Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District completes K–3 screener: staff report 4,650 students assessed; teachers now drafting reading plans
Summary
District staff said they screened 4,650 kindergarten–third grade students in a brief window and that teachers are developing targeted reading plans for students identified as at risk by the diagnostic. Staff noted implementation learnings about partner support, technology auto‑scoring, and planning time for teachers.
David Johns, who presented the literacy update, told the board that over a roughly three‑week assessment window the district screened 4,650 K–3 students as part of the state‑mandated literacy work. He said the screening process identifies students at risk and triggers diagnostic assessment for students in the at‑risk band.
Johns described how screening and diagnostic work was accomplished during class time using teacher teams and partners; he said the diagnostic software includes an audio component that sometimes mis‑records students in noisy rooms or where dialects affect automatic scoring, and that teachers can review transcripts and override results when needed.
"When those 4,650 K–3 students were screened, 54 percent of them were screened at a level that was at or above the 20 fourth percentile," Johns said in the meeting transcript. He explained the district provided a teacher workday at the end of the assessment cycle so teachers could produce parent communications and begin developing individual reading plans for students who required interventions.
Johns said the district streamlined the reading‑plan template from a large state example to a shorter district template to reduce teacher workload while capturing the essential instructional steps. Teachers are now working to finalize communications and reading plans; Johns said some students who required the diagnostic will already have reading plans completed while other plans are still being drafted.
Board members thanked staff for the scale of the effort and asked how many of the students identified for support already had Individualized Education Programs (IEPs); Johns said students with IEPs will have their IEP team coordinate any reading plan work so there is not a conflict between IEP services and the district reading plans.
The screening and diagnostic results are being used to develop short‑term instructional plans; staff did not request board action at the Feb. 10 work session.
