Photo: Pagosa Springs Elementary School Principal Katy Vining discusses the ‘restructuring’ of reading interventions at her school, at the May 13 School Board meeting.
Following the public comments from Pagosa Springs Elementary School (PSES) teacher Kristeen Harris, questioning a plan to ‘restructure’ of READ Act-based reading instruction at her school, the Archuleta School District Board of Education invited PSES principal Katy Vining to explain her reasons for changing the way interventions are delivered.
Disclosure: I serve as a volunteer member of the Pagosa Peak Open School board of directors, but this editorial reflects only my own opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of the PPOS board and staff.
As mentioned yesterday in Part Four, the Archuleta School District (ASD) has adopted, in at least a general way, the Multi-Tiered System of Supports developed by the Colorado Department of Education. I would imagine nearly all of Colorado’s public schools have adopted, in at least a general way, the MTSS program. You can explore that system on the CDE website.
As I understand the MTSS program, it involves five support systems that school are expected to include.
- Team-Driven Shared Leadership
- Data-Based Problem Solving and Decision-Making
- Family, School, and Community Partnerships
- Comprehensive Screening and Assessment System
- Layered Continuum of Supports
The presentation by PSES principal Katy Vining focused mainly on the “LCS”. The Layered Continuum of Supports. That is to say, a layer of more intensive support for students who are perceived to be “behind grade level”. Rather than provide that intensive support with trained interventionists, PSES has been gradually moving towards a model where the classroom teachers and the non-certified paraprofessionals keep the “underperforming” students in the classrooms, receiving the same lessons as the “performing” students.
I believe the Colorado’s READ Act provides additional funding for students who are reading ‘below grade level’, and also establishes special requirements for how those students are taught and how their progress is monitored.
“Underperforming” is my own term for the students who might be getting “Tier 2” or “Tier 3” interventions. That’s not a School District term.
Ms. Vining was, at one point, displaying a slide that compared the ‘underperforming’ students at PSES, over the past three years, compared with a national sample. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 students were indicated by the ‘red’ color. As we can see in the lower right, the number of students in the ‘red zone’ had grown to more than 25% of the students in the 2024-2025 school year. Ideally, I believe, the percentage of ‘red zone’ students would be around 5%.
Ms. Vining and her team believe that giving the struggling readers the same lessons as the proficient readers, in the same classroom, with the same classroom teacher, will ultimately reduce the need for interventions. She referred to this as “aligned” instruction.
School Board member Amanda Schick asked if this ‘whole classroom’ approach might have a negative effect on the more proficient readers, who might now get less attention?
Ms. Vining:
“I have no indications that that will happen, and I’ve had no homeroom teachers tell me that they fear that.
“One of the reasons being, our Kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade teams, during Tier-2 time, have a curriculum that is… you open the book, you copy the materials, and you teach it. There’s no planning, other than opening the book and teaching it. And we picked that intervention curriculum on purpose. So really, if they are teaching that, and we’re including some of those pieces in my regular Tuesdays, where we talk about good instruction and what that looks like across the board, it should not create any additional work…”
She felt the classroom teachers would not feel any additional burden from the new system.
Knowing, as we do, that teacher burn-out is a real thing in 2025.
Ms. Schick:
“I just need to be clear, while we have you here and we get to ask direct questions. There is no Tier 2 or Tier 3 kid who is going to lose direct academic instruction as a result of this restructuring, correct?”
Ms. Vining:
“No. I would never do that. Those kids are too important. I actually care about them receiving all of their pieces, and they will not even know that there has been a change made…
“If I need to communicate with families in a newsletter, that their students are still receiving the Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 instruction based on these changes, that nothing will change for the student. And I’m happy to explain those changes.
“I will be cautious of the wording, because some people have expressed that ‘intervention is going away at the Elementary School’, so I have to be mindful not to scare parents. Because the services provided to the students is not changing. They’re getting their Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3. Their data is being monitored. Their progress is being looked at and celebrated.
“I can explain those changes to parents… but the kids will continue to receive everything that they have been receiving.”
Board president Bob Lynch asked District Superintendent Rick Holt if he had any reservations about the restructuring at PSES, and Mr. Holt stated that he’d been assured that the student “would continue to get the service they need; we would continue to progress monitor like we’re required to do by the READ Act…” and he had no reservations about the change. He noted that, in grades 3 through 8, the District has been using a similar focus on classroom-based instruction, and has been reducing the number of students in the ‘red’ zone and increasing the number in the ‘blue’ zone — that is, the students reading above grade level — over the past two years.
“This methodology works,” he said. “It will continue to work.”
The School Board then had two more challenging topics to consider.
“Vaping” in the Middle School.
And a cell phone policy.
Read Part Six, tomorrow…