APS postpones early-literacy progress review after board finds report lacks disaggregated data and rationale

The Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education postponed consideration of progress monitoring reports for interim goals 1.1 and 1.2 (early literacy for targeted vulnerable groups) until Aug. 6 after members and the meeting facilitator said the district report lacked disaggregated data and clear rationale for its planned actions.

Member Dominguez, who facilitated the monitoring session, told the board, “No. I do not have enough information to assure the board that we are on track,” and said the report presented only aggregate graphs rather than the disaggregated results for the Yazzie‑Martinez groups and African American students that the interim goals require. Dominguez asked for graphs that compare each vulnerable subgroup to the aggregated population and for a rationale explaining why the administration’s actions would address the report’s identified root causes.

The facilitator said the draft report listed six root causes but offered no prioritized focus or evidence that the planned strategies would be effective. Dominguez summarized key gaps: absence of disaggregated graphs for students with disabilities, Native American students, English learners and African American students; missing rationales connecting actions to root causes; minimal parent and community engagement; no data on actual screen time; and no evidence of adjustments to strategy based on prior monitoring.

Deputy Superintendent Antonio Gonzalez committed that the administration would respond. “Madam president, yes. You will, and we will be ready,” he told the board when asked whether the administration could provide the requested revisions in time for an August meeting.

Public forum commenters addressed related instructional tools and district strategy. Dr. Beatrice Pacheco, director of education for the Pueblo of Sandia, questioned district choices of computer‑based interventions and urged the board to review evidence before purchasing programs. “A program with a 0.06 effect size should have been questioned by the school board before tax dollars were spent to purchase the program,” she said, referring to an analysis she cited of iStation outcomes and the What Works Clearinghouse evidence base. The facilitator had earlier noted “anemic annual targets” for professional development and resource guardrails that, combined with curriculum change and lack of support for small‑group instruction, could underpin the reported year‑over‑year declines.

Board members agreed the missing elements prevented an effective monitoring session and moved to postpone formal consideration so the administration could supply disaggregated data, prioritize and narrow root causes, and provide a clearer implementation plan and evidence that planned actions will work. Member Dominguez moved to postpone; Member Benavides seconded. A roll call vote recorded Dominguez, Benavides, Member Tomorito and Board President Daniel Gonzales as voting yes; the motion to postpone carried.

The board noted the purpose of the progress monitoring sessions is to enable focused strategic questioning and timely course corrections. The board listed Aug. 6 as the next possible date to revisit the report so members can evaluate disaggregated performance for the district’s most vulnerable early‑grade readers and the administration’s rationale and action plan.