Provo School District reviews early-learning goals under Senate Bill 127; midyear data mixed

Michelle Aldridge, presenting for district staff, told the Provo School Board on April 16 that the district’s early learning plan required by Senate Bill 127 sets three goals tied to Acadience diagnostic data and three-year trends.

At a midyear check-in, Aldridge said the district had met its math “maintenance” goal and reported gains in some grades, but had not yet hit the district’s ambitious literacy increase target. Aldridge noted the literacy target was a district-level 12 percentage-point increase for first graders who begin the year at or above benchmark.

Why it matters: the early learning plan is a state-mandated framework that ties teacher training, diagnostic assessment, targeted interventions and family communication to measurable kindergarten-through-third-grade outcomes. Meeting those goals affects curriculum decisions and district accountability.

Aldridge summarized supports the district has provided this year: regular meetings of a district administrator team; professional development for instructional coaches; school-level coaching and follow-up; case-study work using Acadience progress-monitoring data; and a districtwide PD day focused on literacy and math strategies. She said instructional coaches in each of the district’s 13 elementary schools and Title I coordinators in Title I schools are central to implementation.

On the goals themselves, Aldridge said the district’s first math goal is a maintenance target: keep the percentage of first graders who enter on or above benchmark at the same level by year end. The more rigorous literacy goal calls for a districtwide increase of 12 percent among first graders who begin the year at or above benchmark. The state-mandated growth goal requires at least 60 percent of students in grades 1–3 to make typical or better progress on Acadience math.

Aldridge gave numbers at midyear: the district started the year with 63 percent of first graders at or above benchmark and reported 66 percent at midyear; she said that increase still fell short of the district’s 12-point target. For the mandated growth measure across grades 1–3, she reported 53 percent of students had made typical or better Acadience reading growth at midyear, below the 60 percent target.

Board members and staff discussed how data are used at the school level. Aldridge and others described a model in which district specialists train instructional coaches at weekly meetings; coaches then work with principals and teacher PLCs to analyze school data, select a narrow set of students to target and implement classroom strategies. Aldridge and other staff said the approach is deliberately targeted so teachers focus on a small number of students per classroom rather than attempting wholesale changes across every classroom at once.

Wendy Dow, superintendent, and board members asked about year-to-year trends and whether the district should supplement state-provided materials with local surveys such as the SHARP survey to get more current local information. Aldridge said the district generally relies on state materials and Acadience diagnostics but that additional, locally collected data can be helpful if the board directs that work.

Looking ahead, Aldridge said the district will continue the coaching cycle, follow up on school action plans and report end-of-year results required under Senate Bill 127 to the state.