Louisiana K-3 students improve reading skills, LDOE reports

BATON ROUGE, La. (Louisiana First) — Literacy screener results show that Louisiana students in grades K-3 have improved reading during the school year.
The Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) said end-of-year results showed a 17-point increase in the percentage of students reading on or above grade level. This was the second year that students K-3 were required to complete literacy screeners.
'Strong teachers, sound policy, and strategic investments have resulted in historic education outcomes for Louisiana,' said Louisiana State Superintendent of Education Dr. Cade Brumley. 'We're proud of the progress, but far from satisfied. I'm pleased with the work of teachers in partnership with parents to prompt this growth.'
Results show growth:
Kindergarten: 33-point growth
First grade: 19-point growth
Second grade: 11-point growth
Third grade: eight-point growth
See the finalists for Louisiana teacher, principal of the year
Louisiana education leaders credit students' reading improvement to its literacy plan using phonics, high-dosage tutoring, and parent engagement efforts.
All public schools are required to complete literacy screeners for K-3. A policy requiring third graders to meet promotion requirements is used to identify students who need more reading help. LDOE said students have three chances to show their reading proficiency by scoring above the lowest achievement level.
Gov. Jeff Landry celebrates as Louisiana students' rankings move up in Nation's Report Card
Louisiana joined Arkansas and North Carolina in states taking action on all 18 of ExcelinEd's principles in a national comparison of comprehensive early literacy policy released in 2024.
LDOE announced in February that the state ranked first in reading recovery from 2019 to 2024 on the Education Recovery Scorecard. According to a news release, an analysis found that pandemic relief contributed to academic recovery, specifically when directed to summer learning and tutoring. The state received $4 billion for K-12 schools.
Baton Rouge bids final farewell to former mayor Kip Holden
1 dead, 1 hurt after car crashes into Bayou Plaquemine in Iberville Parish
Addis native John Foster shares journey after 'American Idol'
Who were the victims of the shooting outside the DC Jewish Museum?
GOP campaign arm tells Republicans to 'go on offense' messaging Trump agenda bill
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

UPI

40 minutes ago

• UPI

Appeals court panel rules against Louisiana Ten Commandments law

1 of 2 | Louisiana can not compel officials to display the Ten Commandments in public school and college classrooms, a federal appeals court has ruled. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo June 21 (UPI) -- Louisiana can not compel officials to display the Ten Commandments in public school and college classrooms, a federal appeals court has ruled. "Parents and students challenge a statute requiring public schools to permanently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom in Louisiana. The district court found the statute facially unconstitutional and preliminarily enjoined its enforcement. We affirm," the appeals court panel said in its 50-page ruling issued this week. The court ruled Louisiana's House Bill 71 violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, calling the requirement to display the Ten Commandments "plainly unconstitutional" while affirming a lower court ruling. "The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Plaintiffs satisfied the preliminary injunction elements," the appeals court wrote, citing a similar law and subsequent ruling in Kentucky in the 1980s. Last June, Gov. Jeff Landry, R-La., signed the bill, requiring that "each public school governing authority shall display the Ten Commandments in each classroom in each school under its jurisdiction." The law went into effect on Jan. 1 of this year but was challenged by a group that included parents and the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana. The appeals court panel agreed the law subjected students to "a state-preferred version of Christianity." All but five of the state's school districts are required to follow the law while the legal process plays out. The five districts where the parent plaintiffs live have a temporary exemption. "We believe that our children should receive their religious education a thome and within our communities, not from government officials," Rev. Darcy Roake, one of the plaintiffs in the case said in a statement following the ruling. "We are grateful for this decision, which honors the religious diversity and religious-freedom rights of public school families across Louisiana," said Roake, who is a Unitarian Universalist Minister. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has indicated she will now seek appeal from the appeals court's full judge panel and could attempt to have the case heard in front of the Supreme Court of the United State. "We strongly disagree with the Fifth Circuit's affirmance of an injunction preventing five Louisiana parishes from implementing HB71. We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the United States Supreme Court," Murrill said in a statement. "We will immediately seek relief from the full FIfth CIrcuit and, if necessary the United States Supreme Court."

Chicago Tribune

an hour ago

• Chicago Tribune

How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill

WASHINGTON — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.

CNBC

an hour ago

• CNBC

GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill

In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership scrambled on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. "The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts," she said. The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips and or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodge-podge of priorities, are drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would violate the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which the federal government has long provided. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO estimated savings of about $128 billion under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not been publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Some of the most critical rulings from parliamentarians are still to come. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on "current policy" rather than "current law" as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would violate the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would roll back Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the Defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.