Newton County staff propose 5E instructional framework; board emphasizes slow, school-by-school rollout

Lauren Lamont, a district staff member, presented the instructional-framework update to the Newton County Board of Education, proposing the 5E instructional model as a possible single, districtwide framework to clarify expectations for curriculum use, planning and delivery, intervention and assessment.

Lamont said the teaching-and-learning team spent the fall visiting schools, observing teachers, and soliciting feedback from principals, assistant principals, instructional coaches and a teacher advisory council. "We will not rush any of this work," Lamont told the board, adding that the district intends a careful rollout if it moves forward.

The 5E model (engage, explore, explain, elaborate/extend, evaluate) is used widely in science instruction, Lamont said, but district staff believe its components map well to strong practice across content areas. The presentation noted that several major curriculum vendors the district already uses — McGraw Hill, Pearson and Discovery Education — provide materials aligned to the 5E approach, and that over 80 percent of school-based leaders who responded to initial outreach said they were "very excited or somewhat excited" about a districtwide adoption.

Nut graf: The district identified a multi-year timeline to adopt a single framework to reduce inconsistency across subject areas and to limit additional planning burden on teachers. District staff described 2024–25 as a research and planning year, 2025–26 as a learning year without expectations of mastery, and a goal for full implementation no later than the 2026–27 school year, with each school able to begin implementation when it is ready.

Board members asked for specifics about teacher engagement and implementation supports. Board member Trey Bailey praised the approach and the slow rollout, saying, "If you're a great teacher, you're already doing it. We're just gonna give you some language to put with it." Henderson Baker, a board member, asked whether the 5E model — originally developed for science instruction — is appropriate for non-STEM subjects. Lamont replied that while the model originated in the biological sciences curriculum study, its components (for example, using an "engage" hook and activating prior knowledge) are applicable across grades and subjects.

Lamont said the district used a representative sample for initial feedback: principals, assistant principals, instructional coaches and the teacher advisory council. She reported 90 survey responses collected immediately after presentations to those groups and said staff plan further outreach during district professional learning days and other meetings.

Board members repeatedly raised concerns about teacher workload and evaluation during implementation. Eddie Johnson, a board member, asked for a formal assessment of teacher quality of work life during the rollout, and Lamont committed to using a multi-stage approach that allows teachers to practice the framework without penalization in evaluations. Superintendent Duke Bradley reinforced the promise of continued engagement, calling the teacher advisory groups "volunteers" who provide important, representative feedback.

Lamont described a planned support package that includes model lessons, opportunities for teachers to visit model classrooms, a teacher-led early-adopter cohort for peer learning, and district-developed tools created in collaboration with instructional specialists, instructional technology staff and volunteer school coaches and teachers.

Ending: The board did not take action on the framework at the work session. Staff said they will continue stakeholder engagement through the semester and aim to finalize a recommended framework by the end of the year, with a multi-year, school-driven implementation schedule if the board approves adoption.