Mount Lebanon presents 6‑year curriculum review and elementary program changes after year‑long study

Mount Lebanon School District staff presented findings from a year‑long elementary program review at the June 9 Mount Lebanon Board of School Directors meeting, recommending a six‑year districtwide curriculum review cycle, standardized written curriculum access and new implementation steps for instruction and interventions.

The district’s assistant superintendent for elementary education, Dr. Joseph Shula, told the board the curriculum‑review calendar is a six‑year cycle that begins with “research and program analysis,” moves to “curriculum development and resource selection,” then to implementation and revision, and finishes with evaluation and reflection. “The elementary written curriculum in Atlas is not complete, accurate, accessible to colleagues, or accessible to families,” Shula said, adding the district will move those materials into a single repository.

Why it matters: Board members and administrators said the review is intended to produce consistent instruction across all seven elementary schools and to address gaps revealed by post‑pandemic test trends. The review includes adoption and training plans for new elementary ELA and science materials, steps to standardize instructional minutes and departmentalization across schools, and measures intended to expand social‑emotional supports and targeted interventions.

Most important details first: Shula reported the district purchased new K–5 ELA materials (noted in the presentation as the recently adopted ELA program) and new science materials (Amplify) and trained staff before the school year ended so teachers could begin planning over the summer. The district also committed to using AIMSweb Plus and MAP assessments for the next three years to monitor the effect of new materials. For intervention, the district bought a defined Tier‑2 math program and plans to roll out that program “with fidelity across all seven buildings.” Reading supports named in the review include the Wilson Reading System and other evidence‑based interventions already in use in some schools.

Supporting details and discussion: The program review combined an external review, a self‑assessment using PSSA and other local data, and focus‑group input from teachers, PTA representatives and students. Shula said district performance remains above the state average on many measures but that scores have not yet fully returned to pre‑pandemic levels except in Grade 4 science; the presentation flagged areas to watch as comparator districts start to catch up. Shula also said English‑learner outcomes prompted targeted attention: the district’s EL proficiency for some cohorts was described as roughly in the 30–40 percent range, and staff proposed expanded translation devices and parent supports. “We were able to purchase 30 this current school year that we've gotten great feedback on,” Shula said of translation devices.

Staff recommended operational standardizations: all schools will adopt an instructional‑minutes guideline (with limited exceptions for traveling teachers), begin departmentalizing some grades so students have subject teachers for math or ELA in upper elementary, and move all written curriculum into the Atlas system for public and staff access. The district also plans to pilot coordinated monthly “math makerspace” lessons tied to science units and to expand pre‑service teacher partnerships with the University of Pittsburgh and Point Park University to increase in‑class adult support.

Board questions and clarifications: Board members asked how students would be identified for acceleration and gifted services; Shula said universal screening begins in Grade 3 and that existing acceleration screens (third‑ and fifth‑grade winter AIMSweb plus local measures) would be reviewed in the fall. On assessment anomalies, a board member asked Shula to check a flagged chart showing a precipitous drop in a Keystone literature subgroup; Shula agreed to investigate and report back. Board members also pressed for clarity about device use, classroom expectations and the timeline for full Atlas publication.

Next steps and implementation: The district will continue the curriculum review work in scheduled phases—math and social studies research in 2025–26, health and PE resource development, and implementation and revision stages for other grade bands in subsequent years. Shula said buildings will pilot changes in the 2025–26 school year and that a more detailed implementation timeline and accountability measures are included in the written report accompanying the review.

Closing note: Board members praised the breadth of the review and urged careful sequencing and teacher support to avoid overwhelming staff when multiple adoptions and changes occur in a short timeframe.