And so you can see how that has worked out each year. And then obviously we don't have those numbers yet for this year, but that is something that we're proud of that that number is decreasing. And that's just and when you the 23 29 216 that's districtwide, correct? Okay. Thank you. But we wanted to show this because even though um the state assessment shows we went down, there's other areas that showing that are that we're improving and so going from 23 or 29 to down to 16 students um you know some we are showing some improvement that that our students we have less students that we have to retain. Yeah, thank you retain potentially. Yes, we'll see. I don't think I've ever and I really appreciate all this output information specifically with this move on when reading because I don't think I've ever seen any of this data in the last five years I've been on the board.
So I appreciate this. Uh could I ask a question? What what are the conditions for them not or or not being promoted or being retained versus not reading proficiently which is right the concerning number of the of our you know uh the overall goal right we wanted to increase from 18% to 41% over five years so most People hear only 18% of our third graders are reading proficiently but then I look at this number and it's so this is so the cut score I don't know what the exact cut score is for the state but it is not all of the students who are not reading proficiently. So they let's say we have this many students who are minimally proficient. This group down here would be the group that is eligible for retention. But how bad is that? It's so it's I I don't know the specific numbers.
I just know they are the lowest performing students in the state and when they that they take all of the state numbers to create the the cut score that they use. Oh, so it's just it's compared against other students. That's my understanding. My my understanding too is that it all the students that are mentally proficient do not fall in this like what Sarah Beth is sharing is that it's the bottom of the minimally proficient that are um sent the the names are um for are eligible for retention. Okay. It's part of why the category is not not proficient because there is some level of proficiency but that but within the that group of students who are minimally proficient there's a broad variance and so this you know I I can't I can't verify this at the moment my understanding is the same as as the teams is that that number shifts from year to year.
It's not like a hard you know this is the the cut score. It has to do with sort of the students in the lowest percentage grouping. I get it now. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. I wasn't that's what I figured but I just wanted to clarify what yes condition of course and I would like to add so when when we put here number of students eligible for retention that is that differentiates the number of students on that list that we receive from the state. So the list that we receive from the state based on cut scores is larger than 16. Um but there are different exemptions that students have. And so one exemption is if they have received fewer than if they are an English learner or multilingual learner who's received less than three years of SEI instruction, they are exempt from this number. And then another one is if they are receiving special education services for reading and the IEP team has determined that retention is not in the students best interest then those students are exempt.
So from that list that we received the original list our number becomes smaller once we take into account students who are not or who are versus are not exempt. And then the additional exemption would be students who participate in a summer school program and show growth. So that's where we're hoping to be able if they don't show significant growth then they then we are required to retain them. Yes. All right. Um okay. So what's working? Individual follow-up on training with coaches is increasing the use of 95% group for tier 2 resources and 57% of responding teachers were using the materials January and 72% in the spring. So as uh like the word spread and people started getting more training on 95% group, more teachers were using. Um next school year 10 teachers will participate in the K3 literacy professional development cohort. Um which is where we're replicating what we did with the SEI cohort is we're doing the same thing for literacy.
Um and we had teachers apply to be in these cohorts because part of the cohorts we're having a um consultant do specific training with them. We get substitutes for them for the day. Then the consultant goes in the classroom with them and coaches them and models that for our coaches and our principles so that they can replicate that when the um when the uh trainer is not here. And so we're adding we're doing 10 we're adding 10 teachers to that for this year. Um and then hopefully next year we can add another 10. So we keep adding more teachers as we um as each year goes. We can't put that many because of subs and trying to get um have time to do the training. Um do you want to do the third bullet? Sure. So this is when we look at our interim measures.
So compared to the prior school year, our students had a greater increase from pre to post tests. So the first measure is that third grade proficiency on the DNA English language arts benchmark. Um so that nine that you see in 22 23 that shows that there was a difference in nine percentage points from pre to post. And in this year we had a difference of 13 percentage points. So if I go back to 4.1. So that's this one. So it's showing last year we started at 3% proficient and we went to 12% whereas this year we started at 3% proficient and moved to 16% proficient. So, it's showing that like we we know the reality is we did not meet this goal. Um, and we're looking for for things that are working and we are showing that while we're we haven't made enough growth and it's not reflected on the state test, we are moving in the right direction.
