Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy Lawsuit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DPSCD: Literacy lawsuit funds being spent quickly; academic-intervention hires show early midyear gains
Summary
District staff told the committee that spending tied to the literacy lawsuit is tracking ahead of original projections because the district rapidly hired academic interventionists; midyear data show higher probabilities of one-or-more-year growth for students who received interventions.
Detroit Public Schools Community District staff told the finance committee the district is spending literacy-lawsuit funds faster than originally planned because it has hired academic interventionists at scale, and early (midyear) results show measurable gains for participating students.
Staff reminded the committee that the district received about $94 million to fund a three-year implementation tied to a literacy court settlement. Presentation slides and spoken remarks showed the district expects to spend roughly $43 million in year one because of aggressive hiring of academic interventionists and related personnel.
Nut graf: The district said front-loaded hiring has accelerated expenditure of the literacy settlement money and that preliminary midyear academic data suggests students served by interventionists and City Year members are more likely to show at least one year of growth by midyear than comparable peers.
Spending plan and program priorities
The district outlined which activities are currently being funded from the settlement and which may be shifted off the settlement in years two and three. Staff said the district will continue to fund academic interventionists (AIs) at K–2 and expand into third grade next year. The district is maintaining bonuses already negotiated with the teachers’ union related to literacy work and continuing investments in programs such as City Year and Let's Read volunteer tutoring.
Staff noted several items originally planned for settlement funding that will not continue to be paid from that source in future years if spending rates remain high; examples include supplemental foundational materials and take-home books, which staff said provide value but are less cost-effective than the direct intervention work by AIs.
Early outcomes data
Midyear snapshot data presented to the committee showed about 48.4 percent of K–2 students showed at least one year of growth; the presenter said growth is harder to demonstrate this midyear because last year’s gains were especially large. The district reported that students who had access to an academic interventionist showed a 2.7 percentage-point higher rate of at-least-one-year growth at midyear compared with peers without that access. City Year participation and Let's Read volunteer interventions also showed positive midyear differences in growth rates, staff said.
Staff emphasized that a third-party research project will produce a more rigorous analysis to be delivered in summer and that the midyear numbers are an early indicator rather than a final evaluation.
Ending: Staff asked the committee to note the spending pace and told members a fuller, third-party evaluation of the literacy investments will be available to the board in summer.
