The Reading School Committee (SC) of Reading Public Schools (RPS) is meeting at 7pm on Thursday June 6, 2024 at Reading Memorial High School.
Links to the agenda, packet, and to watch the meeting are at the end of this article. The packet is 131 pages long, with the bulk being the multiple presentations being given.
Tonight’s meeting looks jam-packed again, with lots of presentations and updates on various programs and initiatives, as well as some votes including voting on superintendent performance review and salary increase, vote on allocation to special education reserve fund (SERF), vote on reorganizing the school committee (elect new chair etc.), and a vote to shift FY24 budget money from the regular day to the special education cost center.
The presentations are all very long, so I will try to select highlights or important information for each, along with the applicable packet pages so the reader can fully review and/or have them there while watching the meeting.
Parker School Improvement Plan
(presentation on pages 23-35)
The highlights of this presentation are the data taken from the “iReady” tool showing math and ELA data that compares spring, mid-year, and end of year data. Parker used this same tool during the 2022-2023 school year to assess students. Some overall notes I observed in all the data:
- NOT APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISONS: The 2023-2024 data is going to be limited by the fact that the midyear data is for gr. 6-8 and spring data is for gr. 6 and 7 only (unclear why gr. 8 not included). So, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
- NO BREAKDOWN BASED ON IEP STATUS OR MLL STATUS: The data is not granular enough, IMHO. It would be more helpful if it showed breakdowns by whether students are on IEPs or are multi-lingual learners (MLL), which might significantly contribute to reasons why 6-10% of students seem to be scoring three or more grade levels behind in math and/or reading.
- NO COMPARATIVE DATA FROM COOLIDGE: It would have been helpful also to have Coolidge students take this same assessment, as a comparison of demographically similar peers, living in the same community, using the same curriculum.
In any event, this is what the data shows:
PARKER MATH DATA
- MATH – MIDYEAR DATA FOR GR. 6-8: In math overall placement, at midyear, 28% of gr. 6-8 students were at “mid or above” grade level and 35% were “early on” grade level. Thus 38% were below grade level, with 27% one grade level below, 4% 2 grade levels below, and one to three grade levels below, and 7% 3 or more grade levels below in math, which to me is very troubling, especially for students moving on to RMHS next year.
- MATH SPRING DATA FOR GR. 6, 7 ONLY 0 By spring, using an iReady assessment only of gr. 6 and 7, that percent of students 3 or more grade levels below had dropped by only one percent, to 6%. By the spring assessment, the % of students at or above somewhere along grade level had risen to 74%, but note that this spectrum includes, at the end of year, students who are “early” in the grade level. (again, comparing gr. 6 and 7 to gr. 8, not apples to apples).
- FY2023 COMPARISON (all data gr. 6-8) – In 2023 the improvement in students overall who were at or above somewhere at grade level, wen from 54% mid-year to 58% end of year. So, the FY24 data, with 74% of students somewhere at grade level by end of year, is a significant improvement. The % of students three grade levels below in math stayed the same all year, last year, at 9%.
ELA/READING DATA
- ELA/READING – MID YEAR DATA FOR GR. 6-8: In Reading placement tests, at midyear for gr. 6-8, 41% were at midyear level or above, 26% were early on grad level, and 33% were one to three levels below grade level, with 10% being three or more levels below grade level.
- ELA/READING – END OF YEAR DATA FOR GR. 6, 7 ONLY By end of year, for gr. 6 and 7 only, the data shows 51% at midyear or above grade level (+10%), 19% at early on grade level ( -7% but they likely shifted to the midyear level), and 32% who were one to three levels below grade level (-1%), with the 10% who are three or more levels below grade level staying same. Thus 70% somewhere at grade level by end of year.
- Fy2023 COMPARISON (all data gr. 6-8). : In 2023 the improvement in students overall who were at or above somewhere at grade level, wen from 59% mid-year to 61% end of year. So, the FY24 data, with 70% of students somewhere at grade level by end of year, is a significant improvement. The % of students three grade levels below in ELA stayed the same all year, last year, at 14%, which is a higher number than this year at 10%
PARKER INTERVENTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THIS AND NEXT STEPS
Lots of math interventions this year along with other initiatives:
- Targeted intervention support during the Team Time block using math teachers and the math interventionist based upon iReady data.
