When the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) issued decisions for waivers sought by school districts seeking to demonstrate that their reading programs met the state’s Right to Read law requirements in December 2023, controversy ensued. 

Of the 85 districts that applied for a waiver, roughly 75 percent were denied either in whole, requiring districts to adopt entirely new reading programs, or in part, requiring districts to substitute some of their reading programs. A number of high-performing school districts were among those who were told their programs did not show evidence of meeting the requirements of the Right to Read (RTR) law.  

Just 17 districts had their reading programs fully approved. 

The rationale behind the late 2023 waiver decisions, and the number of districts whose programs were not approved, generated a number of complaints, including that districts did not have ample opportunity to discuss their applications with CSDE and that a third party, a consulting firm named the Public Consulting Group (PCG), was involved in determining whether waivers were approved. After submitting their waiver applications, districts were only able to request one half-hour meeting with PCG. 

Another complaint involves the testing data districts were required to submit with their waiver applications. Despite requiring it as a component of the application, and despite the RTR law mandating districts submit that information, test scores were not considered in waiver determinations. The CSDE has pushed back against many of these allegations. 

As full implementation of the law in 2025 moves forward and school districts, including those who need to purchase and implement new reading programs because they were denied a waiver in whole or in part, work to implement RTR’s requirements, the controversy has continued. Most recently, the legislature added an amendment to a much larger education bill that created term limits for members of the Reading Leadership Implementation Council. Members of the council have alleged they were kept in the dark about the waiver process, despite language in the RTR law requiring the Center for Literacy Research and Reading Success (CLRSS), responsible for implementing the Science of Reading, to coordinate with the council. 

In order to delve deeper into the waiver process, Inside Investigator used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain the documents districts submitted as part of their waiver applications, as well as documents CSDE used to review those applications and make determinations about waiver requests. 

Under the RTR law, local and regional boards and education can request a waiver for a reading program that is not on the CLRRS list of approved programs. For a waiver to be granted, the law requires districts to submit evidence that their reading program meets several criteria, including that the curriculum is evidence- and scientifically based and focused on competency in the following areas of reading: oral language, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, rapid autonomic name or letter name fluency, and reading comprehension. 

Waiver requests had to include data collected from reading assessments that was disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, and whether a student was eligible for free or reduced price lunches, was an English language learner, or had disabilities. The waiver request also had to include a strategy to address any existing reading achievement gaps, defined in the law as a significant gap between racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, between genders, or between native English speakers and English language learners. 

Prior to February 28, 2023, districts seeking a waiver had to submit the following elements: 

• A detailed description of the reading program the district was using. This could include documents providing evidence the program met the requirements of the RTR law. 
• A completed K-3 reading data template 
• A copy of the strategy used to address reading achievement gaps 
• A signature page 

The K-3 reading data template fulfilled a requirement in the RTR law that districts submit data collected from approved reading assessments and that was “disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, eligibility for free or reduced price lunches, students whose primary language is not English and students with disabilities.”  

The CSDE provided a preformatted Excel workbook with pages that sought information about what reading assessments districts were using, the demographics of students in kindergarten through third grade taking reading assessments, and the percent of tested students whose scores were substantially deficient. 

The template also included a sheet on what type of assessments were recommended for use by grade and a sheet providing cut scores for each recommended test, which identified how student performance should be identified as substantially deficient.  

Districts had to enter the number of tests administered to students in kindergarten through grade three in the spring of 2019 and 2022. They also had to break down the number of tests administered by grade for the demographic categories identified in the RTR law. Another page of the template asked for similar information, but for the percentage of students whose test scores were substantially deficient.

The template was a source of frustration for a number of districts, who either ran into technical issues with submitting the required data or administered testing in a way that didn’t correspond to the template’s formatting.  

In addition, the formatting the district built into the template makes understanding some of the testing data difficult. 

For many of the districts that submitted waivers, the data on percentages of students who were substantially deficient appears incomplete. For example, the template submitted by Andover contains no information about the percentage of students who were substantially submitted. Each category—year, grade, and demographic categories—simply read “N/A.” In other districts’ templates, the percentage of substantially deficient students is readable in some categories but not others.  

Barkhamstead, which was granted a transitional waiver and told it needed to substitute a reading program, noted in a narrative document it submitted as part of its waiver request that because of its small population—there were 213 students in grades prekindergarten through sixth grade at the time data was submitted—the formatting of the spreadsheet defaulted to “N/A” for all categories. 

