The Curriculum and Student Success Committee of Portland Public Schools met online to review progress on strategic-plan items 2.1–2.3, focused on English language arts (ELA) implementation and a planned redesign of math instructional materials. Committee chair Julianne Opperman led the session; district staff detailed timelines, walk-through data and plans for teacher professional development.

Jesse Robinson, director of elementary academics, said the strategic aim is to "support the use of high quality instructional materials that provide students with consistent access to grade level tasks and foster high levels of cognitive engagement by building deep knowledge of the adopted curricula, growing capacity to use aligned assessments to inform instruction, and building systems to respond to students' needs." He described a three-part implementation approach: HQIM in classrooms, aligned assessments to inform instruction and aligned interventions for small-group support.

Allison Dame, director of secondary academics, said ELA is in its second year of full implementation in K–8 and that this year’s PD emphasizes curriculum features that support multilingual learners; she said staff are using cycles of looking at student work to adjust instruction. Robinson and Dame reported walk-through results showing increases in classroom practices where students do the cognitive work: the district reported moving from 60% of classrooms meeting that expectation in spring to 64% in fall, with a target of 70% in spring. Staff also described a baseline of 44% for teachers using newly presented strategies specifically designed to support multilingual learners, noting that figure reflected partial completion of the PD series.

On math, staff said three design teams (elementary K–5, middle 6–8 and high school) are evaluating materials. Elementary work focuses on assessments and supplementary pilots; secondary teams are surveying teachers and planning to pilot candidate materials in January and February. Robinson said budget implications are being gathered now to inform recommendations for next school year and that the district will engage parents and school teams as draft recommendations are developed in March–April.

Presenters emphasized layered supports to translate curriculum decisions into classroom practice: multiple yearly district walk-throughs, cycles of observation and feedback, a PD arc tied to observed needs, instructional coaching, peer observations and a new 90-minute "step back" practice in which network teams work with each school to review success plans, data and challenges.

Staff described assessment plans that pair curriculum unit assessments (once or twice per unit) with district- or state-level data (MCAS, NWEA, Lexia). Robinson said accommodations are provided for Access levels 1–2 among English learners and that more integrated assessments are used for higher-level EL students with co-teaching and scaffolds in place.

Committee members pressed staff on representativeness and the meaning of metrics. A board member asked whether the 44% figure represented curriculum adoption broadly or a narrower set of multilingual strategies; staff clarified that 44% referred to teachers using the newly presented ML strategies, while the 64% metric related to observed student engagement in lessons. Other questions covered how HQIM integrates academic language so teachers do not face a "dual curriculum," middle-to-high-school transitions, acceleration pathways (including summer "AMP" camp opportunities) and instructional minutes across grade spans.

No formal votes or policy decisions were taken at the meeting. A procedural motion to adjourn was moved and seconded near the end of the session.