Administrators defend curriculum; committee asks for 10th‑grade data after MCAS messaging misstep
Summary
District administrators told the Leominster School Committee that high-quality instructional materials and stronger AP participation show curriculum strength, but acknowledged poor messaging around MCAS and agreed to provide the committee with 10th‑grade benchmark and grade data in January to evaluate product effectiveness.
District curriculum leaders and high-school administrators presented the district’s high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) approach and engaged the committee in an extended discussion about assessment results and messaging.
District staff described the HQIM adoption process (ImplementMass), noting use of EdReports and Massachusetts’ CURATE reviews, and said the materials are in place across grade spans and core subjects. The district said elementary ELA and math materials and most middle-school content materials are implemented; high-school ELA for grades 9–10 and algebra/geometry/algebra II curricula are in place, with new science and U.S. history sequences entering implementation.
High-school administrators pointed to gains in advanced-course participation and English-language learner access while acknowledging concerns about state MCAS performance. “We crashed on the messaging on MCAS,” one administrator said, adding that staff may have overly encouraged students not to worry about the test and that affected student effort. Another administrator argued that curriculum and instruction remain strong: “Instruction has never been more engaging and more rigorous,” they said, citing higher AP enrollment and expanded advanced coursework.
Committee members pressed staff for concrete data to evaluate whether specific products or materials used in ninth- and tenth-grade courses are producing the intended student outcomes. Members repeated a September request for tenth-grade assessment data to determine if a curriculum product should be replaced and requested common-assessment and quarterly grade data. Staff committed to bringing the requested benchmark and common-assessment data (including midyear results) in January so the committee can review trends and product performance.
Administrators said PLCs and regular data cycles inform instructional adjustments and professional development; they also noted some differential effects across subgroups and recommended disaggregating results (for example, special-education and EL populations) when presenting the data to the committee.
