Westwood School Committee reviews curriculum‑review cycle, strategic‑planning work and upcoming guidance review

Westwood School Committee members received a detailed update on the district’s curriculum review process and the strategic‑planning work during the May 8 meeting.

The curriculum review is structured as three phases — audit and analyze, research and development, and implementation — intended to recur roughly every six to eight years, district staff said. Departments produce a theory of action after the audit phase, pilot resources or professional learning during research and development, then move into multi‑year implementation with assessment plans.

Caitlin, who presented the update, said this year’s work included year‑long reviews of performing and visual arts; digital literacy, computer science and library media were in the implementation phase. She told the committee, “the review comes around every 6 to 8 years,” and described expected outcomes: a departmental mission aligned to the district portrait of a graduate, a consistent written curriculum and action plans that address identified achievement gaps.

Performing arts is working k–12 on a single departmental mission and vertical alignment; the department will crosswalk its mission to the new portrait of a graduate and schedule classroom visits and summer steering‑committee work. Visual arts convened a steering committee and completed a k–12 launch reviewing student work and vertical progression. Digital literacy and computer science work this year expanded DLCS offerings in grades 2–5, developed new high‑school computer‑science sequences, and promoted district professional learning on AI literacy, presenters said. Library staff reinstated a Thurston librarian and expanded elementary programming including author visits and book clubs.

Staff said the guidance program review — different in scope from a traditional curriculum review — requires an external facilitator. Westwood had begun conversations with the Massachusetts School Counselors Association (MASCA) but the MASCA lead for program reviews resigned, so the district postponed the guidance review and will seek a different external partner to launch the work next year.

Committee members asked how the review cycle interacts with resource constraints and the upcoming strategic plan. Presenters said foundational outcomes (mission/vision, consistent written curriculum and equity‑focused plans to address gaps) should guide prioritization, and noted the review timeline can accelerate if state standards or the district strategic plan require it. Staff also emphasized family and community engagement: steering committees often include school‑committee representation and parent or community members, and departments use surveys and focus groups during audit and implementation phases.

The committee asked for regular check‑ins on implementation plans so recommendations do not “trail off” after adoption. Staff said they will return with ongoing updates and bring adoption proposals or large program shifts to the committee as they arise.

The discussion concluded with no formal action; staff will proceed with planned reviews and continue seeking an external facilitator for the guidance review.