Board hears questions about Literacy Act reporting, intervention lists and readiness for retention provision
Loading...
Summary
Board members raised concerns on Dec. 10 about redundancy in district reporting under the Alabama Literacy Act, the department’s use of Cognia for monitoring, and how the law’s retention provision will align with pandemic-era testing. Department staff said some reporting was condensed and that technical details are being refined with districts.
Board members used the Dec. 10 work session to press department staff on operational details of the Alabama Literacy Act, asking about reporting burdens on principals and coaches, the department’s role in approving interventions, and how retention rules will be applied in light of disrupted instruction during the pandemic.
Multiple district leaders reported duplication of local reporting and state monitoring. Board members said principals and reading coaches were sometimes entering similar information in multiple systems. Department staff acknowledged the concern and said they are working to streamline reporting. Staff also said Cognia is being used for implementation-monitoring and continuous-improvement reporting, and that some districts asked for additional guidance on deadlines and data fields.
Members of the literacy-task-force subcommittee described a scored list of recommended tier‑3 intervention programs and explained the criteria used to evaluate products against statutory requirements. The department said the ranked list includes only programs that met all statutory criteria; a small number of widely used programs did not meet every statutory criterion and therefore were not included in the recommended set. The department stressed the list is advisory and that local districts retain discretion to select programs.
On the question of third‑grade retention tied to state assessments, Superintendent Eric Mackey said the retention provision will rely on a valid, reliable reading score derived from state assessments and that certain technical steps — including setting cut scores — require multiple administrations for statistical validity. Mackey and other staff cautioned that pandemic-related learning loss complicates the statistical work and that the department is considering how cut scores and related procedures will be set in the 2021–22 timeframe.
Board members asked for clearer communications to districts, a reduction in duplicate reporting, and additional technical support. The department said it will continue revising guidance, offer additional calls with districts, and provide clearer timelines and data templates to reduce duplicate data entry.
