Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ela Curriculum Adoption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves first reading to adopt HMH Into Literature for grades 6–8; district to seek ancillary tools for 9–12
Summary
After a multiweek review, the board accepted on first reading the HMH Into Literature adoption for grades 6–8 and decided not to adopt a full 9–12 package at this time, instead pursuing writing and supplemental screening tools for high school English instruction.
Dr. Converse, who led the district’s instructional review, presented the final recommendation for the district’s secondary English language arts adoption on March 4.
"We're recommending the adoption of the HMH Into Literature for the 6–8 band only," Dr. Converse said, explaining the committee’s rationale: middle school teachers had requested a more structured scope and sequence aligned with elementary practices, the HMH package had embedded assessment (including the NWEA MAP screening tool), and teachers responded favorably to the vendor’s digital writing and formative-assessment features.
The district recommended a different approach for grades 9–12. Dr. Converse told the board that high school educators preferred greater choice and that current usage of existing 9–12 materials is low. "Teacher surveys indicate students in 9–12 generally benefit from more choice in the instructional tools while adhering to the ELA standards," she said. The recommendation for 9–12 is to purchase targeted ancillary materials — notably a writable digital writing tool, intervention products and a supplemental screening tool for grades 9–10 — rather than a full-scale adoption of the complete Into Literature program.
The board moved and approved the recommendation as a first reading to adopt HMH Into Literature for grades 6–8; the motion passed after members asked how ancillary materials would be pursued (the administration said purchasing and specific action items would return at a future meeting). The board also asked that committee feedback and dissenting parent comments be provided prior to the next review.
District staff emphasized teacher professional development and the vendor’s built-in formative assessments to support implementation. Dr. Converse said committees included teachers, special-education and access specialists, administrators and a five-member parent subcommittee; public review comments were largely positive. The board will consider final adoption in a subsequent meeting.
