On April 28, 2026, the Old Saybrook Board of Education hosted a Parent Forum on Literacy to hear questions and concerns from the community regarding reading instruction at Kathleen E. Goodwin School. The Board Chair structured the evening to give parents and guardians as much time as possible to ask questions and share their feedback.
District administrators recorded the questions raised during the forum. After the meeting, the administration reviewed those questions and organized them into six common themes. The responses below address the larger questions that emerged across those themes, rather than treating each individual question as a separate item.
This document is intended to give families clear information about what has been done, what work is underway, and what goals are guiding the district’s next steps. Families deserve understandable data, timely communication, and a consistent process for continued follow-up.
Theme 1: Transparency, Data Access, and Progress Reporting
Big Picture Question
How will the district provide families with clear, consistent, and understandable information about student reading progress, including assessment data, benchmarks, standards, and intervention criteria?
Response:
Goodwin School uses several sources of information to monitor student reading progress. These include classroom performance, teacher observation, DIBELS, STAR, ARC-related assessments, standards-based progress updates, and other instructional data. Each source tells part of the story. Some tools focus on foundational reading skills, while others help staff monitor broader reading achievement, growth, comprehension, and progress toward grade-level standards.
The goal is not simply to send families numbers. The goal is to share assessment information with enough context that families understand what each measure means, how their child is progressing, and what support is available when concerns arise.
Goodwin has already strengthened academic communication through structured ARC and Bridges unit overviews. These overviews help families see each unit’s focus, standards, learning goals, foundational skills, strategies, and content. Goodwin is also preparing to share examples of student work with clearly defined rubrics so parents and guardians can better understand how their child performed in a specific content area.
During the April 28 presentation, Goodwin administrators identified three communication priorities: meaningful and ongoing updates about student performance, an updated report card aligned to the standards being taught, and a stronger partnership between school and home to support transparent progress monitoring and shared goals for student success.
The district is working to make student assessment records more accessible through its communication and reporting platforms for the 2026 - 2027 school year. To close the 2025 - 2026 school year, the district is also preparing to share spring assessment data with families. The long-term goal is a consistent system that explains what information families will receive, when they will receive it, how benchmarks will be explained, and how staff will communicate intervention decisions.
Theme 2: Program Effectiveness, Science of Reading, Structured Literacy, and Instructional Practice
Big Picture Question
How is the district evaluating whether ARC Core is effective, aligned with the science of reading and structured literacy, and supported by strong classroom instruction?
Response
During the April 28 presentation, the district explained that ARC Core was one of the literacy programs approved by the Connecticut State Department of Education in connection with the state’s Right to Read Act. The presentation also explained that structured literacy teaches students how spoken language, written language, word parts, sentence structure, and meaning work together. Samples from ARC Core reading and writing lessons were shared to show where these components appear within daily instruction.
Structured literacy is part of strong reading instruction for all students. It is not a separate approach reserved only for students with disabilities. Students with dyslexia or other reading disabilities may need more intensity, repetition, and individualization. During the April 28 presentation, the district identified Sonday, Orton-Gillingham, and Wilson as examples of structured literacy approaches used to support students who need more targeted instruction.
The district also shared that ARC Core does not use the three-cueing system. Students are taught to use grapheme-phoneme correspondences and spelling patterns as the first and primary method for word solving. The April 28 presentation also stated that ARC Core includes daily systematic foundational skills instruction and opportunities for students to practice decoding, encoding, phonological awareness, phonics, word study, morphology, and fluency.
ARC Core is being evaluated through multiple sources of evidence, including student achievement data, student growth data, DIBELS information, classroom implementation, teacher feedback, intervention data, student work, family input, and Dr. Gabriel’s independent review.
Dr. Gabriel’s May 5 presentation reinforced that curriculum must be evaluated in context. Her review includes attention to materials, community input, teacher and leader interviews, classroom observations, local needs, assessment alignment, professional learning, and leadership structures. The goal is to use evidence to identify what is working, what needs to improve, and what actions will best support student learning.
Theme 3: Decision-Making, Selection Process, and Accountability
Big Picture Question
How did the district make decisions regarding ARC Core, the pilot process, and full implementation, and how will the district ensure accountability moving forward?
