Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State’s $30 million Summer Literacy Institute showed broad participation; evaluation results still pending
Summary
LESC, LFC and PED told legislators the Summer Literacy Institute paid for more than 1,000 instructors and served roughly 9,500 students, but state analysts and PED said outcome data are not yet final; PED is using DIBELS pre/post tests and an external evaluator to measure impacts.
LESC/LFC analysts and Public Education Department officials described the Summer Literacy Institute as one of the largest single below‑the‑line investments this year and emphasized both its immediate reach and unresolved evaluation questions.
Daniel Estupian (LESC) told the committee the Legislature appropriated $30 million to the Summer Literacy Institute in FY25, with PED contracting $17,200,000 to ATA services for temporary literacy instructors and $8,400,000 to the Southwest REC for instructors and curriculum. The appropriation supported hiring 1,053 literacy instructors and enrolling 9,533 students, figures Estupian said were just shy of PED’s original goals.
‘Of the $30,000,000 that you all appropriated, $17,200,000 was used so that ATA services could hire temporary literacy instructors, and $8,400,000 was used so that the Southwest REC could also hire literacy instructors as well as purchase curriculum and resources,’ Estupian said.
Several committee members asked for attendance and completion rates, and for details on how the program measured effectiveness. Estupian and PED officials confirmed PED administered DIBELS assessments at the beginning and end of the program; an outside evaluator (New Mexico Highlands University) is analyzing the DIBELS and qualitative data and staff said a report is expected in the fall. PED officials emphasized the program’s uneven local implementation: some sites ran full‑day six‑week models while others ran shorter or half‑day sessions because of local staffing and scheduling constraints.
Mariana Padilla, PED secretary‑designate, urged the committee not to discontinue the pilot while evaluation continues. She said the initial rollout occurred in pandemic and post‑pandemic conditions and that the department is refining site selection and support to increase fidelity for future summers.
‘We have an outside evaluator…They are looking at the DIBELS data. They are looking at the qualitative data. They’re looking at the variation of the program itself,’ Padilla said, asking for more time to assess programmatic effects before lawmakers make a final decision on long‑term funding.
PED also reported family survey results (800+ responses) that staff characterized as strongly positive about the program’s access and potential. Both LESC/LFC staff and PED agreed on next steps: finalize the evaluation, publish disaggregated participation and expenditure data (where feasible), and refine program guidance so that future implementations can aim for the intended 4:1 student‑to‑instructor ratio and six‑week full‑day model.
The committee requested more granular spending and hiring timelines and site lists from PED to confirm where the money flowed and how implementation varied across districts.
