Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the K 12 Academic Interventions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rogers outlines reading and math intervention plans under state 'Right to Read' and numeracy rules
Summary
District staff reported they issued more than 1,500 individual reading intervention plans for K–3 (about 37% of students) and roughly 16.5% of students received math intervention plans for grades 3–8; administrators described instructional and parent‑notification steps required by the state law.
Rogers Public Schools staff reported to the board that they documented individual reading and math intervention plans this school year to comply with state requirements commonly described in meeting remarks as the "Right to Read" portion of the Learns Act and the numeracy portion for math.
Christie Charles of the teaching and learning team briefed the board on how the district implemented the rules: kindergarten through third graders take a literacy screener and students who do not meet benchmarks receive individualized reading intervention plans; grades 3–8 students who are not proficient on the state math assessment receive math intervention plans tied to specific standards. The district records both plans in its student information system and provides written notification to parents.
Charles said Rogers wrote just over 1,500 reading plans this year — about 37% of the district in grades K–3 — and that figure was below the statewide average reported early in rollout of the screener. She attributed some of the difference to the district’s continued use of the DIBELS assessment (teacher‑administered) in certain cases and to other local assessment practices.
For math, Charles reported roughly 16.5% of students had math intervention plans. She described typical supports the law suggests: high‑dosage tutoring, targeted small‑group instruction, laboring on tier‑2 interventions after core instruction, and teacher effectiveness measures (TES evaluations, master‑teacher or lead designations). The math plans are organized around standards such as number and place value for elementary grades and proportional relationships, statistics and algebraic reasoning in middle schools.
Board members asked how middle schools manage larger caseloads and whether interventions look like separate classes or targeted small groups. District staff said plans are targeted and teachers group students by specific skill deficits during intervention times; teachers may “share” students across periods so a teacher with a strength in a given skill can address that deficit. Administrators also emphasized the PLC (professional learning community) process for analyzing student‑by‑student gaps.
District leaders described next steps to reduce plan rates: strengthening instructional leadership and coaching, extending Marzano instructional strategies, providing targeted K–5 math professional development to build conceptual understanding, and enhancing family engagement with take‑home materials. Charles and other presenters said the parent‑communication element has been well received in many schools.
No policy change was adopted at the meeting; the report was informational and staff were asked to continue implementing plans and return with follow‑up information as needed.