Colebrook, which was also granted a limited waiver, noted in the narrative submitted with their data template that they encountered the same issue. Colebrook had only 72 students enrolled in school at the time the waiver request was submitted.  

“That being said, Colebook School does analyze their data from Universal Screeners to determine if students are at risk for reading difficulties and are in need of intervention.” the district noted. 

To meet the reporting requirements, both districts chose to instead submit information in a narrative, providing more information about the number of students by grade and other demographic categories who had been identified as falling behind in reading. 

The Excel formatting CSDE used in the template is set to default to “N/A” when the percentage of substantially deficient students falls below a certain threshold. CSDE told Inside Investigator this was done to ensure that students, especially in smaller school districts, couldn’t be individually identified. The department disaggregates the data it posts through public-facing reporting platforms like EdSight to protect student privacy. 

However, while CSDE formatted the Excel sheet that looks at the percentage of students who were substantially deficient to hide data that fell below a certain threshold, it did not do the same for the page of the template that looks at the overall number of K-3 students who were tested, even though that page identifies the number of students whose test results showed them to be substantially deficient. In some cases, the number of students in a demographic subgroup identified as substantially deficient is in the single digits or contains only a single student. 

In several cases, districts appeared to struggle with the waiver template. 

Rocky Hill added a note to their data template stating they found what information it was looking for to be unclear. 

“It is unclear what data is being asked for here based on student numbers, percentages or levels. As such, we built a more complete picture of our data. Our data does not have free and reduced students reported.” the district wrote. 

Rocky Hill used iReady as a universal screener, which is one of the assessments CSDE recommended for use in the template. Instead of using the preformulated Excel sheets CSDE provided, Rocky Hill submitted three separate sheets displaying test results for grades one through three. The data provided both the number of percent of students whose reading abilities were above or below their grade levels, with data provided for each fall, winter, and spring assessments from fall 2019 through winter 2023.  

Rocky Hill received a transitional waiver. 

Regional School District 18, which was denied a waiver, ran into a number of technical issues. According to a text document they submitted with the data template, they were not able to access the Excel spreadsheet for recording the percentage of substantially deficient students because the sheet was password protected. The district recreated it in order to submit the data. 

A data manager for the district also hand tallied disaggregated data, as the district could not get AIMSweb, the assessment tool the district uses, and PowerSchool, a cloud-based software product used to store educational data, to communicate. This led to further problems with how demographic categories were tallied and displayed in the data. 

CSDE told Inside Investigator that it did not see any of the documents districts submitted that indicated they had technical issues with submitting the data template and that these did not affect waiver outcomes. 

“While the Center does not know the number of districts that may have encountered technical issues, it can confirm that data were successfully submitted by every district. These issues did not affect any waiver decisions.” CSDE communications director Matthew Cerrone said. 

A number of districts also submitted testing data in different formatting than the CSDE’s template called for.  

Region 18 further noted in their narrative document submitted with the data template that while the data template asks for assessment data from the spring of the year to catalog the percentage of students who are substantially deficient, it does not test all students in the spring. Instead, it uploaded data from winter assessments. 

Several districts only uploaded reading assessment data from 2022 because no test had been administered in 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Bristol, among the districts with no testing data from 2019, noted this in the Excel sheet used to calculate the percentage of substantially deficient students. As no students were tested that year, the autoformatting for the spreadsheet also entered a value of “N/A,” identical to cells where testing data was present but fell below the threshold by which individual students could potentially be identified.  

Other school districts submitted custom sheets because their testing data differed from the spring 2019/2022 formatting in the data template.  

North Haven submitted testing data from the fall of 2019; the winter, spring, and fall of 2020 and 2021; and the winter and spring of 2022. Not all tests were administered to kindergarteners. Orange submitted testing data from the fall of 2022 and the winter of 2023. Rocky Hill submitted data for grades one through three from the fall of 2019; the winter, spring and fall of 2020, 2021, and 2022; and the winter of 2023. It did not submit any data for kindergarten testing. 

Statements from CSDE officials have indicated this data subset was not used in the waiver review process. CSDE deputy commissioner Charles Hewes told CT Mirror in January 2024 that reading scores weren’t considered in the waiver process, despite the RTR law requiring districts submit “data collected from the reading assessments” that was “disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, eligibility for free or reduced price lunches, students whose primary language is not English and students with disabilities.” 

According to CSDE, the data was not considered because it was based on testing conducted prior to RTR becoming law and did not fully address the law’s requirements.

