From the Field: What Alameda County is Learning from the Screener Rollout

This school year marks California’s first statewide effort to screen all kindergarten, first-, and second-graders for reading difficulties. As districts work through implementation, Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE) has created a space for leaders to share what’s working, troubleshoot challenges, and learn from one another in real time.

“The main goals of the network are for folks to stay informed about Reading Difficulties Risk Screener policies, requirements, and best practices — and to connect with one another,” said Lara Burenin. Lara leads the Reading Difficulties Risk Screener (RDRS) implementation network, serving the 18 districts in Alameda County. The four-session series is held both in-person and virtually throughout the year.

The cohort primarily draws district-level leaders: directors of curriculum and instruction, data and assessment coordinators, and staff responsible for Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and Response to Intervention (RTI). Screener implementation includes testing protocols, data integration, family communication, and resource allocation for follow-up supports.

Across Alameda County, three screeners are in use: m-Class DIBELS (Amplify), UCSF Multitudes, and Amira. Districts that already had m-Class DIBELS in place are building on an existing system. Districts using UCSF Multitudes are focusing on mid-year assessments. Amira and M-Class DIBELS users started earlier in the fall and have now completed a second round of screening at mid-year. 

Implementation Challenges 

One of the most complex issues the network has surfaced is how to assess multilingual learners (MLLs), a population at risk of both overidentification and underidentification.

“Multilingual learners could be referred for special education testing, when actually their language development hasn’t been attended to sufficiently,” Burenin explained. “Or if they’re not getting sufficient quality instruction for multiple years, they could present as needing an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) when what they really need is better core instruction.”

English and Spanish are the only languages with approved screeners. ACOE’s guidance to districts is to assess students in their language of instruction first. For Spanish-speaking MLLs, assessing in the home language as well is most valuable. Some districts assess in English first, identify who’s flagged, and then follow up with Spanish assessments.

“There’s always a question around, is this data surfacing possible dyslexia, learning disabilities, or concerns around instruction? Or are we looking at what is the bilingual progression of language learning,” said Marijke Conklin, TSA at Manzanita Seed, a 50/50 dual language school. “You have to think about all these strands and think about which of these levers you want to pull,” she added. “It matters and determines what your next steps are.”

Californians Together advocated for early identification in a brief they released in 2025, while warning about the risk of mislabeling multilingual learners: 

“While avoiding mislabeling is paramount, a ‘wait and see’ approach can be detrimental. Early identification, combined with appropriate monitoring and language support, is essential. If concerns about underlying reading difficulties persist, further investigation is warranted,” they wrote.

Some leaders have noted that screeners can flag a student as at-risk based on letter identification and letter sound scores, but not tell you which letters the student is struggling with. Districts are calibrating on how to integrate screener results into their multi-tiered systems of support.

“Some districts are using the reporting tools within the screener platform to identify students for more intensive supports, and other districts are looking at screener results alongside other assessments they give,” Burenin said.

At Manzanita Seed, Conklin has been able to use screener data in Student Study Team (SST) meetings to define exactly where a student is struggling, and to craft much more specific goals than in past years. “How is this child doing with letter names? What sounds do they know? Are they blending? Can they isolate syllables in Spanish?

A Signal About Tier 1 Instruction

If more than 20 percent of students are flagging as needing intervention, that’s not an intervention problem — it’s a Tier 1 instruction signal.

“Ideally, Tier 1 instruction should help 80 percent of students be on track, on grade level,” Burenin said. When the numbers skew the other way, districts need to look not only at students flagged for difficulty, but at the quality and consistency of core instruction across classrooms. And the data should be examined by subgroups. Each screener has different reporting abilities, and disaggregated data can reveal patterns that universal numbers mask, she explained.

What’s Next

The RDRS implementation network will continue meeting throughout the school year as district leaders move into spring benchmarking and planning for next year’s rollout. One-time adoption and implementation funding has already been distributed to districts. 

Survey Request for District Leaders

EdVoice is conducting a statewide effort to better understand how districts are implementing universal K–2 Reading Difficulties Risk Screeners. District leaders are invited to complete a short survey to share high-level insights on screening implementation, including the screener used, grades assessed, implementation stage, and any early trends or lessons learned.

The survey is designed to be quick and reflective of information districts already have readily available. It does not request any student-level, teacher-level, or personally identifiable information. You can access the survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QLPBFPK