Resource center urges more board participation in building needs assessments, offers reading and staffing examples

Ward Cassidy, trainer with the Kansas School Board Resource Center, told the Committee on K‑12 Education Budget that local board engagement with building needs assessments and classroom practice can produce measurable improvements in third‑grade reading and school climate.

Cassidy described a building needs assessment exercise he led in a small district where initial data showed third‑grade reading proficiency near 22%. He said he required board participation during the visit: “I said, I'm not coming unless you have 1 board member there.” In the meeting with the superintendent, principal and teachers, a teacher ultimately acknowledged, “I really don't know how to teach reading.” Following the assessment, the district hired a reading specialist, added an extra third‑grade teacher, and established weekly meetings to monitor the students, Cassidy said. He described subsequent community volunteer screening and structured programs to provide targeted instruction outside of the classroom so teachers could focus on core instruction.

Cassidy argued that many districts can improve outcomes without large new appropriations by reallocating unspent funds and by using structured needs assessments to set priorities. He said school boards often do not know how much cash a district holds; in his account some boards were surprised to learn of substantial unencumbered funds and redirected resources to hire classroom staff.

On curriculum and literacy policy, both presenters urged attention to implementation. Cassidy said the state’s “science of reading” requirements should be monitored for fidelity: if districts have adopted the approach, the committee should check whether teachers have appropriate curriculum materials and training. He said anecdotal reports from teachers indicate implementation gaps and recommended that the department or districts verify whether training and curricular materials align with the science of reading.

Cassidy also emphasized practical, nonpartisan steps he said school boards can take: clearer lines of communication with teachers, regular building‑level needs assessments, weekly collaboration among teachers for targeted cohorts, and community volunteer programs screened and structured to support instruction. He offered the resource center’s materials and said they are drawn from state data and district records rather than proprietary sources.

Committee members asked about character development and social‑emotional learning (SEL). Cassidy distinguished “character development” (manners, responsibility, student behavior interventions tied to classroom management) from broader SEL curricula, saying the former can reduce disruptions and help teachers focus on academics. Other committee members cited studies supporting SEL; Cassidy and others in the hearing urged reviewing implementation evidence rather than relying on a single study.

Ending: Cassidy urged boards and the committee to verify that literacy training and curricular materials are reaching teachers in practice and recommended increased board participation in building needs assessments. The committee scheduled follow‑up briefings on literacy and assessment topics.