The Curriculum Committee met in September to present the district’s year‑ahead curriculum priorities, including a second year of implementation for the new K–6 math program, continued work to select a common K–5 literacy program, expansion of multi‑tiered systems of support (MTSS/RTI), and an emphasis on professional development for teachers.

Committee leadership framed the work as a coherence effort. “Our overall goal … is to make sure that every student thrives academically and certainly feels a sense of belonging,” the Committee Chair said. The presentation identified math, literacy, RTI/MTSS, supports for English‑language learners, social‑emotional learning and restorative practices, and curriculum governance as the central priorities for 2025–26.

Why it matters: the initiatives govern classroom materials, teacher training and screening tools that determine how students are grouped for instruction and intervention. The district said the choices are multi‑year efforts intended to produce consistent instruction across grades and schools rather than one‑off changes.

Most important facts first: the district is entering year two of implementing a new K–6 mathematics program and plans ongoing curriculum and professional development tied to the i‑Ready platform. “The results were fantastic,” the Committee Chair said of last year’s first‑year math outcomes, and the committee reported continued support from district math specialists and an external provider (Kirkland Associates and a named professional developer, Dana).

District staff said math professional development for the year will be smaller in scale than last year but remains significant: the committee cited about 32 professional‑development sessions organized in three main blocks focused on instructional strategies for tier‑1 instruction and small‑group work.

Elementary literacy was presented as the district’s other major multiyear effort. The committee described a three‑year plan to select a common K–5 literacy program across the five elementary schools and said the work is aligned to a New York State literacy attestation process and to New York State educational law (referenced in the presentation as “Education Law 8 18”). The district plans professional development beginning on the next conference day to implement six pillars of literacy instruction and said all five elementary schools will teach a consistent K–2 phonics and phonemic‑awareness program this year as a foundation for a common K–5 program in later years.

The committee reviewed MTSS/RTI: a new RTI plan adopted in January 2025 clarifies tier criteria. The presentation summarized tier expectations — tier‑1 (whole‑class instruction), tier‑2 (small‑group interventions estimated to target about 20 percent of students) and tier‑3 (more intensive, often pull‑out services). Staff said forthcoming PD will focus on multiple measures and tracking, and that work on a district dashboard (Instructional Data Warehouse) will help teachers and principals monitor academic and social‑emotional indicators.

English‑language learner (ELL/EL) instruction was discussed as a priority for alignment and access. The district said it is shifting toward more push‑in models so EL students receive support without missing mainstream classroom instruction; when pull‑out remains necessary, pulled‑out instruction will use the same classroom materials. The presentation said the district trained K–12 EL teachers on the data warehouse during a recent superintendent’s conference day and plans expanded PD for EL teachers.

Social‑emotional learning and restorative practices were also described as ongoing priorities. The district reported it trained an additional roughly 70 people in restorative practices last year — bringing the total trained staff above 100 — and that all staff had at least one restorative circle experience during a superintendent conference day. Committee members said experience with those circles changed some teachers’ perceptions about restorative work.

Other items included work on executive‑functioning skills (a new subcommittee with recommendations expected in the fall), expansion of research opportunities at the high school level to broaden access, and training on generative AI tools for lesson planning. The presentation stressed the role of the Professional Growth and Curriculum Development (PGCD) committee — a long‑standing advisory body the presentation said was formed by a 1969–71 contract — in vetting adoptions and building teacher buy‑in for curriculum adoptions.

Ending note: staff said the committee will continue monthly meetings and planned a deep dive on elementary I‑Ready and state 3–8 results at the next meeting on October 3.