Response
During the April 28 presentation, the district shared a timeline of the selection process. Connecticut passed the Right to Read legislation in June 2021. In fall 2022, Old Saybrook began researching the six programs approved by the Connecticut State Department of Education. The district sought an option that fit structured literacy practices while allowing flexibility to meet the needs of its diverse student population. The district eliminated three options based on concerns connected to an NYU report on cultural destructiveness. In December 2022, Old Saybrook filed a waiver with the state.
In spring 2023, teachers reviewed ARC and Amplify. Teachers provided feedback in May 2023, and the district selected ARC Core for testing in June 2023. The district then created a Literacy Program Testing Group and developed research questions to guide the pilot. Those questions focused on how to support meaning-making for readers and writers, how much instructional time a high-quality literacy curriculum requires, and what assessments teachers need to inform instruction.
During the 2023 - 2024 school year, the district tested ARC Core in ten K-4 classrooms. Building leadership at the time selected the participating teachers. The district also provided professional development through ARC and The Educator Collaborative. Throughout the testing year, the district held focus groups with implementing teachers and working meetings to evaluate implementation progress.
The district also shared feedback themes from the testing group. Teachers identified benefits, including ARC’s framework-based structure, quality literature, daily read-alouds, embedded phonemic awareness in K-1, comprehension through thematic units, reading and writing connections, increased stamina, and the IRLA Toolkit. Teachers also identified challenges, including the transition from Fundations to ARC Core, standards alignment, graphic organizers, rubrics, the need for common unit assessments with student exemplars, and the daily schedule needed for implementation.
Connecticut’s Right to Read requirements continue to shape the district’s available options. If Old Saybrook moves away from ARC Core as its selected literacy program, the district must choose from the state-approved list of curriculum models or programs. Current next steps include reviewing implementation, using the independent review process, gathering staff and family feedback, and using student data to determine the best path forward. The goal is a clear, evidence-based process that supports student growth.
Theme 4: Independent Review and Consultant Qualifications
Big Picture Question
Why did the district select an outside consultant? What will the consultant review? How can families trust that the process will produce objective and useful recommendations?
Response
In response to community concerns about reading instruction at Goodwin School, Superintendent Chris Drezek began seeking an outside expert to review the district’s literacy work and provide objective recommendations. Families had asked for an unbiased evaluation, and the district agreed that an outside review would help identify what is working well, what needs improvement, and what should come next.
The Superintendent sought recommendations from colleagues and identified Dr. Rachael Gabriel as a highly qualified literacy expert. During the April 28 presentation, the district introduced Dr. Gabriel as a Professor of Literacy Education at the University of Connecticut with expertise in literacy, reading, policy, teacher quality, discourse analysis, curriculum, and instruction. The presentation also listed her academic background, including a Ph.D. in Education: Literacy Studies from the University of Tennessee, an MAT in Secondary English from American University, and a BA in English and Psychology from the University of Rochester.
During her May 5 presentation, Dr. Gabriel shared additional information about her background. She identified past district partnerships with Madison, Clinton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Windsor, Berlin, Regional District 19, and districts or organizations in Vermont, Michigan, and Tennessee. She also identified past consults and evaluations with Old Saybrook, Westport, East Windsor, South Windsor, Columbia, and districts or organizations in Vermont and Michigan.
Dr. Gabriel also addressed questions related to neutrality and potential conflicts. She stated that she has received no compensation from curriculum publishers as a researcher or speaker. She also noted that her consulting fees are below market averages because she works primarily as a researcher and professor, not as a full-time consultant.
Dr. Gabriel met with families on May 5 to explain how she evaluates curriculum and reading instruction and to answer questions from the community. Her review includes reviewing materials, gathering community input, interviewing teachers and leaders, and observing classrooms. She also emphasized that schools evaluate curriculum in context, including how well it matches local needs, supports teacher decision-making, aligns with assessments, and fits within professional development and leadership structures.
Dr. Gabriel’s final report will identify the scope of the work completed, including the materials reviewed, data considered, classroom observations conducted, staff members interviewed, and implementation practices examined. The report will include findings and recommendations. Once the report is received, the district will share it with the public and create an action plan to address the recommendations with the resources available. The goal is to understand the current state of reading instruction at Goodwin and identify the actions that will best improve outcomes for students.
Theme 5: MTSS, Tier 1 Instruction, and Student Support
Big Picture Question
How does the district ensure strong Tier 1 literacy instruction for all students at Goodwin while also providing timely support for students who need additional help?
