7.15.2026 Fall River School Committee- Instructional Sub Committee

This is a meeting of the Instructional Subcommittee.

Jeff, could you do a roll call please?

Mr. Corey?

Here.

Ms. Riley?

Here.

Ms. Stewart?

Here.

Here.

If everyone could join me in saluting the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium.

Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived, by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible.

I'm going to assume we got no public comment there, Deb.

Okay.

All right.

So if it's possible, I'd love to just take out of order and move the Durfee first so that— sure, is that 3.10?

Yes.

And Miss Monaco can present.

You got it.

All right, Dr. Stevens, it's all yours.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you.

So we're here because each year we present the proposed program of studies during the December-January timeframe for the upcoming school year.

Because the process occurs approximately 8 months prior to the year that it applies to, the months that follow often bring us additional needs, or there are just different meaningful reasons to make adjustments.

So anyway, we have 5 proposed changes we just wanted to bring forward.

So the first is— has to do with heritage language learners or HLL courses.

And the proposed change is to convert HLL world language courses from full-year to semester-based courses.

And the rationale is because it would increase scheduling flexibility while expanding access to world language coursework and the Mass Seal of Biliteracy.

The second is CTE senior course sequencing for co-op flexibility.

And the proposed change is to convert senior CTE courses to semester-based credit to support semester 2 co-op.

Participation.

And the rationale would be that it expands access to cooperative education while maintaining Chapter 74 program continuity.

The third is an ESL 3C pilot, and the proposed change is to pilot an ESL 3C instructional pathway for selected multilingual learners, particularly those who are long-term ELL students.

And the rationale being that it would increase access to rigorous coursework for them while still giving them the opportunity to strengthen language development and academic success.

So, I'm sorry, can you just define that a little more?

So what— tell me what you mean by pathway.

So it's not a course they would sign up for, it's continued support throughout?

Right.

So right now, as you progress through your access levels, when you get to Level 3, there's been one curriculum that we've delivered.

What we're asking for as a pilot to say, okay, if you've been in Level 3 before, we're actually going to give you something a little different.

Differentiate.

Differentiate.

So not every student that's at that level needs the same, right?

So it's not another course, it's some different flexibility to say, does this child need this versus that?

That's exactly right.

Okay, the fourth has to do with PLTW credit recovery pilot, and the proposed change would be to pilot PLTW Forensics and Clinical Care as science credit recovery options.

The rationale being that it would provide a hands-on, engaging pathway for science credit recovery while expanding opportunities around STEM.

So I guess I want to ask, you already offer this?

Yes.

You already offer PLTW?

Yes, we do.

Yes.

So it's the same course?

It would be the same course, but in this way you could also take it— if you had taken bio and failed, now you can take PLTW and recover your bio credit that you failed.

Failed.

So why do we have to call it recovery?

Why can't a student just take that course instead?

In the program of studies.

Yeah, yeah.

No, I'm just saying— Is it just that you want to outline in the program of studies so students know they have the option?

Right, right.

So that we can actually present that.

It's really just because of that change.

Yeah, so it's not— so really there's no change, just instead of relying on a guidance counselor to have to remember to say, hey, instead of taking bio again, you could take this instead, you want to put it right in the program of studies for them.

And we want you to know.

You know, that this is the thing.

This is an option.

Could a student take this instead of bio?

Could a student take PLTW?

Yes.

Instead of bio and it would count as their credit?

Yes, but for MCAS purposes we usually try and do bio.

Yeah.

We switched it up, so we're doing bio in 9th grade, we're going to do physics in 10th grade, and chem.

We try and get all 3 in the early years, but PLTW either plays the part of like a science elective, or you can swap and take PLTW, but in this case it would be now for credit recovery also.

Okay.

So ideally they do that sequence, you Yeah, but this is an option.

Okay.

And then the 5th is Algebra 1 support pilot, and the proposed change is to pilot a double block of Algebra 1 for selected grade 9 students, the rationale being that it would provide additional instructional support to strengthen foundational math skills and improve long-term success for respective students.

This is the only one I have an issue with.

True.

There's not a lot of research to support this.

Creating a double block of something a student's already struggling in is only creating more opportunity for a student to not be in a course that they can excel at and gain confidence.

