Committee reviews draft third‑grade promotion/retention policy required by Act 20

The Waukesha Board of Education Teaching and Learning Committee discussed a draft Board Policy 5411 on third‑grade promotion and retention required by Act 20 at its meeting. District staff presented the policy framework, the options schools would use when deciding promotion or retention, and a timeline that would put the policy into effect on Sept. 1, 2027 if approved.

The policy is meant to comply with Act 20’s requirement that districts adopt a specific promotion/retention policy for third graders. Staff described four possible outcomes under the draft: promotion with supports, promotion with a non‑reading cause identified (for example language needs), promotion over parental objection with mandated supports, or retention when the school and parents decide it is best. District staff said any student promoted without meeting all benchmarks would still be required to receive “intensive summer school” and continuing interventions during the following year.

Melissa Yao, a district staff member who led the presentation, told the committee the draft was built from Department of Public Instruction model language and legal guidance from Neola, with local edits to streamline wording. Yao said the administration is recommending the policy be approved by the board this summer (the statute’s deadline) but take effect Sept. 1, 2027 so current kindergarten students will experience the district’s updated instruction before retention decisions are made. "We would be asking that this policy go into effect September first of 2027," Yao said.

Committee members pressed for operational details. Board member Mr. Zenobia asked whether the effective date meant retention and promotion decisions would apply to students at the end of the 2027‑28 school year; staff confirmed that decision point would fall at the end of third grade for that cohort. Yao described the decision process as a school team and parents reviewing quality of instruction, whether a student had an individualized reading plan and progress monitoring data, and research about long‑term effects. She said teams currently called PSTs (problem solving teams) would lead the work and that a procedural handbook for schools would spell out timelines and steps.

On prevalence and timing, district staff estimated about 100 third graders currently have reading plans and said the district is awaiting spring Forward assessment results before final counts are known. "We probably have in third grade right now across the district around a hundred students still at third grade," Yao said, adding the state’s Forward assessment results would be available in May and would factor into final determinations. The committee chair also noted the district’s Forward reading proficiency (enhanced reporting) at the time was roughly 54 percent.

Several trustees raised concerns about the social and emotional impact of retention and emphasized a preference to exhaust supports before retaining a child. Trustee Brooks said the aim must be to balance preventing long‑term reading deficits with the immediate effects on a child, while Trustee Koslowski recommended clearer decision trees or flowcharts in guidance materials to reduce parental anxiety. Staff said much of that material will appear in the administrative procedures and the school handbook rather than the policy itself.

No formal vote was taken on Policy 5411. Administration said it will revise the draft language after further meetings with Neola and take committee feedback into account, provide parent and staff communications, and return to the committee in June for further discussion; the district must act by July to meet statutory timing. Yao said staff will prepare a procedural handbook for schools and communications for families if the board approves the policy.

Committee members asked district staff to: clarify how assessments and percentile thresholds are applied in eligibility determinations; spell out the timeline for parent notification; and estimate demand for intensive summer programs. Staff agreed to return with clearer numeric and procedural details and with the draft procedural handbook.

The discussion closed with the committee requesting written answers to outstanding questions before the June meeting so members can consider whether to recommend board approval in June or July.