On the new ELA elementary curriculum

 Among the big things that happened at Thursday’s meeting of the Worcester School Committee was the adoption of a new ELA curriculum for elementary school, as discussed at Monday's subcommittee meeting. As I have noted here before, the curriculum that our prior administration was absolutely stuck on was just what research, data, and the ongoing news of the “reading wars” was noting we should NOT be doing. 

We heard from many teachers, coaches, parents and others on this one (and for years, let me stress). 

I never taught elementary school, but as someone whose roots will always go back to my English classroom, this has been one that has struck me to my core. I thus wrote up specifically what I was going to say ahead of time. This is what I said:

As we will note later this evening, our role in curriculum approval is very high level. Broadly speaking, it is up to the Committee to determine if curricula supports our district goals and aligns with state standards.

Speaking as a former teacher, I know that teachers pour their hearts into the classroom. There are few things more disheartening than to be directed to do something that you know is actively harmful or simply not helpful to your students. I know that, having been there.

That is the position which we have placed our elementary teachers in these past years regarding ELA. Despite repeated attempts by several members of this Committee to set it straight, the previous administration was absolutely committed to a curriculum that we knew and was ongoingly reported to be, not what was needed in the classroom. 

To the teachers, principals, coaches and so forth who have fought for years for us to do better, I want to thank you for your faithfulness, and if you quietly closed the door and ensured your students had what was actually needed, good for you. 

This Committee has a responsibility to depend on the professionals who work in curriculum and work with students to give us the feedback when we make these decisions. And we owe them professional respect in doing so, and some of that has been lacking in the public process. We need to be better to our staff--our employees--than that. 

I also want to note: we are required to set aside 20% of our ESSER III spending—about $18M—for what the federal government refers to as learning loss. The funding for this curriculum not only falls into this category for reporting purposes; it also repairs what we know has been a cause of less learning for our students. This is not only an allowed, it is a strongly supported use of federal spending  

We thus will be repairing two issues from prior leadership, while giving our students and our teachers a curriculum about which we know them to be enthusiastic, which not only meets state standards but is green rated, and which will actually support students learning to read.

I support moving forward with the administration’s recommendation immediately.

I was also glad to make the motion for reconsideration that evening, allowing administration to move forward immediately with the purchase of CKLA.