Greencastle-Antrim board hears K–12 English language arts blueprint; vote expected in two weeks

Greencastle-Antrim School District staff presented a K–12 English language arts curriculum blueprint to the Board of Directors on April 17 and asked the board to review the material for two weeks before the district seeks formal approval.

The presentation, led by Janelle Wagner and members of the district ELA team, explained that the blueprint builds from previously approved foundational-skills work and maps literacy instruction from kindergarten through 12th grade. Wagner said the district began community work on core competencies in 2021 and that the blueprint “starts with the end in mind” by aligning the profile of a graduate, local competencies and Pennsylvania standards with research-backed instructional choices.

The blueprint divides K–5 ELA into three components—foundational skills, reading complex text and writing—while middle and high school work integrates those strands with increasing text complexity and disciplinary literacy. Presenters emphasized classroom practices such as interactive/shared writing in primary grades, close reading and text-based writing in middle school, and MLA-style source work in high school.

Kristen Caudell, a first-grade teacher, described interactive/shared writing as a collaborative method that “provides explicit instruction on what it means to be a writer” and helps students connect oral rehearsal, phonics and mechanics before transferring ideas to paper. Janelle Wagner and other coordinators cited student outcome improvements tied to earlier foundational-skills implementation; Wagner noted a 14% increase on the state third-grade literacy assessment after the foundational curriculum was implemented.

The presenters said the blueprint is an outline; if the board approves it, district teams will develop Stage 1 goals, common assessments and learning opportunities over the summer. Jen Faith and Missy Shuey described how the district will use common assessments tied to stage goals so students are measured consistently across teachers and grades.

Board members asked about the district’s approach to artificial intelligence tools in literacy instruction. Staff said the district’s AI policy was requested earlier to remove barriers to curriculum writing and that parameters for classroom use will be developed in Stage 3 (learning opportunities) once the aims and goals are defined.

The board was given binders and two weeks to review the blueprint; staff said the item will appear on the next board agenda for a formal approval vote. Presenters repeatedly described the curriculum as a living document that will be refined annually based on common-assessment results and teacher feedback.

If approved, the district plans summer work sessions to convert the blueprint units into Stage 1 goals and common assessments and to begin writing full course/unit plans for implementation in subsequent years.