“While it was expected that districts would submit data as part of their waiver application, the CSDE’s waiver determinations were based on whether district’s reading programs aligned with criteria set forth in the Right to Read legislation, which requires each district to partially implement a CT-approved, evidence-based reading curriculum model or program beginning July 1, 2024, with full implementation beginning July 1. 2025.” Cerrone told Inside Investigator.

After districts submitted waiver applications, the CSDE reviewed them in coordination with the Public Consulting Group (PCG), a Boston-based public sector management consulting and operations improvement firm. PCG also assisted CSDE in developing the review process and making recommendations on waiver status. 

Districts had the opportunity to request a half-hour-long meeting with PCG to discuss their submitted applications. CSDE and PCG then used a review tool to make final decisions on the status of the submitted waivers.  

The waiver review tool is organized around questions that seek to answer whether districts showed evidence of meeting different aspects of the Right to Read law, mainly Section 10-14ii. 

That section of the law directs CLRRS and the Reading Leadership Implementation Council to review and approve at least five reading curriculum programs for use by local and regional school districts. It also requires the curriculum to be scientifically- and evidence-based and to focus on competency in the following areas of reading: oral language, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, rapid automatic name or letter name fluency and reading comprehension. 

The review tool has four sections: 

• The first evaluates whether the materials districts submitted show evidence of being evidence- and scientifically-based. 
• The second evaluates whether districts submitted evidence showing they used a comprehensive program or collection of individual instructional programs. It also evaluates whether they met expectations with various review tools, including the Curriculum Rating by Teachers (CURATE) program designed by Massachusetts’ Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and EdReports. 
• The third evaluates whether submitted materials “met the expectations set forth in the Waiver Guidance Document and/or the Review Rubric used for CT approved programs.” It asks whether the provided curriculum accomplished things like providing frequent opportunities to practice or gain skills, provide for structured discussions that address grade level speaking and listening standards, represents various cultures and perspectives, includes explicit alignment to state standards, and more. 
• The fourth evaluates additional legislative requirements in the RTR law, such as whether districts submitted student performance data, whether that data was disaggregated for evaluated demographic categories, and whether it had a plan to address gaps between subgroups and the whole population. 

Each section also included spaces for notes, as well as for notes between districts and PCG from their meeting. The waiver tool notes that, due to the brevity of the meetings, minutes were not captured, only informal notes. 

Looking at the data, it’s difficult to make sense of what elements of the waiver applications and the evidence of their reading programs the district provided carried the most weight in CSDE’s decision making. It’s also clear that testing data played no role in the waiver determination process, as districts with high rates of students whose performance was substantially deficient received waiver approvals. Districts with low numbers of students who were substantially deficient were also denied waivers in whole or in part. 

Districts that received either transitional waivers, which required the substitution or addition of “specific programmatic or curriculum components,” or waivers that partially met expectations, requiring the addition of a program component, received the most specific feedback. They were told they needed to substitute or add program components on the basis of specific areas of reading CSDE had found their programs lacked evidence of addressing. 

For example, Simsbury, which received a transitional waiver, was informed that its programs showed evidence of meeting expectations set by RTR in the reading areas of fluency, phonemic awareness, and phonics. But it did not show evidence of meeting expectations in vocabulary and reading comprehension. As a result, the district was told to substitute a core program that meets RTR’s expectations in vocabulary and reading comprehension. 

The transitional waivers CSDE handed out follow this pattern. If the waiver review tool notes a curriculum does not show “explicit, systematic, sequential, and cumulative instruction” of phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, rapid autonomic naming or letter naming fluency, vocabulary, or reading comprehension, a district is told to substitute or add an approved program for that area of reading. 

Not mentioned in either the waiver decision letters sent to districts or in the waiver review tool are the other two areas of reading the law requires reading programs to focus on: oral language and fluency. 

That pattern seems to hold true regardless of any deficiencies in other areas of materials districts submitted.  

For example, Chaplin, which received a “partially meeting expectations waiver” and was told it needed to add a core program to teach phonemic awareness, submitted documentation demonstrating how their use of programs is coordinated to be comprehensive. Despite this, notes on the CSDE review tool indicate the district provided no evidence to show how their reading programs “are cohesive with explicit transfer of foundational skills to vocabulary and comprehension.” Teachers would be responsible for creating the cohesion according to the department’s notes. 

Also, the CSDE review tool notes that the district did not “provide reliable and valid evidence showing that the collection will support students in achieving satisfactory reading progress” and did not provide independent studies showing how their programs work together.  

One of the district’s programs meets expectations on CURATE and ED Reports. Another only partially met expectations on Ed Reports.  

