Henniker staff report midyear reading gains for K–3 but note gaps in older grades and variable screener results

Henniker Community School intervention staff on Monday presented midyear literacy screening results for kindergarten through third grade and described how the district is using a mix of universal screeners, targeted interventions and progress monitoring to address gaps in early literacy.

"Our goal ... at tier 1, we know about 80 percent of our students will be successful," said Sylvia Osecki, an intervention staff member, explaining the school's MTSS (multi‑tiered system of supports) framework and the idea that roughly 20 percent of students will need tiered, additional help. Osecki and Michelle McMurphy reviewed results from DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) and I‑Ready diagnostics and explained how the two tools complement each other.

The presenters said kindergarten DIBELS composite results rose from 29 percent at the beginning of the year to 64 percent at midyear "at or above" the composite benchmark, while I‑Ready midyear diagnostics showed roughly 85 percent of kindergartners at tier 1 on that measure. For first grade, staff reported beginning‑of‑year versus midyear moves (about 42 percent to roughly 59 percent at or above on the measures presented). For second grade the presenters noted movement from 42 percent at or above to about 53 percent. Third‑grade scores were reported as relatively strong — staff said about 74 percent were at or above at the start of third grade and that midyear figures reached roughly 76–82 percent on the different measures. All numeric figures were presented by school staff and described during the data presentation; the district’s numeric reports were summarized by staff during the meeting.

Osecki and McMurphy described the differences between the screeners. "DIBELS is also a timed measure," McMurphy said, and measures such as oral reading fluency and speed can push scores lower; by contrast, she said, I‑Ready is computer adaptive and untimed, giving students more time to demonstrate skills. Staff said the two measures together help identify whether a student has the underlying skill but lacks automaticity (timed fluency) or is missing the skill in both settings.

Staff described Henniker’s "Win" blocks (What I Need) for targeted instruction. Kindergarten through second graders receive two daily 30‑minute intervention blocks (one reading, one math); third grade receives one 30‑minute block and staff allocate those slots by student need. Intervention runs 6–8 week cycles with progress monitoring every two weeks; when students fail to meet benchmarks, staff said they may change intervention provider, group size, intensity or refer for special‑education evaluation.

Presenters also discussed older students and third‑through‑eighth‑grade supports. School staff reported mixed results in middle grades: some cohorts (for example current eighth graders) showed lower median growth in the diagnostic period presented, a point staff said they will investigate by looking at historical cohort data and multiple measures, including Lexia (vocabulary/word study) placements and usage. Staff noted that older students who are multiple grade levels behind often require more practice time than the program's weekly targets allow; the district tracks usage and has experimented with adjusting morning work periods to create brief work windows for the digital tools.

On family notification and engagement, staff said they send academic plans and screener results by email and paper; they reported a low direct parent response rate to those notices (staff said about three parents had replied to roughly 30 academic plan outreach attempts at the time of the meeting) and explained that classroom teachers frequently maintain direct parent contact when concerns arise.

Why it matters: district staff said the data show meaningful midyear growth in the early grades and provide guidance for continued interventions, staffing decisions and targeted supports. They also cautioned that different tools produce different snapshots — DIBELS (one‑on‑one, timed) and I‑Ready (computer adaptive, untimed) measure different aspects of reading and therefore can produce divergent percentages of students at benchmark.

School staff identified next steps including continued MTSS team review of students who do not progress, continued parent notification, using multiple measures for diagnostic confirmation, and local scheduling changes to increase student engagement with digital intervention tools where feasible. Teachers and administrators told board members they will continue to use the combined diagnostic information to set and track individual academic plans for qualifying students.

Speakers quoted and cited in this article spoke during the school data presentation at the Henniker School District board meeting; verbatim excerpts of their remarks appear in the meeting transcript.