Port Washington UFSD reports K–8 gains on i‑Ready, highlights persistent subgroup gaps and literacy budget needs

At its October curriculum committee meeting, Port Washington Union Free School District staff presented K–8 assessment results showing districtwide gains on the New York State exams and the district’s i‑Ready diagnostic, while flagging persistent equity gaps and budget implications tied to a planned K–5 literacy adoption.

District leaders said the data show steady improvement across multiple measures but uneven results between schools and student subgroups, prompting a three‑year plan to pilot and then adopt a single K–5 literacy program with districtwide implementation targeted for the 2027 school year.

Administrators and curriculum staff led the presentation, summarizing New York State testing trends and i‑Ready diagnostic results, subgroup outcomes and next steps. They described math gains tied to a districtwide math program and expanded professional development, and contrasted that progress with varied literacy outcomes in grades 2–5.

The presentation noted New York State results across the last three administrations showed proficiency gains in ELA and math; staff reported district ELA proficiency moving from the 60s (2023) to the mid‑70s in 2025, with grades 4–5 among the largest year‑to‑year improvements. For i‑Ready (the district diagnostic adopted in 2024 to replace NWPA), staff reported that in spring 2025 roughly 69% of students placed early to mid grade level in math and about 71% were early/on/above grade level in reading. Staff highlighted a marked reduction in the group placing two to three grade levels below: from about 18% at fall to about 8% at spring, according to the district’s i‑Ready reporting.

But that broad progress masks subgroup differences. In i‑Ready spring results cited by staff, overall ELA proficiency was 71%, while English learners (E/L) were reported at 54% proficiency, economically disadvantaged students at 37% and students with disabilities at 38%. Presenters also pointed to falling participation rates for some subgroups on particular measures (staff cited E/L participation declining from about 65% to 46% on some screens) and said that uneven participation complicates comparisons.

District staff stressed that the math program’s districtwide rollout, ongoing embedded coaching and unit assessments give teachers common benchmarks and tools to use data for targeted small‑group instruction. Staff said those investments helped produce consistent spring growth in the i‑Ready math results and make it easier to pull unit assessments across buildings.

By contrast, literacy work remains less uniform. The curriculum committee reported K–2 phonics and phonemic awareness programming was put in place across all elementary schools this school year; however, staff said upper elementary (grades 2–5) literacy outcomes remained inconsistent school‑to‑school, which motivated the district’s literacy subcommittee to vet programs in year two of a three‑year plan. The subcommittee narrowed candidates to five programs, plans site visits, will pilot up to three in 2026, and aims for a districtwide recommendation and budget request in time for the 2027 implementation.

Staff emphasized budget and implementation implications for a K–5 adoption: classroom libraries and program materials are costly, and the district will need to budget for coaches and sustained professional development if it moves forward. The presentation listed potential tools and investments under consideration, including an MTSS/RTI data dashboard (examples named were EduClimber and Branching Minds), literacy coaches and continued embedded math specialists.

Committee members asked for additional breakdowns and next steps. Several board members requested cohort tracking across years using i‑Ready (fall/spring and year‑to‑year cohort views) and asked for separate reporting on middle‑school accelerated cohorts (for example, algebra students who do not take an 8th‑grade screener) because those subgroupings can influence grade‑level averages. Staff agreed to provide further cohort analyses and to refine comparisons where accelerated students are not included in a grade‑level test population.

Staff also discussed Academic Intervention Services (AIS) at the middle school level. They reported that summer recommendations and initial sixth‑grade rosters showed substantial numbers of students identified for AIS in reading and math (staff cited roughly 53 students flagged for math AIS entering sixth grade and about 104 in seventh grade as initial counts presented to the committee). Staff explained differences in service delivery between elementary and middle school schedules (for example, special education students may receive services differently at the elementary level and be more likely to receive combined AIS/resource supports in middle school) and said they will review staffing levels and service models.

A community commenter, neuropsychologist Heather Hinkle, pressed staff on i‑Ready norms and testing cadence, asking whether the district had winter measures in addition to fall and spring and whether the adaptive nature of the assessment affects repeat‑question perception. Staff explained i‑Ready is computer‑adaptive and reported the district administers the screener three times per year as required by state guidance for universal screening.

Presenters characterized the current phase as one of consolidation: math investments and coaching demonstrated what coordinated implementation with sustained professional development can produce; literacy requires the same level of coherence to scale gains. Staff said their immediate next steps include deeper cohort analyses, continued work with AIS providers, piloting literacy programs next year and submitting budget requests for any recommended program and coaching support.

The committee scheduled further discussion at the full board meeting and a next curriculum committee meeting for secondary (middle and high school) data in November.