South Orangetown board moves faster on reading review as parents press for immediate change

Board of Education members of the South Orangetown Central School District spent the meeting reviewing a districtwide literacy curriculum review and fielding intense public comment urging immediate adoption of a research-based structured‑literacy program.

The district's curriculum office told the board it is using the New York State Literacy Guide to evaluate phonics, word study and overall reading programs; teachers at William O. Schaefer and Cottage Lane will review candidate materials in February and March before the district moves toward adoption and implementation planning. Parents and advocates at public comment said the current pace is too slow given low proficiency numbers and families' reported need for private tutoring and remediation.

Why it matters: district presenters and parents said reading proficiency is a foundational academic issue that affects special‑education referrals, long‑term outcomes and students' access to grade‑level work. The state will require a superintendent attestation that K–3 reading instruction is aligned with the science of reading by Sept. 1, 2025, adding urgency to the board's schedule.

Assistant superintendent for curriculum presenter Mr. Arrieta described the process the district has followed: the administration has completed data collection and a program review using the state guidance, gathered teacher feedback in grade‑level meetings and created a rubric for evaluating vendor materials. The district scheduled vendor reviews for phonics and word‑study programs on Feb. 26 and planned a full review of reading programs on March 6, after which the administration expects to bring an adoption recommendation to the board.

Superintendent remarks and curriculum staff emphasized teacher involvement in the selection process and a multi‑stage rollout if a new program is adopted. The district plans to use remaining contract days this school year and summer curriculum and training time to prepare staff, then implement an instructional program beginning in September, with continued professional development and curriculum writing during the following school year.

At public comment, parents pressed for a faster timetable and structural change. "Only 42 percent of students in this district are proficient in reading," parent Desiree Zagiaroli said, and called for "immediate action" and a districtwide adoption of a research‑based structured‑literacy program rather than further delay. Other residents asked the board to budget for the materials and staff training needed to implement a new program and to provide remediation for students already behind grade level.

Administrators responded that multiple building‑level adjustments (for example, use of Heggerty for phonemic awareness in kindergarten and interventions such as Wilson and other Tier‑2 supports) have been tested and allowed time to show results. The curriculum office said those local interventions informed the district's review and that, based on teacher feedback, a change from "if" to "when" was likely — but that the team must still follow the review rubric to choose the program that best fits district needs.

The board did not take a formal vote on curriculum adoption at the meeting. District staff committed to returning to the board with a formal adoption recommendation and budget implications once the February–March review and faculty rubric process conclude.

Looking ahead: if the board approves a new program in March, administrators said they will budget for initial materials purchases and professional development and use summer hours and targeted PD during the academic year to train teachers. The administration also agreed to provide the board with grade‑level RTI/MTSS data and a breakdown of IEPs and referrals requested by trustees so members can better judge scope, costs and remediation needs.