Andover literacy audit urges districtwide adoption of high‑quality instructional materials, adds secondary screener and implementation supports

Andover School Committee workshop — Jan. 23, 2025 — ANET, a national education consulting network, presented findings from a five‑month literacy audit of Andover Public Schools and recommended the district adopt a coherent suite of high‑quality instructional materials (HQIM) for K–8 reading and writing, expand foundational skills materials into first grade, introduce a secondary literacy screener, and strengthen systems and schedules to support implementation.

The audit presentation, led by Katie Taber, senior systems partner with ANET, and Erin Gilbert, ANET diverse learning specialist, summarized classroom observations, educator and family surveys, and assessment inventories that ANET said point to inconsistent materials use and gaps between assessment and instruction. "High quality instructional materials matter," Taber said, citing research linking HQIM adoption to measurable learning gains.

ANET framed the recommendations as an integrated strategy: adopt an HQIM suite for reading and writing (K–8); retain and expand existing foundational programs Heggerty (phonemic awareness), Foundations (phonics), and Geodes (decodables); deploy curriculum‑embedded assessments (CEAs) from the chosen HQIM; add a short secondary screener for decoding and fluency (ANET cited Roar as an example); and create district systems—protected planning time, internalization protocols, implementation walks, and aligned minutes—to sustain use.

Why it matters: ANET reported stagnation or slight declines on MCAS in recent years and a marked gap between multilingual learners and non‑ELL students on ELA MCAS (27% of EL students meeting or exceeding versus 65% of non‑EL students, a 38 percentage‑point gap). The audit also found variability in classroom practice from walkthroughs (about 35 classrooms observed across four campuses): 20% of classrooms used what ANET judged to be on‑grade‑level texts, 60% showed some differentiation, about 60% provided opportunities for student writing, but only 7% had evidence of grade‑level instruction aligned to standards during observations.

Key recommendations and supporting details

• Curriculum and materials: The working group reached consensus to adopt an HQIM for K–8 reading and writing while retaining Heggerty (pre‑K/K) and expanding it into first grade, keeping Foundations and Geodes for phonics/decodables. ANET told the committee that high‑quality foundational materials were showing strong results in kindergarten: roughly 90% of students left kindergarten on grade level for phonemic awareness over the last three years. The working group surveyed showed stronger educator confidence in foundational skills materials (about two‑thirds of respondents agreed they were aligned to standards) but only about one‑third of educators agreed existing reading/writing materials ensured equitable access.

• Assessments and data use: ANET recommended a coherent assessment triangle—screeners, diagnostics, interims, and curriculum‑embedded assessments—so classroom teachers have “just‑right” data to differentiate instruction. Current inventory in Andover: DIBELS as screener/diagnostic in K–5, NWEA MAP interims in grades 2–8, and limited CEAs (foundations CEAs only in K–3). ANET recommended adding a quick secondary screener for decoding/fluency (examples cited: Roar) to identify older students with foundational gaps that comprehension‑only assessments miss.

• Special programs and inclusive practice: ANET recommended that most special‑education and language‑support students use the same HQIM with explicit adaptations so tier 1, 2 and 3 supports are coherent across settings. For students with level‑3 autism in the Bridge program, ANET recommended a different, ABA‑aligned curriculum to meet unique needs while preserving academic goals. ANET noted classrooms in some specialized programs were warm and organized but showed limited evidence of grade‑level academic engagement during observations.

• Systems and implementation supports: Recommended system changes included protecting planning time (ANET suggested 60 minutes weekly for unit/lesson internalization), clarifying the scope and sequence tied to the school calendar, codifying expectations for implementation, establishing implementation (not evaluation) walkthroughs for coaching, and allocating sufficient instructional minutes (ANET recommended 120 minutes for K–2 literacy blocks, 90 minutes for grades 3–5, and 50–60 minutes for grades 6+ depending on HQIM guidance).

Path forward and timeline: ANET said the final audit report will be delivered at the end of January and an implementation plan in February; ANET’s contracted scope runs through February. Committee members and district staff discussed using DESE’s implementation framework for the investigate/select phase, narrowing candidate HQIM products (ANET noted only a limited set meet HQIM criteria on external review services such as EdReports/Curate), piloting two to three curricula in spring, and expanding based on piloting and teacher readiness.

What the committee asked and what district staff said: Committee members asked about family supports (materials that can be translated, family letters, and district webinars), lending or leveled home libraries tied to student decoding level, timeline for expanding Heggerty into first grade (ANET said Heggerty is currently in all kindergarten classrooms and piloted in some first‑grade classrooms), and how to use secondary screeners (can be administered at the start of grade 6 or earlier as a complement to end‑of‑year DIBELS results). District staff said they will involve working‑group members and teachers in the pilot and keep the school committee updated through regular education agenda reports.

Notes on evidence and limitations: ANET derived recommendations from multiple data sources: 300 educator survey responses, about 285 family/caregiver survey responses (~10% of families), two days of classroom walkthroughs (about 35 classrooms), working‑group surveys, an inventory of current materials and assessments, and research‑based rubrics ANET used for analysis. The presentation emphasized that implementation is multi‑year: year‑one focus on compliance and systems, year‑two on adaptation, year‑three on fidelity/mastery, with institutionalization potentially taking longer.

Ending: District leaders and committee members thanked the working group and ANET for the review and agreed to return to the committee with the final report, a recommended shortlist for piloting, and periodic status updates as the district moves into the investigate/select and implementation phases.