Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ela Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saco staff recommend new ELA curriculum after pilot; estimated K–5 recurring cost about $60,000
Summary
Following a two‑year vetting and a pilot program, staff recommended adopting a new knowledge‑based English language arts curriculum (with CKLA skills and K for ME components) and replacing the district assessment platform; initial costs are budgeted and recurring K–5 costs are estimated at about $60,000. The board asked to defer formal adoption until absent members can review materials.
District curriculum staff presented a recommendation for a new kindergarten‑through‑grade‑5 English language arts program at the March 25 Saco Public Schools board meeting, reporting results from a two‑year review and classroom pilot that showed stronger growth percentiles for pilot classrooms.
The presenter summarized the vetting process: the district began with more than 40 candidate resources, used a multi‑round review, and piloted selected materials in classrooms. Staff reported comparative RIT growth for pilot versus non‑pilot classrooms and said pilot teachers observed measurable gains, though presenters acknowledged multiple factors influence assessment results.
Recommended materials include the phonics/skills portion of CKLA, K for ME as a play‑based knowledge curriculum for early grades that aligns to PreK for ME, and associated assessment tools that would replace the district's current assessment platform. Staff emphasized that the approach centers on building shared content knowledge and grade‑level text access rather than relying primarily on leveled readers.
On cost and implementation: staff said some year‑one investments would be nonrecurring and that ongoing K–5 costs are estimated at about $60,000 annually. Proposed funding sources mentioned in the presentation include Title II funds, existing FY26 budgeted resources, and reallocation of assessment platform costs; staff also proposed professional development at the end of this school year and additional training before next school year.
Board members asked for additional time to review materials because several members were absent; staff agreed to bring the adoption back on a future agenda so the full board can consider the recommendation. No final adoption vote was taken on March 25.
What happens next: staff will prepare materials for a future board meeting where the board will consider formal adoption, including more detailed budget information and professional‑development plans.
