RCS reviews five‑year test trends, prioritizes MTSS, new K–5 math curriculum and targeted literacy work

RAVENA-COEYMANS-SELKIRK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT staff on Monday reviewed five‑year patterns in state assessments and proposed curriculum and intervention priorities intended to raise proficiency.

At a workshop, Jean (staff member) told the board that combined grade‑3‑8 results show ELA proficiency is an area of concern while math proficiency “had a slight decline” over several years but showed a meaningful uptick in the most recent year driven largely by strong seventh‑grade and geometry results. “Our scores on the ELA, state ELA are about on par, are a little bit above the state average but still we want to be better, and improving each year,” Jean said.

The presentation framed district strategy through a multi‑tiered system of supports (MTSS). Jean described tier 1 as “core instruction that is intended to have most of our students, 80 to 85 percent, achieve at grade level rates,” with tiers 2 and 3 providing progressively more intensive intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Jean outlined the district’s focus as improving tier‑1 instructional fidelity, strengthening targeted intervention and tracking progress with timely assessments.

Why it matters: Board members said the presentation links assessment results to budget choices. Staff argued that improving core instruction — and then aligning interventions to standards and student needs — is the most sustainable path to raise outcomes across grades.

Key proposals and evidence - K–5 math curriculum: Staff recommended adopting an evidence‑based K–5 math curriculum to be implemented with fidelity; Jean said the district has vetted options and expects to use existing materials and professional‑development budgets to manage initial costs. - Targeted successes: Staff highlighted a large gain in geometry proficiency after a shared curriculum pilot, citing a “43% increase in proficiency over 2 years.” Jean said that pilot reinforced the case for systematic curriculum adoption where research and coherent instructional planning exist. - Literacy work: The district is in the third year of implementing a phonics‑centered reading curriculum; Jean said early literacy phonics gains are already visible and the district will examine additional literacy data and intervention structures at upcoming committee meetings. - Programs: Staff previewed nonacademic and enrichment items tied to student readiness, including the Seal of Civic Readiness (state approval process to be submitted by September), expansion of unified sports (example cited: unified bowling) and a proposal to move band instruction earlier (proposal coming through building leadership teams to start in grade 4).

Board members asked about comparables and disaggregated data. Jean said the presented charts were RCS‑only and that staff would provide state averages and comparable‑district comparisons at the next meeting. Jean also pointed to changes in Regents and other statewide assessments that complicate year‑to‑year comparisons because the state changed rubrics and, in some cases, the timing of first administrations.

What the board directed (discussion vs. decision) - Discussion: the board discussed prioritizing math curriculum adoption, continuing literacy implementation, and ensuring interventions are tracked and resourced. - Direction: staff said they will provide disaggregated comparisons to state averages and selected comparable districts before the next meeting and will bring fuller implementation plans (including costs and timelines) for the recommended K–5 math curriculum to the Board of Education CNI meeting.

Ending: The presentation set priorities for the budget workshop cycle: adopt an evidence‑based K–5 math program with professional development and implementation supports, continue the district’s phonics work in early grades, and use MTSS to align intervention staffing and summer programming.