Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy And Math Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Principals urge board to approve literacy, math consultants as attorney presses for clearer contracts
Summary
Principals from multiple Dothan City Schools presented diagnostic data showing large numbers of students needing targeted literacy and math interventions and urged the board to authorize contracts with consultants; the superintendent defended the approach while the board attorney and trustees pressed for clearer scope, school lists, dates and cost ceilings.
At a Jan. 13 work session, school principals told the Dothan City Board of Education that diagnostic screening and targeted intervention piloted with external consultants have produced measurable midyear reading gains but left many students still requiring intensive support. James Williams, principal of Dothan Preparatory Academy, said consultants helped staff reinterpret MAP and Lexile data and identify decoding and fluency deficits, reporting a midyear reduction of 31 students at Level 1 and increases across Levels 2–4.
Principals offered detailed local data. Christina Johnson of Beverly Intermediate said an analysis flagged 262 students (about 78% of her school) for additional oral reading screening; of those, 27% required intensive phonics intervention and 73% needed significant fluency work. Kelly Springs Principal Monica Montalvo said the number of students in the most intensive intervention category dropped from roughly 270 at the start of the year to 146 at midyear following targeted changes.
Superintendent Dr. Garrick Askew described his experience leading turnaround efforts in Georgia and defended proposals to contract with Dr. DeWalt for literacy and with SWAN Math (Dr. Cheryl Ward) for mathematics. Askew said the consultants provide diagnostic clarity, teacher coaching, and systems alignment to build internal capacity rather than replace district staff.
Board Attorney Dustin Fowler and Trustee Aurie Jenkins cautioned that draft contracts lacked specificity. Fowler said revised language was received that day but highlighted the need to define Appendix C, the financial ceiling, the exact schools to be served, and clear start/end dates. Jenkins pointed to inconsistent lists (drafts listing five, eight, nine or ten schools) and said without explicit school names and consistent financial details the agreements were incomplete.
Mrs. Jenkins and other trustees also asked implementation questions: how long consultant engagements would run, whether data support would continue after contracts end, and which budget lines would pay for services. Askew said the district had approximately $600,000 in Title II carryover funds earmarked for professional development that could be used. He and Fowler said contractual language and school lists could be clarified before the scheduled vote.
Principals emphasized urgency and sustainability. Speakers repeatedly said that delaying intervention compounds deficits, and they described on-site changes such as daily 60–86 minute intervention blocks, 15-day assessment cycles, and frequent progress monitoring that have been put in place. Several principals asked the board to support establishment of a Reading Center and continued SWAN Math coaching so schools can maintain aligned practice across grade levels.
The work session closed with no formal vote on the contracts; trustees and administration agreed to continue negotiating contract language and return to the board with clarified scope, school lists, timelines and cost ceilings prior to the vote scheduled later that month.
