Rockaway Township education officials cite outdated materials for low CUSAC instruction score, outline multi‑year overhaul

Rockaway Township Board of Education administrators told the board July 30 that the district received a 76 in the “instruction and programming” category of the state Quality Single Accountability Continuum, or CUSAC, and laid out steps they say will address the deficiencies.

The superintendent, Dr. Richard Corbett, and district curriculum staff said the score reflected past conditions — including outdated curriculum documents, inconsistent instructional materials across schools and uneven alignment with New Jersey Student Learning Standards — and not the work completed this year.

"These scores did not meet our expectations," said Alfonso, a district administrator. "The district's curriculum department was a work in progress. We have adopted the motto crawl, walk, run." Alfonso told the board that many curricular documents were out of date and that the district has completed a comprehensive rewrite so that, for the first time this school year, curricula are aligned across grades and buildings.

Alfonso said the state-level score is heavily influenced by prior standardized‑test results and therefore reflects earlier conditions. He pointed to steps the district has taken: district‑wide adoption in K–3 of the Superkids science‑of‑reading program (with Magnetic Reading in grade 3), a single set of math materials and a new system for tracking interventions (Lincoln Intervention Manager). "This school year 24‑25 was the first year…that the district operated with updated standards‑aligned curricula across all grades and content areas," he said.

Administrators presented early indicators they said show gains: preliminary NJSLA-related data the team described as year‑to‑year increases in math and ELA at several grade levels. Alfonso said math growth exceeded a 5% target in several grades and that ELA showed meaningful increases; he said the district will present full disaggregated results in an October meeting after the state releases final scores.

The presentation also described procedural changes the district plans to keep improvements on track: job‑embedded professional development for teachers, lead‑teacher roles by grade/content to improve articulation, common end‑of‑unit assessments, and a schedule of regular observations focused on instructional coherence. Corbett said he will conduct unannounced, informal observations of novice teachers to offer direct support and affirmation.

Board members pressed for specific explanations of how the district lost points on the CUSAC review and for evidence the new curriculum changes are producing sustained gains. "I want to see why we decreased, and exactly what we're doing to move forward — not generalities," said Board member Carrie LaRue. Administrators said the CUSAC report and the district improvement plan break down the point losses by indicator; the district will share those documents with board members and compare them with earlier cycles.

The administration said the district’s next steps include consistent use of vendor assessments (I‑Ready end‑of‑unit tests for math, Superkids/Magnetic end‑of‑unit assessments in K–3 reading) and deeper science data analysis; administrators also said Title funds will support expanded supports and that they intend to maintain curricular coherence and data cycles across schools.

Board members and administrators agreed to post the CUSAC documents publicly and to provide a more granular presentation at the October meeting that will compare the prior cycle and the current data.

The district provided specific examples of past gaps: an MLL (multilingual learners) curriculum it described as 15 years old, and uneven implementation of early‑literacy programs (Superkids had been used in only one building at the time the state assessed the district). Administrators said those gaps have been closed district‑wide this year.

Corbett and Alfonso stressed the focus on teacher supports rather than compliance: administrators said they want teachers to make instructional adjustments and receive coaching, not to be subject only to top‑down evaluations.

The board did not take a formal vote as part of the CUSAC discussion; the presentation concluded with administrators agreeing to provide the board and the public with the full DPR/CUSAC spreadsheet, the district improvement plan, and a detailed October briefing.

Ending: The board scheduled a fuller data presentation for the October meeting and directed administrators to share the CUSAC documentation and the district improvement plan with board members and the public prior to that session.