South Windsor also received a partial waiver and was told its programs did not meet RTR’s expectations for vocabulary and reading comprehension. The district was told to substitute a core program in those areas. 

Again, the waiver review tool reveals there were other areas where the district’s application was deficient. 

According to the CSDE review tool, the district did not submit a scope or sequence document demonstrating how its programs work together. It also did not provide valid and reliable evidence showing how its programs support reading progress. According to the CSDE’s notes, the district submitted publisher studies, but not “independent, peer reviewed studies.”  

One of the four programs the district submitted was not reviewed by any of the CSDE’s review tools. Two of its programs were listed as “approved supplemental” programs on the Colorado Department of Education’s (CDE) advisory list and the review of one only partially met expectations on EdReports. 

The district also failed to meet a number of other requirements. According to the review tool, South Windsor’s programs did not provide frequent opportunities for students to practice skills, did not include a wide range of explicit instruction in writing skills and strategies, and did not represent various cultures and perspectives, among other requirements. 

In the case of both districts, these other successes and failures do not appear to factor into waiver decisions as much as evidence they met expectations in various areas of reading. The resulting waivers, which note only successes and failures in areas of reading, do not reflect underlying differences in the applications or other areas where CSDE found their programs fell short. 

But while the transitional waivers CSDE granted seem to follow a pattern based on the areas of reading districts were found to be teaching sufficiently, the same pattern doesn’t exist for districts that were granted a full waiver or denied a waiver. 

Given partial waivers seem to be driven by districts’ ability to demonstrate evidence they were satisfactorily teaching different areas of reading, it seems full waiver approvals and waiver denials would fit this pattern: with districts that demonstrated success in teaching all areas of reading receiving full waivers and districts that showed no evidence of success in teaching any areas of reading receiving waiver denials. 

But that isn’t the case. 

New London received full approval for its collection of reading programs despite, according to CSDE’s review tool, only showing evidence of meeting RTR’s expectations for teaching phonics. The district did not show sufficient evidence of instruction for phonological awareness, rapid automatic naming or letter naming fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. 

New London’s test data, submitted via the data template CSDE has said was not considered in waiver applications, shows the percent of substantially deficient students fell between 2019 and 2022, the level of students who didn’t perform on readings test is considerably higher than other districts that submitted data. In the testing data the district submitted, no grade’s percentage of substantially deficient student falls below 50 percent.

In addition, only one of the two programs New London uses was reviewed by CSDE’s review tools. It only partially met expectations on Ed Reports and was an approved supplemental program on the CDE’s advisory list. 

Notes in the review tool indicate the district didn’t demonstrate how its reading materials were “coordinated to function as a comprehensive program across all areas of reading.” They also indicate the district “did not meet the criteria of valid and reliable evidence that demonstrates how students will achieve satisfactory reading progress.”  

These are comments that appear on many districts’ waiver review worksheets, along with comments noting whether the evidence districts submitted included peer-reviewed or independently conducted studies. 

By contrast, Montville, whose waiver was not approved, showed evidence of meeting RTR’s expectations in teaching three different areas of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, and letter naming fluency. They did not show areas in vocabulary or reading comprehension. This same division resulted in other districts receiving a transitional waiver. 

Regional School District 10 received a transitional waiver despite only showing sufficient evidence in teaching one area of reading: phonemic awareness.  

Both districts had similar notes written in their review tools: the resources provided don’t demonstrate how materials are coordinated to function as a comprehensive program and don’t meet the criteria of valid and reliable evidence demonstrating how students’ reading skills will progress. 

After the waiver determinations were released and school district officials began to express their dissatisfaction with the results, CSDE and various members of the legislature looked at how to move forward.

In February of this year, Rep. Rob Sampson, R-Cheshire, asked the legislature’s Education Committee to raise a bill that would require CSDE to automatically approve waivers from school districts, like Cheshire, with above average reading scores. The committee never took any action on the proposed bill.

Also in February, Rep. Jeff Currey, D-East Hartford, who co-chairs the Education Committee, appeared at a Cheshire Board of Education meeting and announced the committee and CSDE had met the previous day and the department had provided a path forward, one that did not involve legislation.

Currey said CSDE had been hesitant to move forward because it did not believe there was language for an appeals process in the RTR law, but that districts who had their waivers denied either in part or in full would have the opportunity to meet with CSDE and defend their programs. At the same meeting, Currey again reiterated, following frustrated comments from Cheshire Superintendent Jeffrey Solan that districts were asked to submit data that was never reviewed, that performance metrics were never part of the waiver determination process.

