Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District outlines literacy rollout: CRLP comprehension training, coaching and measures to track progress
Summary
District literacy staff told the board it completed a CRLP comprehension module for grades 3'8 and rolled that training into ongoing coaching and a shared lesson bank; staff said local assessments (phonics/BPST and i-Ready) will be used first to detect gains before expecting state-test changes.
Laura Filido Lopez, the district's instructional lead for literacy, and Brania Webb summarized multi-year work to strengthen reading instruction across Redwood City schools.
They said the district began with foundational-skills training (Heggerty and other curricula) for TK'2 and has now added a comprehension module via the California Reading & Literacy Project (CRLP) for grades 3'8 (and targeted content-area teachers). "We started with foundational skills because it was a bigger need," Filido Lopez said, describing the earlier phonics emphasis and the addition of comprehension training this year.
The presentation emphasized coaching and collaborative planning: coaches will model lessons, co-teach and observe classroom practice to build fidelity, and a shared bank of lessons tied to the district-adopted curriculum will be posted and updated. Staff described a 10-step instructional flow (before, during and after reading) designed to preserve rigorous texts while scaffolding access for multilingual learners and students with reading difficulties.
On measurement, staff cautioned trustees that state assessments do not isolate foundational skills and said the district will rely initially on local measures: phonics/BPST scores and i-Ready item analyses, writing samples and classroom-based evidence. "Don't just go by state tests," Filido Lopez said; she recommended levels for monitoring that start with teacher feedback and PD evaluation, move to implementation walk-throughs and culminate in student outcomes analyses.
Trustees raised equity and staffing questions: several asked how coaching and collaborative planning time would be distributed across Title I and non-Title I sites, and staff said funding mixes (Measure U, Title I allocations, RCEF and other grants) had enabled more targeted work at some schools. Staff acknowledged that implementation time is limited and that elementary teachers face high planning loads; they said the work will continue next year and beyond, and invited trustee support for dedicating collaborative planning time and potential parent workshops.
Board members asked when to expect measurable gains. Staff estimated earlier-grade phonics gains may show up first on local assessments, with broader comprehension impacts tracked over multiple years. The board did not vote on curriculum adoptions in this item; staff said the work is already grounded in district-adopted core materials and will continue to be refined.
The literacy presentation ended with a request for more consistent collaborative planning and a plan for sharing resources districtwide.