- Title I Math interventionist provided additional small group instruction for students.
Added an extra math intervention course for grade 8 students, which added an additional math class every other day for our most at-risk students.
- Partnered with DESE’s high dosage math tutoring program for in-school high dosage math tutoring for 24 grade 8 students; partnered with Mathnasium of Reading for additional tutoring.
- Revised bell schedule to increase instructional time – 50 min. classes with 2 min. of passing time = 4 additional min./class per day; 20 additional min./week
- Summer math enrichment and some math acceleration for qualified students – as discussed in previous SC meetings
- Piloting an ELA literacy curriculum (discussed further herein)
- New electives offered to align with RMHS Innovation pathways
- Various professional development initiatives and specific teacher coaching sessions also happened.
Q4 BUDGET UPDATES and SPECIAL ED REVOLVING FUND DECISIONS
(p. 36-41)
The memo on these pages lists the status of each of the 5 RPS cost centers and how they are projected to end FY24 on 6/30/3035, based on their respective budget allocations:
- Administrative, 2.43% of budget, projected to end year with positive balance of $1592
- Regular Day, 59.17% of budget, projected to end with positive balance of $293325
- Special Education, 30.95% of budget, projected to end year with negative balance of $110,957, due to prepayment of FY25 out of district tuition
- Districtwide Programs, 4.41% of budget,, projected to end year with total positive balance of about $52748
- Facilities, 3.05% of budget, projected to end year with positive balance of $61,131.
In view of the above, the director of finance is recommending a transfer of $111k from Regular Day to Special Education, to cover increased prepay for FY25 out-of-district tuition.
In addition, the memo on p. 39-40 presents three options on how to spend the remaining positive balances in the RPS budget, including how much possibly could be allocated to SERF (Special Education Reserve Fund), how much to use to pre-pay FY25 tuitions, and how much to return to the town.
MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUM RECOMMENDATION
(p 42-72)
This article cannot convey all the information of the memo and 29-page presentation, so this section will touch on highlights and key information:
- The two middle schools went through a two-year process, using ELA teachers at each school, to evaluate resources, create a model scope and sequence, and explored 4 different ELA programs, with Amplify rating the highest for gr. 6-8, even higher than ARC Core (next highest, now used in K-5).
- 12 teachers from the two middle schools began a pilot of Amplify ELA, the top-rated program, in April 2024, with students ranking the daily vocabulary part of the lesson being the most engaging part of the lesson.
- The recommended Amplify ELA program meets Ed Reports and CURATE reports standards for curriculum
- RPS thus recommends a new middle school literacy curriculum called “Amplify ELA” at a cost of $142.7k. Of that money, they have a grant to cover about half ($71.381K) and want to FY24 operating budget to cover the other half ($71,383.47).
- The program cost includes 5 years of digital access and consumable materials, for students and staff.
ARC CORE PHASE 3 PRESENTATION
(p. 73-103)
Similar to the above topic, this article cannot convey all the information of the 27-page presentation, so this section will touch on highlights and key information:
- Independent Reading Level Assessment (IRLA) data shows that, by end of school year 2024, a very high percentage of students at each grade rank at proficient or above (see data table on p 78), with no grade having lower than 76.7% of student at proficient or above and most at 80% or above. In particular, for gr. 3-5, the data shows significant improvement as compared with similar grades last yet.
In FY24, for gr. 3-5:
- GRADE 3: 84.4% proficient or above, 7% at risk, 8.2% “emergency”
GRADE 4: 80.1% proficient or above, 9.6% at risk, 8.2% “emergency”
GRADE 5: 84.2% proficient or above, 8.7% at risk, 6.5% “emergency
In comparison, in 2023 (for. 3-5):
- GRADE 3: 69.5% proficient or above, 15.1% at risk, 14.2% “emergency”
GRADE 4: 76.5% proficient or above, 11.6% at risk, 11.3% “emergency”
GRADE 5: 75.4% proficient or above, 13.7% at risk, 10.3% “emergency” - The IRLA data does vary by race, MLL status, income level, and disability status as shown in the tables on p. 80-83. As shown for all grades k-5 in total (only including MLL who are above the entering and beginning status).
