Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy Progress Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD staff say 3rd‑grade literacy goals show mixed progress as board presses for implementation fidelity
Summary
Research and curriculum staff reported mixed results on the district’s Goal 1 (3rd-grade literacy): some cohort gains at early grades but declines in interim measures; commissioners pressed staff on coaching, classroom implementation and use of decodable texts.
Get email alerts on the Literacy Progress Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District research and instructional leaders presented the Goal 1 progress-monitoring report, which draws on STAR interim assessments, educator surveys and external learning walks.
Jess Reyes of Research, Planning and Assessment said the report combines winter STAR results, a December educator survey and January instructional observations to connect instructional practice to student outcomes. Moon Hak Kim and other staff said some subgroups (kindergarten and first grade cohorts) showed gains while indicators for 3rd-grade proficiency and certain comprehension domains lagged.
"We're starting from the far right side of the theory of action with the impact on student outcomes, and we will work backwards," Jess Reyes said as presenters laid out data and a multi-pronged plan to improve instructional coherence.
Commissioners asked detailed questions on the relationship between materials adoption and actual classroom practice. Staff acknowledged that while 67% of classrooms report using the adopted curriculum, measures of academic ownership (students explaining their thinking, text-dependent questioning, decodable-text practice) remained low and required deeper coaching and site-level enabling conditions. Staff described strengthened coaching expectations, revised coaching logs, citywide leader-coach meetings, and purchases of additional decodable texts to increase students’ independent practice.
The presentation concluded with staff commitments to focus on internalization protocols for leaders, clearer definitions of coaching cycles, and a plan to use implementation trackers to monitor school-level conditions. No board action was taken; commissioners indicated they expect follow‑up reports and clearer metrics of progress.
