District committee reviews revised seventh- and eighth-grade English language arts curricula

Keeley McGehan, the district’s English language arts program supervisor, presented revised seventh- and eighth-grade ELA curriculum documents at the Carlisle Area School District committee meeting, describing the materials as organized “around collections” that integrate the four key strands: reading, writing, speaking and listening, and grammar and usage.

McGehan said the documents were designed to make it clear what students will read and write in each collection and to align grammar instruction with writing through guiding LEQs (learning essential questions). “These curriculum documents ... are organized, as you can see, around collections,” she said, adding that each collection typically includes reading, a writing assessment, and a speaking/listening component.

The documents keep at least three full-length text studies in the 6–12 sequence, McGehan said, and include literature-circle units that give students choices among texts. She described the intention to balance depth and teacher autonomy: teachers can follow the collections roughly linearly but are given latitude to integrate strands across instructional days.

Assistant/central office staff who spoke during the discussion praised the clarity of the scope and sequence and noted the district had integrated an existing grammar scope into the collections so grammar lessons directly support student writing. A district administrator noted the documents were written to align with the Pennsylvania Common Core standards used for state assessments.

Board members and attendees asked about how texts are selected for literature circles and how the district supports students at different reading levels. McGehan said teachers submit candidate lists for approval; approved collections typically include titles at varying Lexile levels so teachers can guide students toward an appropriate challenge. She offered to share sample seventh-grade title lists with board members.

Members also asked how the curricula address artificial intelligence. McGehan replied that classrooms review the district’s academic integrity expectations with students and parents at the start of the year and that instruction emphasizes process — the “productive struggle” of drafting and revising — rather than permitting students to submit unverified AI-generated work. A district administrator reiterated that AI may have instructional uses but that student-produced work must remain evaluable as the student’s own.

The committee was supportive and several members complimented the choice to retain full-length texts and to embed speaking and listening as explicit strands. The package will be presented to the full board for action at the next board meeting, the committee chair said.