A district presentation at the Oct. 16 work session summarized Arkansas’ third‑grade promotion rules, described the state’s defined good‑cause exemptions and listed interventions schools must provide for students who are not promoted to fourth grade.

The district speaker (testing and instructional staff joined the presentation) explained that state summative reading assessments use a four‑level scale; students scoring at levels 2–4 are promoted automatically, and students at level 1 are considered at risk and are not promoted unless a documented good‑cause exemption applies.

Staff defined the state’s good‑cause exemption categories discussed in the session: students who take the alternate DLM assessment (students with significant cognitive disabilities); students with disabilities where sufficient documented interventions and progress monitoring exist (an IEP alone does not automatically qualify a student); English learners with fewer than three years of formal instruction in English; students previously retained; students receiving intensive intervention for two or more years who still show a reading need; assessment portfolio cases in which year‑round evidence contradicts a single low end‑of‑year score; and isolated traumatic events. Staff noted further guidance on portfolio and traumatic‑event submissions is expected.

Staff described the instructional requirements for students who are not promoted: assignment to a highly qualified teacher, 90 minutes of daily reading instruction, a read‑at‑home plan, priority access to state‑funded at‑home literacy tutoring grants and tracking systems for interventions.

Jenny Parnell, the district testing coordinator, clarified scoring mechanics for the ELA measure and said the district had recently received both end‑of‑year second‑grade data and the beginning‑of‑year screener results; staff will send results home to families and make them available through the parent portal.

District data shown to the board included an interim (quarter‑1) snapshot for third grade and additional second‑grade end‑of‑year results. In the interim snapshot staff reported, the district’s third‑grade cohort distribution on the interim test was 55% at level 1, 31% at level 2, 11% at level 3 and 4% at level 4; staff described the interim assessment as an end‑of‑year standard administered earlier to indicate progress toward end‑of‑year expectations. For the beginning‑of‑year K–3 screener, staff reported about 61% of assessed students were “ready” and 39% were in a potential‑risk category for the screener window shown.

Board members asked practical questions about what retention looks like in practice, what qualifies as "intensive" intervention, whether interventions continue into fourth grade, and how parents can exercise placement requests. Staff said retained students repeat the full grade standards (not only reading) and emphasized interventions would continue into later grades until mastery. Staff also noted the district provides supports such as dyslexia specialists, Wilson Reading and other tiered interventions.

Several board members urged community involvement to provide additional reading practice and volunteer tutoring. Director Johnson made an emotional plea for community support and offered to coordinate volunteers and local outreach, saying, "I do not want a third grader held back." Staff said they will send families a letter with assessment results and next‑step guidance and will post intervention plans in the parent portal so teachers and families can coordinate support.

No board action was taken; the session aimed to brief the board and prepare for outreach and intervention planning.