Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses implementation questions for Alabama Literacy Act, including reporting and intervention lists
Summary
Board members and department staff discussed implementation details of the Alabama Literacy Act, with particular focus on reporting cycles, perceived duplication of district reporting, the approved intervention list and teacher training requirements for some intervention programs.
During the Dec. 10 work session board members asked department officials for clarifications about implementation of the Alabama Literacy Act, including required reporting, intervention program lists and supports for districts.
Dr. Mackey and department staff said the statutory Literacy Act is already in effect and that the act’s retention provision is targeted to third graders in the 2021–22 school year; other requirements and reports are currently being implemented. Staff identified two required December reports (one due Dec. 1 and a second by Dec. 31) and told the board the department would provide copies and further clarification.
Board members described district concerns about apparent duplication: principals, reading coaches and central‑office staff said they were being asked to upload similar data into multiple systems and into Cognia‑based implementation monitoring. Department staff acknowledged those concerns and said the department is working to reduce duplication by consolidating required data entry into a single platform and by issuing clearer timelines for the beginning/middle/end‑of‑year reporting windows. Department staff also pointed to a separate implementation monitoring form (early implementation memo F 1 21 2005) that will be used quarterly to record programmatic interventions and progress.
A separate issue involved the Literacy Task Force’s evaluation of intervention programs. Staff and task‑force members created a scored list of interventions; several programs did not meet all criteria and therefore received no score. Staff said they published a single list showing scored and recommended interventions and that districts may select from the list or continue using other locally chosen supports. Board members pressed for clear messaging and asked that the department assist districts with selection and scheduling.
Board members also discussed the teacher‑training burdens associated with some interventions. Staff confirmed that some intervention programs meeting top rankings require extensive instructor training and that implementation cost and training time remain barriers for some districts. Department staff said they will continue to gather feedback and adjust guidance to ease unnecessary duplication of district reporting.
