Savannah-Chatham County board hears literacy presentation as AMIRA scores show large year-over-year gains

Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Education members received an extended presentation and discussion on foundational literacy, AMIRA assessment results and related policies during the district’s accountability meeting. Staff said the district’s school‑year 2025 foundational‑literacy Key Performance Indicator (KPI) — the percentage of kindergarten through second‑grade students meeting or exceeding expected growth on Amira Reading Mastery (ARM) — was 68%, exceeding the district target of 51%.

Why it matters: Board members and staff said K–3 literacy outcomes drive longer‑term student success benchmarks such as third‑grade reading and state growth measures; the session focused on how to interpret ARM scores, how the district is using results to target interventions and what policy changes (grading, promotion/retention) the board might consider.

District presentation and data Dr. May, who led the data explanation, told the board: "This KPI reflects the percentage of students in grades kindergarten through second who meet or exceed expected growth in their AMIRA reading mastery scores." Staff explained the ARM score is a composite linked to the science of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension) and that the ARM format (for example, "2.5") signals grade level and month of the school year. The KPI counts students as meeting expected growth either by maintaining or increasing their ARM percentile rank from beginning to end of year or by remaining in the above‑grade‑level percentile band (roughly the 76th–99th percentile).

For school year 2025 the district reported a 68% rate of kindergarten–second graders meeting or exceeding expected growth (a 19‑point gain from the prior year and 17 percentage points above the district target). Staff attributed the improvement to stronger implementation and higher participation in the AMIRA assessment and related instruction. Staff also summarized beginning‑of‑year 2026 snapshot results (grades K–3): roughly 40% of kindergartners, 41% of first graders and 49% of second‑ and third‑grade students were "on track" (the presentation defined "on track" roughly as the 50th percentile range).

Interpreting cohort and baseline differences Board members pressed staff about a cohort decline: the current second‑grade beginning‑of‑year on‑track percentage was about 8 points lower than last year’s second‑grade cohort. Staff said part of that difference is the change in assessment expectations between grades (second‑grade beginning‑of‑year tasks assess second‑grade skills different from the first‑grade end‑of‑year tasks) and that participation changes (larger denominators) can affect percentages. Staff acknowledged the result is concerning but said beginning‑of‑year distributions near national norms are not unusual.

Intervention requirements and use of AMIRA Staff cited the Georgia Early Literacy and Dyslexia Act (House Bill 307) when describing intervention work: the district said the law requires creation of tiered intervention plans for students not on track to reach grade‑level literacy. Staff said AMIRA is used to identify precise skill gaps (for example decoding subskills) so teachers and interventionists can target small‑group instruction and progress monitor gains.

Board debate: grading policy, promotion and retention A sustained portion of the meeting turned to grading policy and how classroom grades relate to standardized assessment results. Several board members — including Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Campbell and Dr. Howard Hall — said parents receive report‑card grades during the year that sometimes appear inconsistent with assessment results at year’s end. Dr. Howard Hall asked whether the district was considering promotion/retention policy changes.

District staff responded that grading calibration is one of the first actions they are pursuing and that promotion/retention remains under review. A staff member said promotion decisions are ultimately a principal responsibility and that multiple data points (not a single test score) are used in retention/promotion decisions. Several board members raised concerns about informal grading practices they described — for example, teachers or administrators substituting a 60 in place of a zero for missing work — and asked staff to audit whether such practices occur and whether district policy is being followed. Staff said the district has a grading scale in policy and that they will report back on implementation and any inconsistencies.

Curriculum implementation, supports and staffing Members asked how the new HMH curriculum and the state’s updated K–12 ELA standards are being implemented. Staff described layered support: professional learning (LETRS cohorts), publisher‑led classroom walks and on‑site coaching from HMH, "core action" instructional walks by school support officers, and use of assessment data to drive small‑group instruction. Board members urged the district to prioritize and distill the HMH modules so teachers are not forced to "dig through" every module themselves; several board members recommended the district identify the essential lessons at scale rather than leaving each school to determine priorities independently. Staff acknowledged vacancies in central‑office curriculum positions and said they are balancing hiring with use of current master teachers and external coaching to accelerate support.

Community volunteers and partner coordination Staff described partnerships with volunteer programs (Read United Buddies and Love Mentors) and said volunteers receive basic training so their one‑on‑one reading support aligns to the district’s evidence‑based approach. Board members recommended the district engage additional community organizations that already run in‑school programs (for example civic mentoring programs) and provide a short training or "on‑ramp" so those organizations can align their activities to literacy goals.

Clarifying details and unanswered items Staff confirmed some specific technical points in response to board questions: the KPI target of 51% was calculated as 5% of the gap from the 2024 baseline (49%) toward 100%, and staff noted that national norms typically center near the 50th percentile for norm‑referenced assessments. Staff also said the district will re‑share the exact Ns (counts) for each grade and cohort on request; the presentation did not include a full per‑grade enrollment denominator in the slides handed out to the board and several members asked for that detail.

Superintendent closing remarks Superintendent Dr. Watts closed the meeting by stressing the importance of accountability and saying the board’s guidance will inform next steps: "The accountability conversation is a very important one. I hold accountability in high regard," he said.

What’s next Staff offered to provide additional technical documentation (baseline Ns, the KPI technical guide, and specific implementation timelines) and to return with follow‑up reports on grading policy implementation, promotion/retention policy options, and a clearer district‑level prioritization of curriculum modules and supports.