Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers, administrators raise concerns about new literacy program implementation and training
Summary
Staff and teachers told the RSU 40 committee they see gaps in the new literacy program’s implementation: limited professional development, insufficient small‑group and decodable‑text practice, and uneven district rollout. The district plans a reconvened literacy team meeting and additional teacher training.
Teachers and district staff told RSU 40 committee members they have concerns about the district’s recently adopted literacy program and said it needs more training and supplementary materials to meet student needs.
A classroom teacher told the committee bluntly, “I am not a fan. Not at all,” and described the program as failing to meet foundational needs for younger students without additional teacher knowledge and materials. The teacher said the program is “preoccupied with the teacher instructing the whole class together” and “doesn’t have enough space for small group instruction in differentiating by reading levels.”
Presenters and other teachers said the district spent for a multi‑year contract that provides consumable resources for several years but includes professional development only for the first year. One committee member (presenting staff) said the district now has “all these resources for 7 years, including all the new consumables that come along each year,” but that the limited PD meant teachers need continued training and guidance on how to adapt those resources effectively.
Committee discussion identified several recurring concerns from teachers: the need to build teacher knowledge of the science of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension), better use of decodable texts tied to decoding instruction, clearer alignment between decoding instruction and spelling, and more training on interpreting benchmark assessment data (DIBELS) so teachers can use data to inform instruction.
Staff said a district literacy team will reconvene at the end of the month to review first‑year implementation, identify gaps and next steps, and that the district is pursuing additional professional learning (staff referenced a multi‑month course through DOE/AIM and a book study of Logic of English). Presenters asked for and received teacher feedback at the meeting and said they plan further follow‑up and training sessions.
No formal action was taken on curriculum adoption at the committee meeting. Teachers and administrators asked the committee and district staff to continue the review process, provide ongoing professional development and coaching, and consider adding decodable books and other classroom materials to support students who need additional decoding practice.