- Similarly, the district showed DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) data by race, income, MLL status, special ed status, which is given to students in K-3, as shown in tables on p. 84-87, and this data varies similarly by category:
ASIAN: 65% above benchmark, 26% at benchmark, 9% below, 2% well below
BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN: 34% above benchmark, 34% at benchmark, 23% below, 9% well below
OTHER RACES/MULTI RACE: 62% above benchmark, 33% at benchmark, 10% below, 7% well below
WHITE: 50% above benchmark, 26% at benchmark, 9% below, 2% well below
MLL: 24% above benchmark, 57% at benchmark, 14% below, 5% well below
NON-MLL: 51% above benchmark, 32% at benchmark, 10% below, 6% well below
LOW INCOME: 38% above benchmark, 31% at benchmark, 13% below, 18% well below
NON LOW INCOME: 52% above benchmark, 33% at benchmark, 10% below, 5% well below
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: 30% above benchmark, 26% at benchmark, 20% below, 25% well below
STUDENTS WITHOUT DISABILITIES: 52% above benchmark, 33% at benchmark, 10% below, 6% well below
Teacher feedback on ARC CORE
- Students are highly engaged, but K teachers would like more materials for handwriting practice and more time for handwriting practice
- Some teachers note students who move through the curriculum quickly have already seen a text that goes with lessons and additional texts may be needed.
- Teachers would like exemplars of writing responses and projects, which ARC CORE does not provide, so teachers are gathering on their own
- More lessons and PD needed on the craft and mechanics of writing, as ARC CORE more supports generating writing about topics using evidence, vs craft/mechanics.
SUPERINTENDENT FORMATIVE REVIEWS AND SALARY INCREASE
Vote (P. 105-126)
The formative reviews are in the form of memos/letters written to Dr. Milaschewski by each SC member, which are combined into an overall formative review on p. 104-105. This is different than the standard full summative performance reviews that have been seen in past superintendent performance reviews (e.g., with ratings like “Exemplary,” “Needs Improvement” etc.). Overall, these are the conclusions in the combined review based on each goal:
- Goal 1 (Student Learning): Improve evidence of student learning, engagement, and achievement – expressed optimism but incomplete due to timing, not effort
- Goal 2 (District Improvement Goal): Secondary Math Pathway – met and exceeded benchmark, but several members noted as areas for improvement, “broadening levels of Calculus offerings at the High School and improving access to the Math Lab at the High School,” and “continuing to improve access for our sub-groups and providing further in-school support for the Middle Schools”
- Goal 3 (District Improvement Goal): Data – due to the broad Benchmarks for this goal with specificity around the data collection and documentation of best practices, the Committee agreed this goal is Incomplete, but is looking forward to the next steps in the implementation.
- Goal 4 (District Improvement Goal): Coaching, Developing, and Supporting Principals – this goal would be considered Met while leaning towards Exceeded.
- Goal 5 (Professional Practice Goal): New Superintendent Induction Program – Met or Exceeded
- “In summary, Dr. Milaschewski Met or Exceeded each of his goals that could realistically be achieved during this school year with a high point of the Math Pathways. Those goals that have longer measurement periods are showing strong progress which engenders optimism in the Committee for the future. To that end, with the focus on aligning to his contract language, this year was at a minimum Proficient and leaning towards Exemplary”
SCHOOL CHOICE
(P. 126)
Per the memo, “School Choice is a state-wide program designed to fill available seats in school districts and allow caregivers’ choice and access to desirable school districts. School Choice also supports the recruitment and retention of a high performing instructional staff by enabling children of staff members to apply for a seat in the lottery. With each School Choice student who enrolls in kindergarten to grade 12, the district receives $5,000.”
This year, the district announced 35 openings on 5/10/2024, which 31 students accepted, but one accepted student was not able to be placed due to lack of availability in gr. 6.
The lottery is being reopened on June 21st with a deadline to apply of July 5, with the following 29 available seats:
K 5
Gr2 3
Gr4 2
Gr8 3
Gr9 4
Gr10 4
Gr11 5
Gr12- 3
How to Watch
The SC meeting will be broadcast on the RCTV YouTube channel at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilYGrhEU7-0
The meeting also will be on Verizon Ch 32, Xfinity Ch 6.
In addition, you can join the meeting (or watch) via the Zoom link here:
Join Zoom Meeting https://readingpsma.zoom.us/j/82951339314 Meeting ID: 829 5133 9314