Reps. Devin Carney, R-Lyme, and Lezlye Zupkus, R-Prospect, sponsored an amendment to an education bill that passed in the middle of May, shortly before the session ended on May 30, that would have required waivers be granted to school districts whose literacy rate was above proficient or that had demonstrated a “significant increase” over the previous three school years. The amendment failed though the larger bill passed.

As currently written, RTR’s full implementation date requiring schools to implement Science of Reading aligned curriculum is 2025, meaning no legislative alteration to the law is coming before districts start the 2024-2025 school year, during which partial implementation of the law and the adoption of compliant reading programs will begin.

In its waiver determination letters, CSDE promised to prioritize assistance to districts that received a limited waiver.

“The CSDE acknowledges the magnitude of the shift required of your district to come into compliance with this legislation. In an effort to support you, the CSDE will prioritize your district for the professional learning opportunities and technical assistance that are forthcoming.” letters to districts denied waivers read. They also invited districts to request an “individual follow-up meetings: with a member of the Center for Literacy Research and Reading Success (CLRRS), which is responsible for implementing the state’s literacy laws, and the chairperson of the district’s board of education.

But some districts who were denied waivers dispute this prioritization happened, telling Inside Investigator they have received only routine communications about opportunities, such as professional training on the Science of Reading, available to all districts.

Emails Inside Investigator obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which were sent between CLRRS officials and school districts, capture some of the frustrations of working through the waiver submission and decision process, including frustration from school districts that they were not aware of how their waivers were proceeding. They also document CLRSS and broader CSDE attempts to reach out to school districts and provide support during the waiver process.

Before districts were aware of whether they would be granted a waiver, they could apply for two grants from the CSDE. The first of these used over $20 million in funding CSDE had allocated from funds it received from the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to “support all local and regional boards of education for the purpose of addressing educational disparities and supporting scientifically based, evidence-based literary teaching and learning in grades kindergarten through three.”

Funds from the ARPA Right to Read Grant could be used for reading assessments and curriculum models and programs that aligned with RTR, as well as “associated vendor-provided professional learning.” The funds could also be used to create a “district leadership literacy team that will attend 10 days of professional learning provided by the Connecticut Literacy Model team pertaining to the science of reading and the creation of a district literacy plan.”

To be eligible to receive a grant, districts had to submit a number of elements, including an overview of the project they intended to use the money to fund, goals for using the funds to promote equity and the Science of reading, an explanation of how the project would be implemented, and other elements.

The amount a district was awarded was proportionally awarded based on socioeconomically weighted student enrollment for kindergarten through third grade students.

The application period was extended through December 29, 2023. Districts received waiver determination letters on December 1, meaning they were working on grant applications without knowing whether they would receive a waiver. While districts denied waivers could use grant funding to help defray the cost of adopting a new reading program, the timing meant districts might not know whether they would need a new program. Additionally, many districts were eligible to receive tens of thousands of dollars, not the hundreds of thousands of dollars some districts needed to replace their reading programs.

The affordability of these programs was noted in some school districts’ waiver applications. Regional School District 18 noted that if they were denied a waiver, they would not be able to afford a replacement program. 

“If our waiver is not approved, we will not fiscally be able to support the purchase of a program for the 23-24 school year as our budget has been approved by the [board of education] already and we are acquiring 6.5 million in debt service as part of a four-school renovation project. We would be able to phase in a program starting in kindergarten as a possible compromise.” the district wrote. 

The district also asked if the state would be subsidizing expenses for schools that had purchased programs that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or would have to undergo significant professional development.  

Acceptance of the ARPA Right to Read Grant funds came with requirements, namely that districts send a team to professional development, which presented some challenges and generated questions from a number of school districts.

To register for the Right to Read Statewide Professional Learning Series, districts had to submit a team of six district employees who would be attending. A CSDE-created poster advertising the leadership training informed districts they had to include a representative from six areas: District Curriculum or Literacy Department Leader, School Leadership (with the poster noting a principal was preferred), Literacy/Instructional Coach, Regular Education Teacher, Special Education Teacher, and Multi-Lingual Director or Teacher.

A number of districts contacted CLRSS Director Melissa Hickey and CSDE with questions or to note this requirement posed problems.

“As for the training we are a very small district. Our principal is already engaged in the preschool accreditation process with a team that is taking much of a time commitment. Would it satisfy the requirement if our part time assistant principal and one teacher sign up for the series as we are also having serious issues getting substitutes?” Eastford superintendent Donna Leake asked in an October 3, 2023 email to Hickey. Hickey replied that this would be fine.

