Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ela Literacy Goals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District 25 reviews ELA sprint results, moves to set district and school goals for next year
Summary
District 25 leaders reviewed I‑Ready and Acadience/Acadiens (k–2) assessment results for English learners and all students, discussed school-level goal timelines in the DCEP/iPlan cycle and proposed draft ELA goals for 2025–26.
District 25 leaders reviewed interim literacy data for English learners and other student groups and began drafting district-level goals to guide school Comprehensive Education Plans.
The discussion centered on recent ELA “sprint” participation and performance in I‑Ready for grades 3–8 and Acadience (K–2) measures. The district reported nearly 6,600 students participating in the elementary/middle ELA sprint, with elementary students averaging 74 minutes and a 74% lesson pass rate and middle-school students averaging 49 minutes and an 81% pass rate on sprint lessons. Officials said Acadience‑related phonics measures showed year‑over‑year gains in decoding skills for K–2 students, but leaders raised concerns about transfer from decoding to vocabulary and comprehension in later grades.
Why it matters: District leaders plan to finalize district priorities and share them as scaffolding for school-level DCEPs. Schools will use the district goals while drafting school goals between April and May; district review and certification of alignment to budgets is scheduled for June–July, officials said.
Leaders flagged several takeaways. Rob Marino, principal of P.S. 120 and the CSA representative on the DLT, said the data show many students are “one grade level below” and therefore close enough to accelerate with targeted supports. Gus Hasidimitriou, central DOE director for federal and state education implementation policy, cautioned that different assessments (Acadience vs. state assessments) drive different percentage outcomes and that goal wording should specify the metric used. He said the district had adjusted its draft goal wording to give some flexibility where K–2 schools (Acadience) and grades 3–8 (I‑Ready/state assessments) use different endpoints.
Participants discussed program fidelity and dosage. The chair noted that research-based programs require a specified frequency and intensity to deliver the intended effects; schools must confirm they are delivering interventions at the recommended “dosage” to produce measurable growth.
The DLT previewed two draft Priority 1 goals: one aimed specifically at English learners and another covering all students, both emphasizing explicit instruction and decodable text. Draft percentages in the slides were presented as placeholders; panelists were asked to focus on intent rather than final cutpoints. The chair said priorities 1 and 3 were consolidated to focus literacy and instructional quality together, with other priorities to separate math, college/career readiness and family engagement.
Next steps: Schools are expected to complete root cause analyses and draft goals in April–May. District staff will collect feedback from principals and teachers, refine the district goals, and present a final set for certification later this summer. District leaders said they will share the draft goals and timelines with parents and SLTs once refined.
Ending: DLT members were asked to review slides 23–27 in the shared presentation and provide feedback before the next DLT meeting, when the committee will finalize remaining priorities for the 2025–26 school year.
