar um we're really trying to make that transition from 8th grade to 9th grade um really um meaningful and
purposeful in making sure that we're supporting those nth grade students. We did see some decline in grades three through six and um notably we saw a concern in grade four. They went from
78.1% to 69.2% across that grade. And we can see that across uh all of our buildings. And so we did a little bit deeper dive to find out how did those fourth grade students
do in two years in the last two years. And we see the exact same pattern of a uh decrease in their fastbridge scores from fall to winter. We do see that they rebound and they grow again
from uh winter to spring. They don't get back to where they were at fall, but we do see that growth come back again. And so looking at that from a systems perspective, we're saying what's happening between fall and winter that we're not preparing. the system isn't
preparing those students for that um uh for that uh assessment that they have in the winter. Do either of you want to add to that? >> I think the other piece to note is grade four is also our COVID year. So we do know that that is also an area that
we're looking at. Um and I think too we need to be thinking about pacing of our instruction and does that make pace with what that assessment is asking. move on from the co conversation of that particular cohort of kids. um
share the share the why or or what um why that group matters and kind of what we're trying to assess there in that the fundamentals that okay I'll just [laughter]
>> what do you say >> the the one conversation I [cough] think happened nationally around that cohort of kids you know the decision was made to take the kids out of school, go put them online, all that stuff. And then and then it was as if there's not going
to be any consequence to that. And and there is a consequence to that. The fundamental development and I think if you look at our how we're doing in in K2 and then you see where four is something got missed
and then how do you recover it? And I think that's the challenge we have. Now yes, I'm saying maybe there's a little bit of a leap there. I don't think it's a big leap. I can I can make that correlation. Uh the question is how do
we how do we help that particular group of kids and that's another part we're got to look at more deeply. So I just want to say that out loud. Uh that's not there's the only excuse you have is that it's not it's not been recovered. That's there's no excuse for that other than
you you didn't see it coming. You know, point the finger at me. Whatever you need to do. My point is uh that's why that class I think is of a important concern and also one that we need to uh figure out as we're moving forward and
really look at the disagregation of the data on that. Do you think also that like so a b many of us have a fourth grader on on the board and they didn't have online they started K live they were the first group to like return back
but it was masked I think I can't remember >> but as a result that class is big across the country not just Lakeville right it's a bubble class so we have higher class sizes for that group that we're building the middle schools because of that group right or or building on
>> and So might that be part of it too is like there are just more of them and we have >> that's what I mean that's what I mean yes the online part but >> the fact that they came back when they came back >> and there's a transition that your whole
organization has to take from coming back offline to back online and all of the things that were associated with that because we weren't out of the pandemic. [clears throat] I mean, that's some serious stuff that happened that I think might get glossed over a little bit. >> I also want to just piggyback off of
that. They did come back in person, but they were masked. >> They were masked. >> And when you're kindergarter, you got it. You got it. They have to be able to see what those sounds look like and how you make those sounds and that early portion of that early literacy with that phmic awareness. They miss some of that.
So, is there a higher percentage of like special education IEP plans for this fourth grade population compared to normal? I mean, I would assume maybe not. I don't know. >> But isn't one of the findings here that is consistent across the last three
years is that they're starting higher and getting lower like something like they were doing very well in the fall. >> They were doing well. So, they're getting worse. I don't know if it's co >> well this this is what I'm saying is mass and co don't have anything to do
with the fact they're starting high getting worse and that it's happened for three consecutive years right >> so what I hear you guys saying is something's going on that we need to dig into with that pattern right >> y >> makes sense okay keep on going on please
>> okay all right uh we also disagregated uh this data by um students who are receiving special education services. I want us to be really careful with this data because this is every student who
receives special education services from a student who might receive speech services um to >> speech only services >> speech only services to to um other services. So we haven't disagregated this data further at this point. Um but
what we are seeing here is that we're seeing a um slight uh decrease uh decline if a student is being um receiving special education and so we need to dig further into that. >> Are the numbers above exclude them or do you have another set of numbers that
exclude them so that we can actually see a difference? >> The numbers above include them >> include them. So the numbers above would be actually significantly higher than if you excluded this population. >> This is probably about a quarter of our student body. correct are receiving some form of service.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Are you seeing this also with English language students? A similar pattern. >> Yeah, we're seeing a similar pattern. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> I think that would be nice to be able to differentiate those that have special education, English as second language just so that we we could and then you
got the aggregate score as well because we can't make the aggregate score to 90 when you got other populations that just may not have the ability to get there. So, >> okay. Well, not that I mean I think it's like different students have different
needs and so how do we help all students along and those might require different interventions, different services? >> Yes. Yeah. Uh what we've been talking about in teaching and learning is making sure that we have strong tier one instructional practices for all students
so that our special education students, our EL students, everybody is receiving strong core, strong tier one and then what do they get extra? What do they [clears throat] get in addition to tier one that can help support them along the way?
>> Anything to add? No. Good. Okay. Um, we have not at this point we have not um taken a deep dive into our math scores. We are going to be doing that with um the student services, teaching and
learning and ICI teams next week. And then on Tuesday, we'll also be following up with our principles. So, we'll have more information around math in um a similar way um for you and we could um maybe add that to our presentation as we
go into um our next board meeting. >> How much time we got? How are we doing? >> We got 10 minutes. Do you want to like work through the packet and then maybe we can hold questions? >> Sure. >> And figure out how that we want to discuss those. >> Sure. >> Is that okay? Yeah. >> So, you can get through your points.
