Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the K 3 Literacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Darien committee narrows K–3 literacy choices; staff stress professional learning and implementation supports
Summary
A Darien School District subgroup summarized its K–3 literacy review framework, described data- and teacher-focused evaluation work, and said final program recommendations will be considered after additional review and a May committee meeting.
The Darien Board of Education curriculum committee received an update April 2 on K–3 literacy review work as the district’s core review team prepares recommendations for the board. Staff described a multi-month review process that included pilot teachers, classroom observations, focus groups, teacher surveys, program comparisons and analysis of student data.
Julie and Jeanne (Jeanne Tirschman) explained the review framework the team used: separate, detailed rubrics for reading (including phonemic awareness, decoding/encoding, phonics, fluency and comprehension) and for writing (explicit instruction time, small-group differentiated instruction, and encoding/grammar). Staff said the rubric will be used to compare candidate curricula and to assess local instructional practices alongside student outcomes.
“We are teaching the science of reading right now,” one presenter told the committee, noting the district currently uses Heggerty for phonemic awareness and Fundations for phonics. The core review subgroup includes representatives from all five elementary schools, general and special educators, preschool–grade 3 staff and administration; staff said the subgroup followed a consensus-building protocol and will meet for a full-day review later in the week.
Board members asked about implementation: how soon teachers would receive materials, how many students might require MTSS supports under a new program, and whether the district has internal capacity to run professional learning. Staff said teachers who piloted resources will play a role in peer-led professional development and emphasized the need to secure materials early and to schedule sustained professional learning to support a timely rollout.
Several board members suggested the board might consider offering additional professional development time for elementary teachers during the implementation phase, subject to budgetary review. Staff noted the district now has in-house occupational therapists and will use MTSS to support students with handwriting or other fine-motor deficits.
No formal curriculum selection was made at the meeting. Staff said the subgroup’s recommendations and comparative rubric outcomes will be presented to the curriculum committee at the board’s May meeting, and that any implementation plan would include targeted professional learning and assessment monitoring in the first year.
The committee acknowledged the broader instructional implications of a K–3 adoption, noting potential ripple effects into upper elementary grades and middle school vocabulary and writing instruction. Staff said planning will include articulation across grades K–12 and monitoring of student assessment data to measure program impact.
No motions or votes were recorded on curriculum adoption during this session.
