District outlines multi‑year curriculum cycle, teacher‑led reviews and vendor timeline for 2025–26

Kelly Downs, the district’s director of curriculum and instruction, presented the curriculum committee on Sept. 2 with the district’s multi‑phase curriculum cycle and an updated timeline for 2025–26 work.

Downs said the district uses a four‑stage model (evaluate; develop and design, which has two pathways; implement; assess and refine) embedded in a seven‑year curriculum cycle. The process is explicitly teacher‑led: content teams of teachers, supported by two rotating facilitators and a designated administrator, produce deliverables at each phase and make recommendations to the district.

Why it matters: the district is reconfiguring grade spans (for example, Badger is planned to become a Grade 6–8 middle school) and will adopt or revise multiple content resources over the next year. Those decisions will affect classroom instruction, professional development schedules and, in some cases, assessment and grading protocols.

Downs described the evaluate phase deliverables—vision statements, learning goals, data analysis summaries, standards heat maps and a narrative recommendation about whether to pursue a revision (2A) or a new primary resource (2B). If a team pursues a resource review (2B), facilitators will help develop rubrics, solicit vendor materials and arrange site visits and public feedback; final recommendations return to the committee and then to the full board where required.

Downs listed current team statuses: social studies K–12, art K–12, music K–12 and world language 6–12 were in evaluate; some content areas will straddle phases temporarily because the district is catching up after past years of interrupted work. She said ELA K–4 is in its second year of implementation (Year 2) and ELA Grade 5 is implementing CKLA this year; math Grades 6–12 are implementing Illustrative Math. She noted career and technical education (CTE) is on the district cycle list but falls primarily under other administrators (Brenda O’Brien and Tim Hardy) and was not a topic for the committee’s Sept. 2 discussion.

Downs described supports for teams: two facilitators per content area that rotate yearly; an assigned administrator for each team; CNI representatives as points of contact; and Erin Faust in a coordinator role to organize deliverables and review submissions. The district also provided a non‑editable facilitator guide, templates and a digital binder where teams store work for the seven‑year cycle.

Key timeline highlights Downs gave the committee include: art, music and world language expected to bring Phase‑1 (evaluate) conclusions around Nov. 4; vendor presentations for resource reviews targeted for Feb. 16; narrowed resource choices presented March 17 with public review in April; and final recommendations and potential board action in May–June 2026 if teams and the board approve the chosen resources.

Downs said teams must also produce implementation plans that include assessment and grading approaches, coaching and professional development. She emphasized consensus‑based decision‑making for teacher teams and described deliverables the facilitators will check during the evaluate and design phases.

The committee was informed that science teams will incorporate facility recommendations into their work because upcoming high‑school construction gives the district an opportunity to recommend science facility designs aligned with curricular goals. Downs said the district had given teachers time on Aug. 28 for initial work, and the district had received an early survey response total of 55 participants from those sessions.

Board members responded positively in the meeting, expressing appreciation for the organization, teacher involvement and the explicit timelines; the presentation closed with the district asking the committee when it would like to receive future recommendations and updates.