PGCPS committee advances draft pre-K–3 literacy policy, asks for reporting and gap analysis

Prince George's County Public Schools’ Policy & Governance Committee recommended revising and advancing Policy 5-117, a pre-K–3 literacy policy aligned to Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) guidance, after a presentation from district academic leaders and extensive committee questions about training timelines, family notification and equity monitoring.

The committee, chaired by Dr. Felton Moss, voted to send the draft policy to the policy sponsor for revision approval. Robin Welsh, the board’s policy lead, introduced Chief of Academics Dr. Judith White and the district’s literacy leads, who outlined four MSDE components the draft follows: educator support and training in the science of reading; reading instruction, assessment and intervention; parent/guardian notification and a student reading improvement plan; and readiness-for-promotion criteria with narrowly defined good-cause promotions.

Why it matters: MSDE’s pre-K–3 literacy policy aims to ensure early identification and evidence-based instructional supports so students are prepared for grade-level reading by the end of third grade. For Prince George’s County, the board’s policy would set district expectations for training, screening frequency, family communication and annual reporting to MSDE and the board.

What the district presented: Dr. Victoria Holmes, coordinating supervisor of literacy and language, summarized how the policy prioritizes “foundational literacy skills aligned to the science of reading” and described existing district work: a comprehensive literacy plan, an early literacy support team that provides coaching, universal screening (diagnostics, progress monitoring), and a plan to house student reading improvement plans in the Synergy student information system. Dr. Judith White said the district has submitted a draft administrative procedure to MSDE and will continue iterative submission and revision with MSDE feedback.

Staff also described additional resources: an MSDE grant to fund literacy coaches (district staff estimated an initial cohort of about 9–12 coaches), pilot literacy labs in elementary schools, and a statewide review of high-quality instructional materials that will shape local curriculum choices.

Committee concerns and staff responses: Board members pressed on several operational details. Vice Chair Briggs asked that family-facing notifications and monitoring be made highly accessible; Dr. White said the district communicates screening results after each administration and will work on accessible reporting formats. Members questioned a September 1 training deadline in the draft; Dr. White and other staff said training is an ongoing, multi-month process and agreed to revise language so the superintendent’s designee “continually provide opportunities” for staff training rather than require completion by a single date.

Equity and data: Committee members asked about long-term outcomes and potential disproportionate impacts from retention. Dr. White said the district will use MTSS (multi-tiered systems of support) and subgroup data to identify causes and monitor disproportionality. Chair Moss proposed adding explicit language requiring a year-over-year gap analysis in superintendent reports; the committee favored codifying stronger reporting and review requirements.

Vote and next steps: After the discussion, the committee voted to recommend Policy 5-117 to the policy sponsor for revision approval (recorded as four in the affirmative). The policy will be revised to reflect committee feedback — including clarifications on training timelines, family notification accessibility and a gap-analysis/reporting requirement — and returned to the policy sponsor and administration for further work and eventual next steps under the board’s policy process.

The committee’s discussion placed implementation in context: staff said the retention/promotion component is slated to begin in school year 2027–28 pending MSDE final guidance and local administrative procedures. The committee requested that staff provide the draft promotion/retention administrative procedure alongside the policy draft for side-by-side review.

Quote: “This policy will prioritize some of those foundational literacy skills that are aligned to the science of reading,” said Dr. Victoria Holmes, the district’s coordinating supervisor of literacy and language.

What’s next: Staff will revise the policy language consistent with committee direction, provide the administrative procedure drafts for comparison, and return the revised policy for subsequent committee review and the formal board policy process.