>> Yeah. So, um, we have several action steps that we're putting into place. Um, for these are action steps for literacy because we haven't, um, taken a deep dive into math. Some of these cross over because we're doing these districtwide. And so, you'll see the same thing in
math by using data to guide improvement, making sure that we are um, regularly looking at data and looking that at it from a systems perspective as well as um, at the elementary level. They do a really great job of having data digs
after their FastBridge scores come out. They look at that down to the grade level and each teacher is able to look at their individual students and how they're doing and what interventions they want to put in place to support them. Strengthening teaching and learning. We know that our um secondary
teachers are engaged in uh professional learning on the five days that we have professional development and they are focused on our grade level benchmarks. So they are reviewing their standards. They are looking at uh following a scope and sequence. They're coming together
with their um cross um cross district colleagues to look at what their scope and sequence looks like and they're developing common assessments as well. We know that our K3 teachers are um have completed Redact training. Grades four, five are [snorts] completing the
training this year, which has been 60 hours of training. Correct. >> I'm not done with my training yet. I think I have like 10 hours left. I'm getting there. Uh and then we also have uh we also have our teachers engaged in um uh implementing Bridg's math. So when
we look at building our stronger systems of support, uh as Natalie was here, she is taking our secondary teachers through a robust standardsbased review with our ELA standards. Our elementary teachers are supported in a standardsbased review
process and they do a train the trainer model because we can't bring every elementary teacher together at the same time like we can at secondary. And so we have a train the trainer model where um Sandy's team uh helps to train some of our teachers and our leaders in our
buildings and then they go back and train the teachers in their buildings. This year we have expanded intervention for um K3. We have K3 ADSIS reading interventionist um in nine of our elementary schools
and we have professional learning at both secondary and elementary levels with the ELA um resources in the adoption process. Secondary will adopt this next school year and elementary will be adopting the following year a
new ELA resource. They'll be piloting that resource this next school year. We also are partnering with the Minnesota Department of Education. Uh we are working to um strengthen our systems of support for our ELD students. Uh we are
also uh Nicole presented the achievement and integration plan for you a couple weeks ago maybe and part of that plan is bringing in two new positions that are focused on uh strengthening tier one and tier 2 for our EL students.
Uh and then we are working closely with student services to make sure that we have strong core uh tier one instruction and then we have specialized supports for students who are identified to receive services for special education
and EEL. Can can I on this particular one with all the >> I I get it where we want to create good systems at the tier one level and it sounds like a lot of this stuff does that which is good so that way when a student comes through the process they're they're getting whatever but at
the end of the day you know the student still has to do the work [cough] day they they like you can put the best system in place and if they're not going to do the work you're still going to have poor an unfavorable outcome it's not that the system is bad you know what I mean and so you know I've talked to Matt about this where uh you know when
like where do where do we start to incorporate AI or AI tutoring or whatever it may be where it's individualized personalized for that person or for that student. Um and it's really not a system thing. It's more of like hey the the kid needs 30 more
minutes of reading, you know, three times a week and maybe in middle school during win time that's just what they do. They don't do anything else. That's just what they do until they're at the proficiency level that they need to be. So, I just want to be mindful that while we're putting systems, I get that, but again, if the student isn't going to do
it and and and we're not creating a program personalized to the student, the system isn't going to work. >> So, I think would that require in order to like implement something like that, I think we need to know a lot more about the students who are um not having success right or or who
aren't gaining as much as we'd like. So we can see here that our special education students who are serving receiving sped services might be a group that needs extra support. AI tutoring might be a tool that's helpful for that or it might be something else. So I think we need to look at who is doing
things or or what or what students are needing supports and then what are the best tools to accommodate those learning needs. >> Do you know? >> Yeah. >> You know and I think that's what you're trying to do. We have three minutes. So, I think we're probably going to end on this section. So, if there's one more
question, um, >> way >> I got four on my phone. Um, but we'll think >> just save questions for [clears throat] >> Okay, save questions. We could pick either what's the board's preference. We could pick this back up at a future meeting or
>> we could process the report and if you have questions, you could send them to Bowman for Friday notes and the whole board could receive a response. Is there a preference? So, I appreciate the report and the action steps related to it, but
>> what do you all want to do? >> I'm sorry. Are you continue [clears throat] this? >> I'm asking do you want this the rest of this to go on a future meeting? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that's your vote. Or are do you have the information with the ability to ask questions that would go on Friday notes for further
understanding of how the district is taking data to to change how things are happening. >> I mean, I guess it's if we want it to process for us or if we want to share it with the the community, I guess is two different questions. >> I think the information is good.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> This is public obviously the report. >> Y >> um but I think there's probably there's more than just that that we're doing as a district which might come out in a future meeting if we have. >> I have a lot of questions I didn't ask because of time.
>> So, I'd be up for an additional meeting. Do you think this is like next work session? >> Next work session. >> Yeah, business meeting. >> Okay, sounds good. >> So, with two minutes, we'll um we'll save the second half of the report for the next work session. Um and maybe by
then the math stuff [clears throat] will be ready um potentially. We can see >> um yeah, with that we can wrap it up and have a good evening everybody. >> Motion to motion to we don't need motions for I watch so many board meetings. [laughter] Eden Prairie, they don't do any of that.