Sterling also contacted Hickey to note that, as a small district, they could not afford to have six staff absences and would send three people. They had to reach out to Hickey and CSDE to figure out how to register because the form required adding six people.

In at least one instance, inability to attend the training cost a district ARPA Right to Read Grant funding.

In an October 3, 2023 email sent to Regional School District 16 superintendent Michael Yamin, Hickey relayed the outcome of a conversation she’d had with another district employee and stated that while she could accommodate the district’s request to have fewer than six people attend the professional learning series, she could not “waive the requirement completely of attendance at the once-a-month meetings.”

“I cannot waive the professional learning expectation, sadly as a result your district would not be eligible for the ARPA Right to Read funds.” Hickey wrote.

Others expressed frustration with other grant requirements.

“We have just spent the past hour working on the grant, a very frustrating experience as the required information and questions far exceed the scope of our project – pretty simple, we have adopted one of the state approved reading programs.” the superintendent of Botelle Elementary School in Norfolk wrote to Hickey on October 3, 2023. “I just got to the last page which states that quarterly written reports are required… Unless you can provide a compelling reason to proceed with the application, I am of the mind that the time and effort to do so is not worth the $10,000.” 

Hickey offered to meet and walk through the grant. She noted that the quarterly reporting was aimed more at fiscal reporting. 

“If it helps, there is an ARP ESSER Small Town Grant that shall be opening soon and you will be getting $13,000 more and I deliberately aligned the questions so you can cut and paste from one grant to another.” Hickey added, referring to another grant utilizing pandemic-era funding districts can receive. 

CSDE did reach out to districts throughout the application period to ensure they were taking advantage of the money being offered to them.

In October 2023, Hickey and CLRRS emailed districts that had not begun the ARPA grant application.

“I am contacting you today regarding the 2023 ARPA Right to Read Grant. You are receiving this email because your district has not yet started your grant application. We do not want you to miss out on this wonderful entitlement grant opportunity which will provide you with $47,000 to purchase Connecticut-Approved K-3 assessments, Core Comprehensive Reading Curriculum Models, or Programs.” an October 13, 2023 email from Hickey to Portland Public Schools officials read. Hickey also asked what approved reading program the district was planning on implementing.

Similar emails were also sent to other districts that had not started grant applications.

At the same time, CSDE was tracking various aspects of implementation with RTR.

A spreadsheet dated September 1, 2023, that was part of documents CSDE turned over through FOIA catalogs various actions related to the implementation of Right to Read districts had or had not taken. It noted whether districts had registered for professional development opportunities, whether they had started grant applications, and which approved reading program they were using or if their waiver application was under review.

The latter part of this complied with a requirement in the RTR law that CSDE post a list of districts and the programs they would be implementing by no later than September 1, 2023.

But again, the timing of that created challenges for some districts. Hickey emailed the Old Saybrook school district on September 26, 2023 to ask about their reading program implementation plan. Hickey wanted to know if it would be accurate to say the district was using a program by the American Reading Company.

A representative from the district replied that they were piloting materials from the program in two schools in each grade level in one school and would use information from the pilot to determine whether they would use the program. “However, we did not receive information as to the status of our waiver. Would you happen to have more information about that?” Khary Fletcher, Old Saybrook’s curriculum director, wrote back.

Hickey responded with information about informational webinars on the status of waivers that were occurring in October.

On September 22, 2023, Hickey emailed the assistant principal of The Sherman School asking if they had any questions about the professional learning series because they had not yet submitted a roster of staff to attend. Karen Fildes, the assistant principal, replied that she had recently attended the webinar on the learning series and expressed concern about attending it and coming from a one-school district.

“The [professional development] is valuable and I will definitely be attending, but I do not have the capacity to pull 5 other teachers from their assignments for so many days.” Fildes wrote back, also noting her staff were busy implementing a reading program.

Fildes further noted that when she tried to register herself she was unable to because the registration required six members.

“I am more than willing to participate and bring the information back to my team in a way they can digest, but I am concerned about adding one more thing to my teacher’s plates.” Fildes wrote.

Hickey replied that she could have HILL Literacy register a smaller number of people.

In another email exchange beginning October 2, 2023, Killingly’s superintendent contacted Hickey to ask if they still needed to attend the professional learning series if they did not apply for the ARPA Right to Read Grant. Hickey asked why the district wasn’t taking the money. Superintendent Susan Nash-Ditzel responded that the district had not chosen a reading program because they hadn’t received any feedback from their waiver and also were not ready to complete other requirements for the grant. Hickey offered to meet the district to discuss, which Nash-Ditzel accepted.

