Pewaukee officials brief board on Act 20 reading‑law changes and AIMSweb screening results
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
District staff explained Wisconsin's Act 20 reading law requirements (state universal screener, reading plans for low scorers, third‑grade dismissal rules tied to state assessment), described AIMSwebPlus rollout and tiered interventions, and committed to provide more granular tier and grade‑level data to the board.
District officials on Feb. 23 updated the Pewaukee School District Board on implementation of Wisconsin’s Act 20 (the reading law), detailing screening procedures, reading‑plan thresholds and how the district is tracking progress with AIMSwebPlus.
Presenters said the law requires universal screening in 4K through third grade and that the district has adopted the state‑specified screener (AIMSweb) to identify students at or below the 25th percentile for reading support. For any student who falls below the specified percentile, staff must create a prescriptive reading plan that identifies targeted interventions and monitoring.
Administrators described a tiered support model used in the district: universal Tier 1 instruction for all students; Tier 1.5 small‑group supports for students needing extra practice; Tier 2 more frequent small‑group interventions; and Tier 3 intensive interventions, delivered more often and typically by reading interventionists. Staff explained that dismissal from a reading plan requires multiple data points (district added requirement of four consecutive progress monitoring points above the goal plus classroom evidence) and that third‑grade dismissals are additionally tied to the state Forward exam and parent/teacher agreement.
The district reported measurable recent changes in reading‑plan counts across cohorts: examples cited in the presentation included reductions in reading plans from one cohort’s 45 students to 29 in a subsequent year and a net dismissal of five reading plans between a fall and winter testing window for a specific grade band. Staff cautioned that some third‑grade dismissals are pending Forward exam results and that a small number of students who newly enrolled in the district have affected counts.
Board members asked for more granular reporting — by testing window and by intervention tier — to understand staffing and workload implications. District staff agreed to provide a grade‑by‑grade breakdown of tier assignments (Tier 1.5/2/3 counts), the number of students who are new to the district, and spring‑to‑spring comparisons when Forward exam results are available.
Administrators also noted professional development tied to the reading law: district teachers have completed multiple Cox Campus modules and the district is allocating in‑district PLC time and coaching for core phonics and intervention strategies. The presentation closed with an agreement to provide updated AIMSwebPlus data at the next spring board meeting.