Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy Reading Goal 2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CMS updates board on reading goal 2; middle school projections rise but remain below target
Summary
Superintendent Dr. Hill told the Charlotte‑Mecklenburg Board of Education that district projections show a small increase in students on track for college‑and‑career‑ready reading in grades 6–8, but the district remains short of this year’s target and board members pressed for clarity on interventions and attendance strategies.
Superintendent Dr. Hill presented the board with an interim report on Goal 2—raising the percentage of students scoring college‑and‑career‑ready (CCR) on reading end‑of‑grade assessments in grades 3–8—focusing on students in grades 6–8.
The report showed districtwide projections that 30 percent of middle school students (grades 6–8) are currently projected to reach level 4 or 5 on the end‑of‑grade reading assessment at the end of the year, an increase of roughly 3 percentage points from last year’s actual performance for that cohort, though still below the district target for the year (37 percent). Dr. Hill told the board that across grades 3–8, 32 percent of the roughly 61,267 students assessed at the beginning of the year are projected to be level 4 or 5 at year’s end; the target for grades 3–8 this year is 37 percent.
The superintendent and staff emphasized measurement issues that affect comparisons across years: participation in benchmark assessments was 88 percent last year and rose to 95 percent this year; CMS applies a business rule that an assessment participation rate below 95 percent can render scores nonproficient for accountability purposes. Dr. Hill said if last year’s quarter‑one scores were held to this year’s participation rate, the year‑to‑year difference would be narrower.
Board members asked detailed questions about the district’s methods and next steps. Topics included: the district’s “core action walks” to inspect classroom instruction for alignment to standards and the curriculum; use of Master Teachers embedded in schools to support implementation and coaching; targeted interventions through MTSS (multi‑tiered systems of support) and a standard treatment protocol that prescribes specific, evidence‑based interventions (examples cited included Orton‑Gillingham, Achieve the Core, I‑Ready and progress monitoring); and targeted attendance strategies implemented through partners and mediators.
Dr. Hill said the district conducted 279 formal “core action walks” across 48 middle schools to check that standards, learning targets and appropriately leveled student tasks are in place. For interventions and attendance, the report said the district contracted with My Brother’s Keeper for outreach this year; Dr. Hill reported 674 home visits and 814 calls tied to chronic middle‑school absenteeism and said the outreach has yielded increases in the number of schools with attendance rates at or above 92 percent. Mediators are used when other attendance strategies have not succeeded; they work with families and schools to identify and remove barriers to attendance.
Board members pressed staff on how the district will accelerate students already near the CCR threshold (students projected as level 3) to levels 4 or 5. Dr. Hill and staff pointed to differentiated core lessons—task design that provides challenging, grade‑appropriate work for students on or above grade level—and to monitoring during core action walks to ensure students are assigned tasks aligned to their projected level. Staff pointed to specific planning documents (“response to benchmark” reports) that will be available to schools after each benchmark window to guide school‑level adjustments.
Dr. Hill confirmed the district is expanding supports for families through a Family Academy initiative that will offer modules on understanding benchmark reports, how to use I‑Ready appropriately, and how to front‑load background knowledge for upcoming modules—strategies staff said are especially important for multilingual families. The superintendent said some family supports will be provided in multiple languages.
Board members and staff described the work as early in implementation. Dr. Hill cautioned that while systems (protocols, tracking, district plans) are in place, implementation across schools is still progressing and the district will continue calibrating supports and monitoring fidelity.
Ending: The presentation was informational; no formal board action was taken on Goal 2 at the Jan. 28 meeting. Board members asked for continued reporting and follow‑up documents (response‑to‑benchmark reports and implementation tracking) in future updates.
