Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Literacy Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School committee hears recommendation to adopt Fish Tank Learning for K–5 literacy
Summary
After multi-year review and pilots of two curricula, staff reported 86% of pilot teachers recommended Fish Tank Learning and outlined a phased implementation plan emphasizing teacher training, a 60‑minute literacy block, and ongoing assessment to track MCAS and formative gains.
The Newburyport School Committee heard a staff recommendation on June 24 to adopt Fish Tank Learning as the district's K–5 literacy curriculum after a multi-year review and two pilot cycles.
Dr. Abrams, who led the review, told the committee the team analyzed curriculum-aligned assessment data (MyView benchmark assessments), longitudinal MCAS results and local measures such as i‑Ready and DIBELS. The district convened a K–5 committee of classroom teachers, literacy coach Kelly Garbino and administrators that conducted site visits to Danvers (Fish Tank) and Triton (CKLA), ran fall and spring pilots and evaluated candidates against a modified DESE/Curate rubric focused on comprehension.
“Our committee came up with a vision that we wanted a curriculum that was really knowledge‑based, offered lots of opportunities for writing and built coherent units,” Dr. Abrams said, and he reported that 86% of teachers who participated in the pilots recommended Fish Tank Learning. He described Fish Tank as text‑rich, focused on authentic literature, high-frequency student discourse and daily low‑stakes writing with multi‑day culminating writing projects.
Staff highlighted implementation tradeoffs: Fish Tank is less scripted than CKLA, which may require more coaching for early-career teachers. To address that, the district plans dedicated professional development this summer and in‑service supports next year; staff reported 166 teachers had signed up for summer PD. The curriculum will be scheduled as a single 60‑minute literacy block that blends reading and writing, with separate short blocks for foundational phonics work using existing programs (Foundations, Heggerty, Rewards).
Committee members pressed on how the curriculum handles potentially sensitive topics (for example, a Thanksgiving unit that distinguishes fact from fiction). Dr. Abrams described grade‑level vetting and alternative units as mechanisms to anticipate and remove or adapt material unsuitable for a given grade. He emphasized peer observation, GLT (grade‑level team) work and teacher leadership to support consistent implementation.
The superintendent and staff framed adoption as the start of a five‑year curriculum cycle, noting the district will monitor common assessments, MCAS and high‑quality instructional practice to judge effectiveness and maintain a cycle of review. Next steps identified included final superintendent approval, procurement, scheduling PD and classroom walkthroughs to ensure fidelity during rollout.
What happens next: the committee received the report and will be updated as implementation proceeds; staff will begin the PD rollout and classroom walkthroughs over the summer and early fall to support teachers during the first year of districtwide use.
