Anson County highlights early‑literacy gains, outlines Individual Reading Plan rollout under SB 387

Anson County Schools presented data showing improvement in early‑grade reading and described next steps to comply with state law requiring individualized reading plans.

Tiffany Tallent, the district’s early literacy specialist, told the board the district’s in‑class Amplify/DIBELS composite showed kindergarten scores at or above benchmark rose from 21% at the beginning of the year to 47% at mid‑year. Tallent said first grade dipped from 59% to 51% while second and third grades saw modest gains. “In kindergarten, we had 21% at or above benchmark,” Tallent said, and “it jumped from 21% to 47%,” an increase she tied to targeted instructional supports and the new CKLA playbook the district has issued to teachers.

The results, Tallent said, are intended as risk indicators rather than final proficiency diagnoses. Crystal Merck, a representative from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI), and district staff told the board they would provide a direct district‑to‑state comparison on request.

Tallent emphasized progress monitoring as central to improving outcomes. She described the district’s fidelity reporting process — biweekly reports to principals and instructional coaches — and explained monitoring frequency rules for students at different risk levels: well‑below students are monitored every 10 days, ‘below’ students every 15 days, and others less frequently. Tallent said the probe is brief: “1 to 2 minutes.” Board members challenged staff on how to fit monitoring into teachers’ schedules and noted uneven fidelity early in the year; Tallent cited a sample window where about 39% of well‑below students were monitored within the 10‑day window.

Staff also outlined the district’s implementation steps for Individual Reading Plans required by SB 387. Tallent said IRPs identify a targeted reading skill, the interventions to be used, goals and benchmarks, how progress will be monitored and the instructional practices based on the science of reading. Training sessions took place March 20 (principals) and March 26 (instructional coaches). According to the timeline staff presented, initial assessments will occur in September, IRPs will be developed as a team of teachers, coaches and principals, and IRPs will be reviewed and revised in October/November, again in January, and in March–April, with a final end‑of‑year evaluation to inform next‑year recommendations.

The board approved required workdays and other supports intended to give teachers time to complete the monitoring and IRP work. District leaders said they will demonstrate routines and scheduling strategies so teachers can integrate progress monitoring into the school day.

The presentation closed with district leaders urging the board to continue supporting progress monitoring and teacher time for planning; staff said they will provide additional school‑level data and a state comparison upon request.