Exeter administrators outline 2024–27 academic plan and begin vendor review for new K–6 math program

Exeter Township School District administrators presented a districtwide academic update at the Sept. 3 committee‑of‑the‑whole meeting that framed work under the district’s 2024–2027 comprehensive plan and described next steps for curriculum, assessment and professional development.

"The 3 areas that we highlighted upon to target were our third grade reading proficiency, our seventh grade math proficiency, and our graduation rate," said Joshua (Josh) Hoyt, director of teaching and learning. He told the board that the district will continue using the state’s cycle‑of‑improvement process at building and district levels to set SMART goals, monitor quarterly benchmarks and adjust instruction.

Superintendent Christy Haller told the board the district is voluntarily using the Pennsylvania Department of Education cycle‑of‑improvement framework to build a consistent, data‑driven process across schools. "This is not something the state is requiring of us. This is something the district is choosing to do because they feel it's important," Haller said.

Administrators said the work will combine qualitative evidence from teacher and stakeholder focus groups with benchmarking assessments such as Acadience, STAR and the district’s new IXL implementation to track growth in real time rather than rely only on spring PSSA and Keystone results. Haller and Hoyt emphasized benchmarking and classroom‑level formative data as the primary levers for mid‑year adjustments.

A central item of discussion was mathematics curriculum: district staff reported concerns about alignment, support and long‑term vendor maintenance for Math Investigations, the K–5 curriculum the district has used for more than a decade. Haller said some textbook vendors are deprecating products and that a full K–6 replacement would be a significant budget item. "When you put in something like a new resource like that, you're looking at about a quarter of a million dollars to invest in it to start off with," Haller said, citing costs for licenses, manipulatives and professional development.

Hoyt said the district will form math teams this year to pilot and evaluate candidate K–6 programs and to determine what gaps a new program would create or fill. He and other administrators described a multi‑year rollout and monitoring plan, and cautioned that program changes typically require three or more years of implementation and monitoring to show sustained gains.

Administrators described specific instructional steps already under way: K–2 intervention with the UFLI program, use of IXL for individualized practice and pathways, summer curriculum work by ELA teams to tighten scope and sequence, and targeted professional development and coaching. Administrators also flagged equity and access questions — for example, families without reliable home internet — when discussing digital resources and summer supports.

Board members asked how the district will distinguish program effects from demographic shifts, opt‑outs and year‑to‑year test changes. Haller and Hoyt replied that the district will rely on multiple measures (benchmarks, formative assessments, classroom observations) and on building‑level plans so that local trends can be addressed without overreacting to a single PSSA or Keystone score.

Next steps: district staff will convene math review teams this school year, collect pilot and benchmarking data, and bring recommendations, including estimated implementation costs and professional‑development plans, to the board for formal budget and procurement decisions. No final curriculum adoption vote was taken Sept. 3.

The presentation and related materials will be posted to the district website and staff said they will provide monthly academic updates to the board.