Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ela Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board schedules July and August review for 9–12 English curriculum after approving broader 2025–26 plan
Summary
Board approved the 2025–26 curriculum plan with 9–12 English (core/text decisions) pulled for further joint governance review on July 21; administrators aim for final board action in August so teachers can set syllabi.
The Pine‑Richland School District board approved the overall 2025–26 curriculum plan on June 23 while excluding grades 9–12 English core texts and certain elective courses for further review.
The board designated a joint governance academic achievement meeting for July 21 at 6 p.m. to discuss the 9–12 English curriculum, focusing on core texts, anthology versus designated core texts and the progression of reading and other ELA skills across grades. Doctor Peake (district instructional leader) said the July meeting will include 9–12 English teachers where possible so they can respond to questions on texts and course pathways and to help the board see the progression of challenge across grade levels.
Administrators said they hope to finalize any minor modifications and seek board approval at the Aug. 11 board meeting so teachers can finalize syllabi before the school year starts. Doctor Peake described the ELA program as including multiple pathways by student readiness; board members and staff said the July 21 session will present core texts alongside anthology materials and sample instructional supports.
Public speakers at the June 23 meeting voiced support for the proposed curriculum and urged the board to trust teachers’ professional judgment. Parent Britney Kindersmith thanked curriculum staff for detailed planning and said district curriculum materials allow families to prepare students for acceleration opportunities. Another public commenter, Jen Buse, recited a public criticism of an administrator’s outside activities and urged transparency; those remarks were part of public comment and not a staff response.
No final changes to texts or syllabi were made on June 23. The board and administration outlined a timeline: July 21 for joint governance discussion and, if feedback is limited and modifications minor, potential board approval at the Aug. 11 meeting to allow teachers time to finalize syllabi.
