Citizen Portal
Sign In

Hudson outlines how Act 20 screenings, PRPs and targeted instruction have reduced students needing extra reading plans

Hudson School District Board of Education · January 13, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District literacy leaders told the Hudson School Board that screening, diagnostic testing and Personalized Reading Plans (PRPs) tied to a science-of-reading curriculum have driven declines in PRPs across K–3; the district set exit criteria at the 40th percentile and described family communication and summer intensification supports.

Hudson School District literacy leaders presented an update on Wisconsin’s Act 20 reading law and how the district has implemented required screening and intervention steps.

Assistant Director of Teaching and Learning Laura Manarczyk said the district has aligned Act 20 requirements with Hudson’s strategic plan and emphasized that the changes are “the work we do because it’s best for students, not because we have to do it.” Jenna Wyland, K–5 literacy specialist, described the operational steps: universal screeners three times a year (AIMSweb Plus), diagnostic assessments for students below the 25th percentile, and the creation of Personalized Reading Plans (PRPs) that outline goals and targeted interventions.

District data and assessment coordinator Melissa Miller reported declines in PRPs from last winter to this winter: kindergarten PRPs fell from 69 to 41 (down 28); first grade declined by 47 PRPs; second grade by 15; and third grade by 30. Miller attributed the improvement to stronger Tier 1 instruction, adoption of CKLA (a science-of-reading aligned curriculum), LETRS professional development for K–5 teachers, and more purposeful small-group instruction. “That evidence-based resource of CKLA…is really helping and supporting our students at all levels,” she said.

Hudson has set its local PRP exit criteria at the 40th percentile on the state screener to avoid a seesaw effect of students exiting and re-entering interventions; board members discussed the district’s criteria during questions. Wyland explained that exit from a PRP does not end monitoring: students remain supported through the district’s MTSS framework and teachers maintain communication with families via a parent portal where screener results are posted.

The district also detailed family-engagement practices required and encouraged under Act 20: a beginning-of-year reading survey sent broadly (not only to families whose children qualify for PRPs), a parent portal that publishes screener results, and invitation-only summer reading intensification for third graders who have not exited PRPs. Wyland described the summer program as targeted instruction in oral language, phonics/decoding, fluency and comprehension.

Board members praised the work. One member said of her own child’s classroom, “I see the difference it’s making,” and thanked staff for the training and implementation. The district emphasized that data roll-through meetings—where building specialists, principals and psychologists review student data and adjust PRPs—are central to personalizing instruction.

The district will continue monitoring outcomes, communicating with families, and refining summer and in-year supports. The board will receive follow-up reports as the district completes additional screening windows and adjusts instruction.