Ithaca committee reviews state-mandated school improvement plans, launches tutoring pilot

District staff and committee members discussed the district’s targeted school improvement plans and related assessment and intervention work during the Ithaca City School District Curriculum Committee work session. Lynn Klinkowski, the district’s evaluation officer, told the committee the school teams used the state’s plan template and a multi-step development process and that the plans “were developed using data review, student interviews, and visioning work” over a two- to three-month cycle.

The discussion centered on two immediate requirements from the state: clearer, more narrowly written instructional goals tied directly to the New York State exams and a requirement that each school include at least two instructional strategies (with instructional strategies required to outnumber non-instructional ones). Mary (last name not specified), a district staff member, said the state’s revised template and direct feedback from a state consultant produced those changes and that the consultant provides approval for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools.

Why it matters: the plans determine how the district draws on state improvement grant funds and direct which instructional and non-instructional efforts are prioritized at each building. Committee members pressed staff on which strategies produced measurable gains, how implementation varies between elementary and secondary schools, and how the district will ensure students identified as struggling receive the right mix of classroom instruction and individualized supports.

Key details and evidence

• Plan development and scope — Klinkowski described each school’s School Comprehensive Education Plan team as including teachers, administrators and caregivers, following a state-prescribed process of data review, student interviews and visioning. She said the planning timeline began in late March and plans were finalized by early July.

• State reporting rules — Staff said the state changed the template to require schools to separate instructional from non-instructional strategies and to include at least two instructional strategies; non-instructional strategies are allowed but no longer sufficient on their own.

• Instructional focus and curriculum — At the elementary level staff reported universal implementation of a new grades 3–5 ELA curriculum adopted last year and continued use of foundational skills K–2. Staff said those curriculum adoptions plus consistent intervention and teacher leadership contributed to ELA gains. For middle schools, staff described teacher-developed curriculum and a current emphasis on common, department-built assessments (benchmarks) while vertical alignment and curriculum adoption at the secondary level remain active conversations.

• Assessment and data systems — The committee heard results from the 3–8 New York State exams showing year-over-year increases districtwide in English language arts, math and, to a lesser extent, science. Staff also reviewed local benchmark results (DIBELS / mCLASS and Amplify benchmarks) showing growth from fall to spring and described ongoing grade-level data cycles and MTSS (multi-tiered systems of support) processes to monitor students.

• Acceleration and Regents exams — Staff noted that some 7th and 8th graders take Algebra I (the Regents) and that those students performed strongly on the Regents last year; staff said participation still does not reflect the overall student demographic makeup and that expanding access remains a priority.

• Tutoring pilot — The district plans a tutoring pilot with a vendor staff identified in the meeting as Litera (referred to in the discussion also as Vaterra/Laterra in places), funded with school improvement grant dollars. Staff said Litera uses a human tutor model (virtual sessions) aligned to the district’s math curriculum (Illustrative Math / Eureka approaches) and aims for roughly 90 minutes per week of tutoring (either three 30-minute sessions or two 45-minute sessions). The pilot target is about 25 students in each identified building; staff estimated a per-student annual cost of about $1,200 and said the district will provide a building-level tutoring coordinator to manage scheduling and reporting. Staff also said a posting for district-employed tutors had attracted no applicants as of the closing date.

Committee questions and staff responses

Committee members asked how the district identifies which students need individual versus whole-class interventions, how curriculum adoption differs by level, and how the tutoring pilot will handle equity issues such as internet access and transportation. Staff said identification follows a threshold-review process required by the state: students scoring at or below the level between 2 and 3 on the state test are reviewed with other measures (classroom assessments, mCLASS data, grades) and then placed into appropriate supports within MTSS. Staff said buildings have reading specialists but do not have dedicated math interventionists, and that the tutoring pilot is meant to add capacity for targeted math support.

Concerns raised during the meeting included practical barriers to tutoring uptake (transportation, caregiver schedules, home internet access, and student engagement for younger students doing virtual sessions). Staff said the chosen vendor will allow sessions to occur from home and will report both engagement and learning progress after each session; staff also said the district can supply hotspots or equipment where needed.

What’s next

Staff said they will monitor the tutoring pilot as a one-year pilot, track participation and outcomes in eight-week cycles, and bring back impact data to the committee. They also identified data strategists and PLC (professional learning community) time as district levers to support teacher collaboration, common assessments and more consistent standards-based practices across classrooms.

Ending

Committee members suggested more site visits and PLC listening sessions in teachers’ own settings to hear teacher perspectives directly. Staff agreed to return with more disaggregated school-level data and details on the tutoring vendor’s cost, participation, and early results.