CLRRS also separately tracked whether districts had signed up for professional learning seminars.

“Are you able to confirm whether certain districts have indicated interest and/or signed up already for upcoming Right 2 Read professional learning? We do not see them on the existing cohorts but thought you might have a running “wait list” of districts who will participate in upcoming cohorts.”  CSDE employee Deirdre Savarese wrote in an October 12 email to HILL for Literacy employees.

As of October 2, 2023, there were 75 districts according to CSDE’s tracking documents who had not signed up for professional development opportunities. Department officials also discussed whether they should reach out to districts that had not signed up for professional development and, separately, if they should reach out to districts that had had their grants approved but not signed up for development opportunities or districts that did not submit waivers and had not submitted the ARPA Right to Read Grant.

Emails turned over through FOIA also detail the process by which CSDE and PCG reached out to school districts to inform them they could attend virtual one-on-one meetings.

The finalized email, which was sent by Hickey on October 18, 2023, informs districts they can attend a single half-hour meeting to discuss their “current findings and feedback regarding their individual Waiver,” which would take place between October 23 and October 31. The email also told meetings they needed to register by the next day.

Before the finalized email was sent, PCG and CSDE conferred on how the email should be worded, with PCG making a number of suggestions to how emails sent to districts telling them to sign up for the meetings and how emails sent to districts after they registered should be worded.

Additions to the email to be sent to districts after they had registered to the meeting included noting that calls would be up to 25 minutes long and districts would have up to 15 minutes to provide information based on findings that were then current about their waiver request. Those findings would also be provided in that email.

A copy of the finalized email districts received after registering for the one-on-one meetings was not part of the emails turned over through FOIA to-date. CSDE had not completed producing documents responsive to Inside Investigator’s request at the time of publication.

As the full implementation date of RTR moves forward, districts denied waivers are having to move forward with implementing new reading programs.  

CSDE says it is offering help to districts in a variety of ways: 

• Working with literacy and education experts to provide ongoing training 
• Coaching that offers district personalized guidance and feedback 
• Technical support 
• Webinars on CSDE’s YouTube channel that spotlight districts and charter schools sharing their experience adopting RTR compliant programs 

Inside Investigator reached out to school districts that had been denied waivers to learn what kind of support they have been receiving from the CSDE and where they stand in implementing RTR compliant programs. 

Brooklyn 

The district said it held a very productive meeting with CSDE. Brooklyn has been working with HILL for Literacy and Candice LaConti, an education consultant with the CLRRS, to review programs. It has chosen a program to adopt for the next school year. Supplemental materials are expected to cost around $150,000. 

The district has already begun training for the new program with HILL for Literacy and LaConti and says additional training will continue through fall at no cost. 

Cheshire 

The district said it has not heard from the CSDE since it met in March to review the waiver, but has plans to reach out to the department during the summer break. 

The district has not yet selected a new program but has reviewed programs and plans a “more concerted effort” for this summer. The district estimates it will cost $500,000 to $700,000 to adopt a new program. 

Montville 

The district has had multiple meetings with CSDE and has been unsuccessfully seeking to have the department approved their continued use of Open Court Foundational Skills combined with another state-approved program. McGraw Hill’s Open Court Reading is on the list of approved programs, but Open Court Foundational Skills is not. 

“Our request was based upon the fact that the program meets criteria, and we have invested considerable time and money in its implementation. The CSE panel has listened to us respectfully, but they have not provided us with an explanation of why they will not allow us to use a portion of an approved program which we already use and combine it with a portion of another approved program.” superintendent Laurie Pallin told Inside Investigator. 

The district has moved on from those efforts and chosen a program to implement. The cost of the program for one year is $278,000. 

“This does not count the cost of the materials we will be discarding, the wages paid for summer curriculum work and all the costs associated with a major program implementation.” Pallin wrote. 

Pallin added that CSDE has offered training in program selection to the district, which Pallin said they did not need because staff were already trained in program selection. 

“I requested monetary support, but have not heard that any help for costs beyond the Right to Read grant would be provided.” Pallin added. 

Plymouth 

Plymouth said that while they originally submitted a waiver request, they always intended to follow the state’s recommendations. The district recently finished piloting two reading programs from CSDE’s approved list. They also recently purchased the program the district’s teachers and director of curriculum chose and will implement it during the 2024-2025 school year. After the grant the district received, the new program cost $100,000. The program will cover kindergarten through grade 5. 