Response
Strong Tier 1 reading instruction is the foundation of the district’s literacy work. In an effective MTSS model, students first need strong daily classroom instruction. Intervention matters, but intervention cannot replace high-quality core instruction.
During the April 28 presentation, Goodwin administrators explained that they redesigned the elementary schedule to support literacy instruction. The schedule increased literacy instruction to 110 minutes per day. The current daily literacy structure includes 30 minutes for phonics and word work, 50 to 60 minutes for Tier 1 reading instruction with lessons and small groups, and 20 to 30 minutes for writing instruction.
Goodwin also redesigned its daily schedule to maximize instructional time while maintaining the developmental needs of young learners. The school increased dedicated instructional time for literacy and math by nearly 25%, reduced lunch waves from five to three, and introduced a consistent 40-minute rotating block to support MTSS interventions, small-group literacy and math support, and multilingual learner services.
Goodwin has a dedicated MTSS instructional block called What I Need, or WIN. This block allows teachers to provide additional small-group interventions, differentiated support, and enrichment without pulling students from core subjects. This structure protects core instructional time while giving teachers and specialists a more consistent way to respond to student needs.
Teachers use assessment information, student work, classroom performance, and progress monitoring to adjust instruction and provide support. Goodwin also uses the MTSS Consult Framework to identify and support students with academic, behavioral, social, or emotional needs. Each grade level has a dedicated weekly consult meeting. Any staff member may raise a concern about a student. The Consult Team includes administrators, a psychologist, a social worker, a counselor, a grade-level teacher, and, when appropriate, occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech, math interventionists, and literacy interventionists. Once the team identifies targeted interventions, staff schedule follow-up meetings 4 to 6 weeks later to review performance data, monitor growth, and adjust support.
The MTSS Consult Process brings together administrators, specialists, counselors, interventionists, Student Services representatives, and classroom teachers to analyze student data, define needs, and plan individualized supports. The district also reported that Goodwin increased the percentage of students receiving Tier II or Tier III support. At the end of 2024 - 2025 school year, 23 students, or 7%, received Tier II or Tier III support. By April of the 2025 - 2026 school year, 52 students, or 16.6%, received Tier II or Tier III support.
This increase shows that Goodwin has identified more students for additional support. The district’s goal is to continue strengthening intervention criteria, progress monitoring, and family communication so students who need additional support are identified early and supported effectively.
Theme 6: Family Engagement and Ongoing Communication
Big Picture Question
How will the district keep families informed and heard as the literacy review continues and next steps are developed?
Response
Goodwin has already taken several steps to improve communication. Families receive unit overviews at the start of each ARC and Bridges unit, which helps them understand the reading, writing, foundational skills, and math content their child will encounter. Goodwin has also worked to refine communication by adding more visual support for younger readers, expanding multilingual communication options, and preparing to send home examples of student work with clearly defined student success criteria or rubrics.
During the April 28 presentation, Goodwin administrators described efforts to draft ARC family updates and Bridges updates, create progress update letters, and collect parent feedback about whether those updates meet families’ information needs. The presentation noted that 29 families responded to the parent feedback loop.
Dr. Gabriel’s May 5 presentation also invited community input. She asked families to consider what they value or hope for in literacy instruction at Goodwin, what has felt missing or limited, what success would look like, and what failure would most likely look like. More than 200 responses were submitted through Dr. Gabriel’s community survey, and that feedback is part of the independent review process.
The district is continuing this follow-up process through written responses to the questions collected at the April 28 Parent Forum on Literacy, updates at Board of Education meetings, family information sessions connected to Dr. Gabriel’s review, and public communication about next steps once the final report is received.
Strong family engagement means listening carefully, communicating consistently, explaining decisions clearly, and showing families how feedback helps improve student learning. The district’s goal is to keep families informed and engaged as the literacy review continues and as future action steps are developed.
Conclusion
The district appreciates the families who attended the April 28 Parent Forum on Literacy and shared questions, concerns, and feedback. We all share the same goal: every student has the support needed to become a confident, capable reader.
The district will continue to review reading instruction at Goodwin carefully, use evidence to guide decisions, communicate clearly with families, and identify the actions that will best support student growth.
Improving literacy outcomes requires a complete system. The district will continue strengthening curriculum, assessment, instruction, professional learning, leadership, student support, and family communication so every student receives the reading instruction and support they need.