And the next piece is a uh intrameasure 4.2 two is third grade passing scores on the FastBridge A-reading screener. And last school year, there was a difference of negative six points. So students started out, we had more students being proficient at the beginning of the year than the end of the year. And we've decreased that gap. We It's still a reality this year. We have fewer students who have a passing score on the spring screener, but we have started to close that gap. And one thing that's important to remember here is that this specific test, the fast bridge screener increases the the cut score increases at each test. So our students are growing not fast enough and fastbridge is just for the lower grades, right? Um or are you guys using it across all grades? We we have it available all grades. It depends on the site.
We are it is required K3 And that is but all K3s are using Glassbridge throughout the district. Yes. Yes. And that also that's also part of that move on one reading legislation. Okay. And then the final one that kindergarten passing on the FastBridge literacy screener last school year um there was an eight point difference and this year a ninepoint difference. So it shows that there is some increase. Granted, it's not what we'd like to see. we need to accelerate the growth that we're seeing. The only other question that I have that just kind of popped in my head is on Thursday, will you guys also be talking about how this is going to align to our theory of action? Because I think in our theory of action, we kind of talked about how everything needs to start being moved to more centralized since there was a lot of autonomy in the districts and obviously that hasn't given us the outcomes that we've expected.
So maybe um how is that going to be tied into our action of theory of moving that from the top down and then once we start getting a little bit more results then people maybe can start going back to doing their own thing and I know that that plays a part in adult convenience. So I'm just wondering how we're going to wrap the action of theory too and make sure that we're starting to implement that as well. That's on the agenda. Oh. So uh superintendent man's going to do the mindset work and then I'm going to talk about theory of action. Okay, perfect. Thank you for that. And then you can see uh we have the number of student percentage of students that um improved from pre to post on the right hand side. And then what what needs more attention or what we're doing is for teaching learning coaches, we are going to have the four literacy coaches.
Um and then obviously Sarah Beth will be working on literacy only next year and not literacy and language. Um, and we're going to have that cohort model where we have principles, coaches, the coordinator, everyone together learning um, from the consultant what what what a classroom supposed to look like, which goes with that theory of action like what is a reading classroom supposed to be look like? Um, and then continue coaching throughout the year with that cohort and learning from each other. And then Sarah Beth talked about this already, but summer school, we have two classes specifically for the risk of retention students. Um and each teacher will serve eight students. We have 14 of the 16 enrolled. We will be calling the other two students again tomorrow. And just one thing I want to clarify is in that theory of action, there's a differentiation between the things we're tied on and the things we're losing on.
So um even even in this time period where we maybe haven't achieved all of our goals, there will still be elements, you know, of individual site um uniqueness and individual classroom uniqueness. I think what's important is that we determine which things are sort of the non-negotiables because there are things that we're hanging our hat on are going to create the shift and the change that we need. Uh and then outside of that space, it's easy to allow, you know, for some variance and that's sometimes helpful. But you know what what we don't want to have happen is we develop a critical strategy that's necessary in order to move kids and that's something that's then you know a school decides to do something completely different instead that you know maybe it's also researchbased etc etc but it makes it much more difficult for us to support it as a district because we do have limited resources.
So if we can choose the best options available to us and align all of the ships to be using the same type of fuel, then it we were able to be more efficient in making sure we have enough fuel for all of the ships. So correct. Okay. And then we did have some uh board questions for this for this um report. So I'm going to turn it over to Sarah Beth. All right. All right. The question is, as we review extended day and summer programming, how are we reimagining these opportunities to ensure they are truly high impact for students showing minimal growth midyear? For example, how are we ensuring that summer placements are guided by real-time data like DNA and fast bridge results? So just to address the example question, this summer due to our funding and the way summer school is designed, the only ELA sections that we are providing or that we're able to provide are those third graders at risk of retention.
Again, aligned with the SOFG goal, the remaining sections are supporting our other goals, our other SOFG goals. So, we have um we have the six English learner or multilingual learner sections, the two third grade ELA sections, and then I believe about six math sections as well. I do want to add because we have a smaller summer school, we were able to be highly selective with the teachers and make sure we had the most effective teachers teaching these classes um and based on our classroom walkthroughs and data throughout the year. Correct. And we had over 30 applicants for I think 14 positions. So it was definitely a competitive process. Yes. Thank you. Um and then so one of the things is so this the question is how are we reimagining opportunities to ensure that they are high impact for students who are showing minimal growth. And so one of the historical practices when we talk about that datadriven placement question is that we typically have been providing or been prioritizing students whose scores show that they are at risk and they are showing growth for those additional programming options.