Southington 

The district said they used the waiver process to evaluate the reading program they were using and, prior to the waiver decisions being released, had decided to “move in a new direction” with their reading program.  

District literacy staff began reviewing an initial list of programs in October 2022. They also simultaneously began to revise the program they were using to align it to the Science of Reding. By December 2023, after reviewing additional programs CSDE added to the list of programs that aligned with RTR, the district narrowed their options down to two programs. 

Southington received support from the CSDE through a professional learning series on the Science of Reading and through support for program review offered by HILL for Literacy. CSDE is offering a partnership with HILL for Literacy to conduct program reviews and help create district literacy leadership teams. HILL for Literacy walked the district literacy leadership team through “an extensive review” of the two programs they were considering. The district selected a program in April of this year.  

The program the district selected is estimated to cost about $550,000. Southington was awarded $224,000 in state grant funding. 

Thomaston 

Following the December 1, 2023 announcement of waiver determinations, Thomaston sought to have their waiver reconsidered. On December 15, 2023, Thomaston superintendent Francine Coss wrote to CSDE commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker seeking  reconsideration of the district’s waiver denial. In the letter, which Thomaston shared with Inside Investigator, Coss said the waiver review process “egregiously fell short of fully capturing the exemplary quality of reading pedagogy, resources, and capacity building that permeates Thomaston Public Schools.”  

Coss added that there was “conflicting feedback across categories” in the comments CSDE made on the district’s waiver review tool. In the documents’ notes, CSDE also wrote that the district listed curriculum from Colorado as a “comprehension supplemental” program, which the district does not use. 

“This evidence of carelessness within the waiver review process should be enough to reconsider the status of “limited” given to Thomaston Public Schools.” Coss wrote. 

Coss further characterized comments CSDE made on the waiver review tool as “an inattentive recapitulation of verbatim statements in a “cut-and-paste” fashion from district to district.” Like many other districts, Thomaston received similar comments about a lack of evidence that their programs worked comprehensively to develop reading skills. 

“There was not a scope and sequence of how these collective programs will align as a comprehensive approach that provides coherence of the planned progression reading concepts across grades.” CSDE wrote under a section of the review tool asking about whether the district submitted evidence their reading programs function comprehensively. Similar language appears in a number of other districts’ reviews.  

The district was unsuccessful in their attempt to have CSDE change their determination. Jennifer Irazabal, the district’s director of curriculum, instruction, and student assessment, told Inside Investigator they have selected a comprehensive program to be implemented during the 2024-2025 academic year, but that the timing of implementing it has been difficult. 

“This abbreviated preparation period is expected to pose several implementation challenges for our educators. Additionally, due to the high demand across many districts for new programming, securing timely professional learning sessions at the beginning of the year has become increasingly difficult. We are actively working to mitigate those challenges and ensure a smooth transition to the new curriculum.” Irazabal wrote. 

Though the district received a grant to support purchase of a new program, it has not been enough to cover the entire curriculum. Previously, Thomaston purchased math and reading curriculum from a single supplier, which decreased the district’s cost. But they are no longer able to do that. The new reading program the district purchased is also more expensive than their previous program. 

“[T]o maintain a consistent and cohesive curriculum across grades K-6, we found it necessary to identify and allocate additional, unplanned financial resources to purchase the same program for grades 4-6. This requirement has presented substantial budgeting challenges.” Irazabal noted. 

Thomaston also received support from CSDE in the form of professional learning from HILL for Literacy, but because the district ha already been implementing instruction aligned with the Science of Reading, “these sessions provided limited additional benefit” to the district’s staff. Irazabal stated that professional development tailored around the programs the district is implementing would have been more effective and better supported their teachers. 

Willington 

The district has purchased a new program and did not use CSDE’s assistance in reviewing programs, though it was offered. 

The district received $90,000 in grant funding to cover the adoption of a new K-3 reading program. 

“The grant funding did not support materials for students in preschool or grades 4-8. However, the district felt it was important to identify a program that provided continuity for our preschool through grade 8 school district so we adopted the program for all grades.” Phil Stevens, Willington’s superintendent of schools, told Inside Investigator. 

The district was able to cover the additional $42,000 in costs through other grant funding, including through federal pandemic funds, and the town’s budget. It will begin implementing the new program in September 2024. 

Dive Deeper

Explore CSDE’s completed data review tools in our FOI Library here.

Explore emails CLRRS director Melissa Hickey sent about RTR in our FOI Library here.

Dive deeper into districts’ waiver application data here.

Dive deeper into districts’ testing data here.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.