Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents urge Evesham Township School District to adopt structured literacy, cite outdated texts and weak progress monitoring
Summary
Parents representing a local advocacy group urged the Evesham Township Board of Education to adopt a research‑based structured‑literacy approach, saying current materials and progress monitoring leave struggling readers behind; district officials did not make a response on the record during public comment.
Parents and other community members told the Evesham Township Board of Education on the district's final board meeting of the year that the district should move from a balanced‑literacy model to a structured‑literacy approach.
An unidentified speaker representing 'Township School District parents for improved literacy outcomes' said the group's membership had grown to 474 and urged a “more structured literacy approach across all language arts disciplines,” noting what the speaker described as outdated reading materials — including books published in 1992 — and insufficient tier‑1 instruction, assessments and progress monitoring. The speaker said the district’s percentage of students with disabilities (25.9%) is well above the state average (15.9%) and argued that gap demands stronger core instruction rather than reliance on later interventions.
Amanda Gone, who identified herself during public comment, said the parent group had consulted state and national literacy experts and called structured literacy “a more balanced, effective and equitable approach.” Gone described structured literacy as explicit, systematic instruction in critical components of reading and asked the board to commit to professional development, materials and targeted intervention funding so teachers can implement the model.
A third parent speaker described a recent classroom example in which a first‑grade student was told to 'read the pictures' as a first reading strategy and urged the board to provide more direct instruction in phonics and word‑reading skills.
None of the public‑comment exchanges on this topic included a substantive response from district leadership on the record; Doctor Smith offered earlier, separate remarks recognizing student performances and reminding families about a district calendar survey but did not address the literacy requests during public comment. The board did not take a formal vote on curriculum changes at the meeting.
Next steps and context: parents asked the board to consider funding and professional development so teachers can implement structured literacy, and they emphasized ongoing advocacy including research consultations. The meeting record notes no formal district commitment during this session; any administrative response or proposed action would have to be scheduled for a future board agenda or follow‑up meeting.
