Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum Adoption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board moves English‑language arts curriculum adoption to second reading after staff present proposed HMH materials and costs
Summary
District staff recommended Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 'Into Literature' for middle school and a package of high‑school supplements; the proposal includes field testing, bias/accessibility reviews, and an estimated 8‑year cost of $1.2 million (about $150,000/year) plus an initial high‑school investment of about $200,000 for materials and training.
District curriculum leaders presented a yearlong, policy‑aligned review and recommended new secondary English‑language arts materials at the Everett Public Schools board meeting on May 12.
Kelly Spear, director of secondary instruction, told the board the adoption followed board policy 23.11 and included equity and bias reviews, accessibility checks, field testing with students and staff, and community input. The middle‑school team recommended Houghton Mifflin Harcourt's 'Into Literature' (copyright 2026) citing alignment with Common Core standards, differentiated student consumables, and Canvas integration. Teachers field‑tested materials January–March and more than 1,000 students provided middle‑school feedback, Spear said.
For high school, the teams proposed supplemental purchases to backfill gaps left when College Board’s SpringBoard materials are sunset, recommending selections such as Bedford/St. Martin and new novels to support English 3 and 4. Spear described a vertically aligned approach across pre‑AP and standard courses and cited work to align with Everett Community College requirements for dual‑credit offerings.
District staff presented cost estimates: an 8‑year licensing and consumables plan totaling roughly $1.2 million (about $150,000 per year) for middle‑school implementation, plus an estimated initial high‑school investment of about $200,000 for teacher editions, student copies and supplemental titles. The proposal includes June and August implementation training and ongoing teacher‑leader coaching.
Board members praised student voice and thoroughness. One director asked for more high‑school student input; another noted that the proposed costs were already included in the district budget planning. The board voted to move the ELA recommendation to a second reading rather than adopt it that night, allowing time for final review and public comment as required by district adoption procedures.
If approved at second reading, the adoption would trigger procurement and implementation steps described in the staff presentation.
