Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District begins mandated science-of-reading training; board members raise funding concerns
Summary
Manitowoc School District staff said 103 educators have enrolled in state-mandated science-of-reading training tied to Act 20; the district will pay summer compensation but board members described the requirement as an unfunded mandate and urged legislative funding.
District staff reported that 103 employees have enrolled in state-mandated science-of-reading training under Act 20 and detailed the district's plan to deliver the training and compensate staff. Board members acknowledged the training's intended benefits but expressed concern that state funding promised for the mandate has not been released.
Presenter (curriculum staff) told the board that Act 20 requires reading instruction training for any educator who teaches reading in any capacity and that the district collaborated with CESA 7 to enroll staff. "We are we had collaborated with CESA 7, to have that training provided to all of our staff this year. It is a hundred and there are a hundred and 3 people enrolled," the presenter said.
Staff said there are four cohorts available and that participants must complete preparatory work and in-person sessions. The presenter described roughly 15 hours of work required before the in-person session and characterized the program as "about 45 hours of online training and 3 in person meetings," adding that the district will pay participants at the summer school rate for 32 hours.
A board member asked for a short explanation of the "science of reading." The presenter said the approach emphasizes attending to decoding and word-level skills rather than cueing strategies; "So this idea of meaning. And now with science reading, we're really asking kids to attend to what does to read the word, not to guess what it might mean," the presenter said.
Board members praised the professional development but several said the training represents an unfunded mandate. One board member cited an estimated district cost of $400,000 if the district were to cover all training-related compensation and materials, and asked whether the money promised in state legislation has been distributed. Staff said the district will allocate available savings and local funds to meet the requirement but that state funds referenced in the law have not been released due to state-level budget or administrative delays; staff suggested advocacy and formal discussion could be scheduled at a later meeting.
This item was an informational update; no formal board action was recorded on the training itself during the meeting.
