Fayetteville-Manlius reports early, comparable gains from two K–6 literacy pilots; district to collect more data before selecting curriculum
Loading...
Summary
District presenters told the Board of Education that both pilot programs show preliminary student growth and positive feedback from families, teachers and students; district will reconvene pilot teachers, re-survey stakeholders and return with a purchasing recommendation later in the year.
The Fayetteville-Manlius Central School District on Feb. 10 heard an update on its K–6 literacy curriculum pilots and was told that both programs in the pilot show preliminary evidence of student growth and positive engagement, but that staff will collect more data before recommending adoption.
Dr. Catherine Daughton, presenting with curriculum specialists Jacqueline Gangloff and Amy Riemenschneider, told the school board the two programs under pilot both “demonstrate meaningful potential,” and that the district will continue screenings, teacher reflection sessions and family and student surveys before making a purchase decision.
The update matters because New York State guidance and Education Law 8-18 require districts to align reading instruction with evidence-based practices and to attest annually that curriculum and instruction are aligned to the science of reading; Daughton said the district’s attestation must be signed by the superintendent by Sept. 1.
District staff described a multi-year review process that began with an outside literacy review by OCM BOCES, a selection process that narrowed six programs to two, and a fall launch of piloting in K–6 classrooms. Staff emphasized supports provided to teachers not in the pilot: revised K–2 foundational-skill guidance, a phonics survey administration protocol, a nonsense-word fluency screener for first grade and distribution of UFLI materials for K–2 teachers, introduced with training by Dr. Doreen Mazey of SUNY Oswego.
Amy Riemenschneider described the pilot’s data-collection plan: universal screening results from fall and winter are under analysis, teachers will use a rubric combining the Reading League curriculum-evaluation guide and the New York State K–3 literacy curriculum review guide, and staff will re-administer surveys to families, students (grades 3–6) and teachers in the coming weeks. Riemenschneider said the preliminary quantitative and qualitative data “does not definitively discount either program.”
Staff shared specific early findings: family survey return rates were roughly 15 percent in December; about 456 K–6 students replied to a December student survey; about 75 percent of student respondents said text levels were “just right”; student interest measures (when “very interested” and “sometimes interested” were combined) were near 90 percent overall, though engagement at grades 5–6 trended lower than in earlier grades. Staff also reported that teacher feedback praised both programs’ vertical skill development and the fact that materials reduced the need for piecemeal supplementation by teachers.
Board members asked about cost differences, support for struggling readers and how the pilots address students across the achievement spectrum. Daughton and staff said the two vendors are “relatively comparable” in price, added that BOCES aid is being explored, and emphasized that both curricula include materials and pacing that allow teachers to differentiate and re-teach skills through spiraled instruction.
District next steps are procedural and time-sensitive: staff will reconvene all pilot teachers in February for a half-day deep dive, re-survey families, students and teachers in March, and return to the board with a purchase recommendation and a training plan that could begin at the June professional learning day and continue through summer training. Daughton said full implementation and expected mastery are measured over multiple years and that the district intends to provide the ongoing supports piloting teachers are receiving to all elementary (and potentially middle school) teachers if a program is adopted.
Board members and staff also agreed to continue collecting and elevating feedback from teachers, families and students as part of the decision process.
Questions and concerns raised during the public meeting focused on the sufficiency of early-return survey samples and the need to see full teacher-level data before finalizing a purchase; staff said they will provide more detailed results as analysis continues.
The board did not take a formal vote on curriculum adoption at the meeting; staff emphasized the matter remains in the pilot and review stage.
