Montgomery Township board declines K–4 writing curriculum approval after members ask for more data

The Montgomery Township Board of Education voted against approving agenda item 2.6 — which included K–4 writing revisions and new courses such as AP Seminar — after several members said they needed more data and clearer evidence of impact.

Joanne Borland, the district’s director of curriculum, told the board that teachers revised the K–4 literacy materials over the summer and that planned professional development is scheduled for September. “We have revised to align with the New Jersey Student Learning Standards,” Borland said, adding that phonics and reading units had already been revised in prior years and that teachers worked with supervisors to prepare the revisions.

Board members who opposed the motion said they wanted more formative measures and longitudinal evidence showing student growth before approving the changes. One member said they had previously requested benchmark and growth-model data and had not yet received it. Doctor Wagner explicitly recorded a “no” on 2.6; another board member abstained. The board president announced that, based on the roll call, “motion 2.6 does not carry.”

Why it matters: K–4 literacy decisions set instructional materials and pacing that influence early reading and writing instruction. Several members cited broader debates about instructional approaches — specifically the use of Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study and whether materials align with research described as the “science of reading.” That discussion frames local concerns about phonics and early literacy practice across many districts.

What Borland and district staff said: Borland said the district had previously added Heggerty (phonemic awareness) and the Really Great Reading Company (an explicit phonics program) in earlier school years as part of efforts to strengthen foundational reading instruction. She said the approach for the current revisions was to have teachers adapt unit themes and align lessons to the state standards rather than replace teacher-developed materials with a single purchased program. “Our data doesn’t support the fiscal choice” of buying an entirely new packaged curriculum, Borland said, noting that prior approvals in 2022–24 implemented targeted phonics and program supplements.

Board members’ concerns: Several members said they wanted clearer reporting of expected outcomes, not just high-level descriptions of changes. One member asked for a clearer accounting of how summer curriculum-writing funds were allocated, saying the board had authorized roughly $57,000 for curriculum writing but only saw a short list of major revisions on the agenda. Another member raised a request for ACI (the curriculum committee) materials to be presented earlier — for example, in May or in an August ACI session — so the board and public have time for review and comment before the school year begins.

Procedure and next steps: Because the motion did not carry, the district will continue with previously approved materials for the affected grades until the board approves a replacement. Board members and curriculum staff discussed using ACI to review additional evidence and to provide the requested benchmark and longitudinal measures before reintroducing the item. Borland and district staff said teachers’ revised materials and pacing guides are available in the district’s Atlas system for board review.

Context: The debate echoed concerns raised earlier in the meeting and in a letter from higher-education faculty that the board received, which urged closer scrutiny of math and science pathways and criticized the removal of some courses in prior years. The curriculum discussion focused specifically on literacy (K–4 writing and related units) as listed under agenda item 2.6.

Board action summary: The board did not approve agenda item 2.6; some members voted no or abstained and several asked staff to provide additional formative and longitudinal data before a future vote.