Pottsgrove administrators summarize CIT work, prioritize curriculum alignment and co-teaching pilot

Daniel Voorhis summarized the Committee on Instruction and Teaching (CIT) meeting, telling the Pottsgrove School District board that the committee’s work centers on Goal 1.1: improving student achievement. “So this evening, what we wanted to do is summarize the CIT meeting for you,” Voorhis said, noting the CIT meeting had been held Oct. 15 at 6 p.m.

Voorhis told the board the committee reviewed a Pennsylvania Department of Education continuous‑improvement course that identified four critical areas of practice — empowered leadership, quality professional learning, continuous improvement of instruction, and student‑centered supports — and a set of 18 essential practices that sit on a continuum from “not yet in place” to “exemplary.” He said the district surveyed representative staff across buildings to benchmark where the district sits on those practices and then prioritized what to tackle first.

The presentation focused on the district’s near‑term priorities: developing K‑12 scope and sequence documents and common assessments to ensure curriculum alignment; creating professional learning communities (PLCs) so teachers can plan, monitor and ensure consistent instruction; expanding instructional coaching so principals and supervisors can provide individualized feedback; and strengthening a multi‑tiered system of supports (academic, behavioral, social‑emotional) to monitor student response to instruction and deploy interventions.

Voorhis also described a co‑teaching pilot that pairs two certified teachers — typically a general education teacher and a special education teacher — in a single classroom. He said the district currently has one co‑teaching section at the lower‑grade level, six at the middle school level and 11 at the high school level and will use lessons from those pilots to consider broader expansion. “The intent here is really to expand that elsewhere as well,” Voorhis said.

Board members praised the work. One board member told the presenter they left the CIT meeting “with a strong sense of unity, alignment, and buy‑in,” a point Voorhis attributed to broad administrative collaboration.

The presentation closed with an invitation for questions and next steps to continue implementation planning and measure fidelity of the practices in classrooms. No formal action was required; the report served as a committee update to the board.