Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy Instruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pleasant Hill SD 1 outlines 90‑minute K–5 reading block and instructional coach, board raises transition and staffing questions
Summary
At its April 21 meeting the Pleasant Hill School Board reviewed an integrated guidance plan that emphasizes a districtwide 90‑minute K–5 reading block, a licensed instructional coach, and expanded MTSS supports; board members asked for budget scenarios and transition staffing to maintain current specialist services during rollout.
At its April 21, 2025 meeting, the Pleasant Hill School Board reviewed an integrated guidance application for 2025–27 that places literacy at the center of district improvement efforts, including a proposed 90‑minute K–5 reading block and an instructional coach to support teachers.
District presenter (identified in the record as Speaker 1) said the plan combines stronger core instruction with targeted interventions and expanded professional development, and described the instructional coach’s role: “to help run coaching cycles, work with staff on their team … and help run these reports,” and to model lessons and support differentiated instruction. The presenter said the district anticipates the integrated application — including assessment and coaching systems — will be a substantial investment and referenced a multi‑year assessment contract approaching $400,000.
Why it matters: The board’s literacy changes would reshape how elementary reading time is structured and how intervention is delivered. Administrators said the aim is to increase the share of students who meet grade‑level standards by strengthening core instruction and embedding pull‑out interventions only for students identified through diagnostic assessments.
Board questions focused on transition logistics, caseloads and special education overlap. One board member (Speaker 2) said the district should present budget scenarios that would keep current reading specialist support during the transition, and another board member and community participants asked whether one instructional coach can reasonably serve a nearly K–8 span. A community participant summarized a common concern: that expanding the core block to 90 minutes could reduce opportunities for one‑on‑one help unless additional adults are provided during the transition.
Administrators said the intent is to combine a stronger, consistent 90‑minute core reading block with pull‑out interventions scheduled around that core time; reading specialists would continue to manage targeted interventions and Title I‑funded EAs (education assistants) would remain in place. On special education services, the presenter said special education interventions must be kept distinct from general tiered interventions to avoid duplicating goals.
Several participants proposed a phased approach to staffing. Board members asked administration to cost out keeping two reading specialists for a transition period (for one to two years) while the new model is implemented; administrators agreed the budget process is the proper forum to consider temporary positions and said they would return with cost estimates.
Next steps: The board accepted the integrated guidance application at the same meeting; administrators and the board agreed to discuss budget adjustments at the next budget meeting to address transition staffing concerns.
