Elizabeth School District shows mixed year‑end i‑Ready results; district outlines expanded reading interventions

Chief Academic Officer Kim Moore presented i‑Ready year‑end reading and math results at the Elizabeth School District Board of Education meeting on June 9, and described a district plan to expand targeted reading interventions, certify additional staff in academic language therapy and require regular teacher data workgroups next year.

Moore told the board that school‑level outcomes varied. At Running Creek, 47% of students scored at grade level in math at the end of the year — a 34 percentage‑point increase from the beginning of the year but a 9 percentage‑point drop from the previous year. Singing Hills showed strong year‑end results in reading (73% at grade level), and the middle school recorded 48% grade‑level proficiency in math at year end, a 2 percentage‑point improvement from the prior year and a 19 percentage‑point gain from the beginning of the year.

The numbers showed the greatest concern at upper elementary grades, Moore said, where a “chasm” of students more than three grade levels below begins to form. “This is where our gap begins to form, as, you know, young primary grades, children are really staying on track, and then as we get to grade and above, we start seeing this chasm begin to form,” Moore said.

Why it matters: board members pressed for next steps because district policy now ties promotion decisions to reading levels. Moore said the district will expand in‑school interventions, increase administrative oversight of data use, and add specialized staff so that students identified with significant reading needs receive more intensive services early.

Key steps Moore outlined

- A regular intervention block (called ‘‘wind time’’ or intervention time) at the elementary level: a 40–45 minute block per day, four days per week, with pull‑out intervention (for students with the greatest need) and ability grouping for the remaining students in the classroom so teachers can target instruction. “We would have wind time or intervention time. It would be a set time, 40 to 45 minutes a day, 4 days a week,” Moore said.

- More consistent use of PLCs (professional learning communities): principals or deans will set weekly agendas so grade‑level teams focus on scope and sequence, data, and specific students’ next steps.

- Expanded training and staffing for dyslexia and intensive reading services: the district hired a new literacy specialist, Cindy Cano, described as a dyslexia expert, and plans to train three additional staff members this summer to become certified academic language therapists. Moore said the district will increase take‑flight/therapy groups from two days a week in pilots to more days and more staff, noting a middle‑school pilot student gained four grade levels while in the program.

- Use of i‑Ready tools and other assessments: Moore said i‑Ready includes progress monitoring and a dyslexia screener; staff also use SPIRE and other diagnostic assessments to confirm screening results before writing individual READ or MTSS plans.

Board questions and implementation details

Board members asked for cohort breakdowns and whether declines in year‑over‑year scores reflected changing student cohorts; Moore offered to provide cohort‑level data. Directors and Moore discussed teacher turnover as a factor: Moore flagged several classes where mid‑year staffing changes coincided with weaker gains.

Moore emphasized the need to change staff mindset about data: some teachers she contacted said ‘‘the data doesn’t matter’’; Moore said the district will expand professional development so teachers understand how i‑Ready and classroom assessments inform screening and intervention decisions. She also said principals will get additional training so they can lead PLCs and hold teachers accountable for intervention fidelity.

Attendance and policy connections

Moore and board members discussed attendance as a limiting factor. Moore said students missing 40–60 days a year are unlikely to close multi‑grade gaps without improved attendance. She noted local truancy enforcement is limited because judicial resources differ by county and the district previously pursued truancy court options with local judges.

What the district will monitor next year

Moore said the district will track beginning‑of‑year assessments, PLC implementation, and fidelity to the intervention block. She asked the board for allowance to follow up with cohort data and promised to return with more detailed analysis and next steps early in the next school year.

Ending

Board members thanked Moore for the data and for a plan that pairs added staff with clearer, scheduled intervention time and principal‑led PLCs. Moore said she is optimistic that the combination of training, staffing and weekly intervention blocks will produce measurable improvement next year.