Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum Adoption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quincy School District previews multi‑year curriculum review, timeline
Summary
District Director of Teaching and Learning Allison Gately outlined how the district will set goals, convene review committees and likely spend 12–24 months on any core curriculum adoption, emphasizing community input and state standards updates.
Allison Gately, director of teaching and learning for Quincy School District, told the school board at its regular meeting that the district is preparing a multi‑year process to review core instructional materials, including math, English language arts, science and social studies.
Gately said the process begins with “identifying the goals” and analyzing existing course design to see whether current materials can be adapted or require replacement. She described a multi‑step review that moves from a curriculum study team to a broader Instructional Materials Committee and finally to a recommendation for board adoption. “The process is quite lengthy to go through. It's usually about a year and a half, sometimes two years,” Gately said.
The director framed the review around the concept of a guaranteed and viable curriculum — meaning the district must “identify the priority standards” everyone will teach and ensure there is time in the school year to teach them. She cited Robert Marzano’s work as context for why “guaranteed and viable” matters to student achievement, and said the district has already done professional learning this year to evaluate lesson quality under current materials.
Gately told the board the district must consider multiyear digital licenses, consumable workbooks and vendor platforms when budgeting for new materials. She also said the state is expected to finalize updated Washington state ELA and math standards soon and that those updates could affect the district’s timeline and choices: “We’re hoping to see [the standards] … before we start any part of the math adoption process.”
Board members asked about cost and community input. Gately said the adoption team will include parents, teachers and administrators and that the district conducts focus groups and “empathy interviews” with students and families to shape priorities before vendors are invited. She emphasized implementation is resource‑intensive: even after adoption, “implementation is where it gets really hard” and typically requires two years of professional learning and pacing adjustments.
Gately also reviewed the current status of adoptions: the district is in year‑to‑year renewals for some math digital programs after an initial multi‑year purchase; K–5 and secondary ELA adoptions are in mid‑implementation; and K–12 science and social studies are in earlier years of their adopted cycles. She said DreamBox (a supplemental adaptive math program) and other digital components will be considered in the review because they are used alongside core materials.
The board did not take formal action on curriculum at the meeting. Gately said she will return with regular updates throughout the review and that the district plans to involve board members and other stakeholders at multiple points.
Ending: The presentation set an initial schedule and process rather than a final decision: the district will establish parameters, convene review teams and return to the board with recommendations if the district elects to pursue new core instructional materials.