So something like summer school or extended day is limited in scope. Summer school is is 11 early release days. After school programming is typically once or twice a week. And so those are not extremely high impact intense opportunities. And so the students that are invited to those typically are students who do need support and have evidence that they are showing growth and they need a little bit more of a push to get them to the next level. And so when we look at the students who are showing minimal growth midyear, those are the students that are typically in in are identified for that daily intervention in the classroom. And so with move on reading legislation, we are and because we also know it's good practice, we we do provide reading interventionist services at all of our schools. And during that block that our K3 reading interventionists are pulling students, our K3 teachers are providing intervention in the classroom.
And that's when they're using those um tier 2 resources, the newly adopted resources that we talked about. And so those students that are showing that minimal growth are are identified for that daily that 3 to 5 days a week during the classroom 20 to 40 minutes as opposed to an outside option. Okay. All right. The latest teacher survey showed that nearly 30% of teachers have not yet begun using the newly purchased intervention material. So, what coaching, leadership, accountability, or peer learning strategies are in place to support and shift this behavior across the system? Great question, and we it's something we've been really fig I've really been working on this year. And so, um, we will have more capacity to support our teachers next year with having four coaches and one coordinator specifically for literacy. Um when we are when we begin the year, one of the things that we'll do differently next year is that coaches will provide that small group prep time coaching during prep times during the day in the first quarter instead of us providing that vendor training.
So we had the vendor training last year. we the amount of hours meant that it had to be provided outside of contract time and we it we were able to provide compensation but we were not able to get as many teachers as we as we needed and so that's one shift that will happen. Um we've also found that that word of mouth success is really really helpful. So it's very effective when teachers find when they do start using it then they're able to tell their their colleagues, hey, this is not that hard. And one of the things that I don't remember if I shared last time that our coaches experienced and they're like, okay, you went to that vendor training and you're still not using it. Come to my prep time. We're going to sit down together and look at it. And they open the book and they're like, oh, I can do this.
Yes, you can. And that onetoone connection, like we thrive on it as adults, too. We talk about our kids needing it, but we need it, too. And so that mass training wasn't effective. And so we're we'll still have some of those options, but we're going to shift to having more of of those smaller group options with our increased coaching capacity. Um, one of the other indic one of the other realities that we learned from our implementation survey was that some of the teachers who have not begun implementation, it wasn't because of a lack of training. It was because of the difficulty of accessing the resources on their campus. And so we are working with those specific campuses to identify a system that will work better for their teachers next year. Thank you. Um, I also appreciate the answers on these questions because I know that sometimes we get a lot of questions like, why are we adding more coordinators or why are we adding more coaches?
But this is reflective of we really can't have correct student outcomes if all the a high percentage of our teachers haven't even begun to implement, you know, what they need to be doing and adding another coordinator and coach obviously has been working and we we can see that. So, I appreciate this. So people have a broader on sometimes why we have to make these type of decisions to make sure that we're equipping our teachers in order for them to be able to equip our students. I can't remember um if it's AJ Crarabel or if it was Dr. Ramos who said this but some and I'm sure it came from someplace else um but one of the quotes that always sticks in my head is that the system is perfectly designed or sorry the system is perfectly designed for the results that it gets. Thankfully, I wasn't being checked by AA on that one.
Oh, it's from Switch. Oh, I know. I read it. I know. I heard it read it someplace. So, um, so you know, one of the challenges that we have is when you design a system, there are all sorts of components to the system, but one of the components to the system is the support infrastructure that's in place. And so, when we add coaches, like a lot of times people perceive that as, oh, look, more administration. And it's a fair criticism because there have been times in the past where coaches have been co-opted to function as additional administrators. Um when we redesign the coaching model, we were very intentional to try to preserve coaching for the purpose of coaching. And so now when we add four more coaches and you can see the results from this year, which was a learning year. I mean it took our coaches probably the first quarter or more to kind of understand the shift.