Just throwing that out there.

Um, are we offering, for example, because you're targeting 9th grade, are we offering a summer ramp-up instead?

So you were identified as a student who we think may struggle in Algebra 1, we'd like to offer you this summer school in algebra that would help you get ready for Algebra 1 versus a double block just really takes a big chunk of time in a student's schedule in a course that they already struggle in, and now they can't take something where they might feel some success and build their confidence.

So it's just— and there's really not a lot out there to support this.

I've had this conversation many times, most of it with math teachers, but we've had a lot of conversations around this.

So I just want to throw that out there for conversation.

No, that's a great point.

We met with Cheryl Patterson, the math director, Matt Sakel, the dean at the school, high this team really, and we want to take a multi sort of faceted approach to algebra.

One of the things we did discuss was this summer, we actually had that conversation in the meeting was, and I think planning forward that is something we definitely want to think about for next year, is how do we identify these kids and ramp them up?

I've used that approach with 5th graders coming in, let's say, to a middle school, right?

So that's definitely something we'll probably come back with and say, hey, we want to look at this.

This was one of the pieces we also looked at for kids that we felt we would have to really work with those teachers around what are they doing, because just more time in that class doesn't necessarily mean that it's gonna more effectively meet their needs.

No research to show what is effective.

Right, right.

And then the other piece, we've really started just working back and saying, what does this mean for 8, 7, and 6, right?

And so we have, you know, some acceleration opportunities, and so we're really thinking about like studying what happens at that middle school level.

So this is sort of one piece of a broader piece around algebra, and I think this really stemmed from the high school studying their data around kids who are not where they need to be yet in algebra and what their long-term success looks like, right?

Yeah.

Since we've got about 6 weeks left, can we think about this as a semester ramp-up versus hogging up a double block for kids for the full year?

Just Just think about it.

Talk with your math folks about it.

I just hate to see a kid be tied up for 2 blocks, not be able to take another option, another elective that might really be that spark that gives them confidence and wants— makes them want to be in school and successful.

If you give them 2 blocks of something they're not good at, which means they probably don't like it, and now they're stuck in it for 2 blocks for a full year.

I just, just gonna throw that back at you for some thoughts.

Go ahead, Tom.

No, no, I'm with you 100%.

I was thinking immediately, I was woeful in high school in algebra and geometry.

I just tuned out.

It was just not something I was inherently interested in as a young student.

I'm thinking about adolescents, the clinical side, tuning out, also attention span, that kind of thing, and something they may not like.

But I was looking at you at number 4 when you're talking about Project Lead the Way.

Is there an alternative approach to maybe trying to ramp up their skills in algebra through a more hands-on approach, or does it have to be classical algebra?

I mean, I know that we're playing with something in the summer right now, right?

There's a course that we found some success with in our summer program that I think the kids are pretty excited about.

I went to a, like, an expo last year, actually, And I think we're continuing that course this year as well.

That is something we started last year that we're starting to study, and it's algebra, but it's all project-based.

And really, I think it's actually co-taught with a science— engineering— with an engineering teacher.

So that is something we're exploring and kind of studying, like, to that point is like— they built roller coasters for college.

Yeah, that's what they do.

Yeah, yeah.

So because it's visual and hands-on, I think for that student at risk of understanding classical algebra.

I just remember tuning out terribly in algebra, and I did lousy in it all throughout my required high school days.

That being said, what you just said makes inherent sense to me— something that they're building and that they can visualize and then apply it to the concepts of understanding algebra.

Yeah, given that the high school's done that for now 2 years, that could be something we lean on next summer as a ramp-up, right, where we could think of a ramp-up in an enrichment kind of way and say, hey, how do we, how do we create this for maybe incoming kids?

Um, but I think the feedback, you know, is well received around, hey, look at this as a potential semesterized option.

I think this is just the approach from the high school is, hey, what we're doing right now, yeah, you know, needs to be sort of tweaked a bit.

And so putting our heads together to say, what are all the things, including a summer?

I like, I like all the, I like all the proposed changes here, and I really want to praise you guys for scouring your program of studies and, and just continually trying to refine it, you know, according to the times.

I really praise you for that, you know.

Just concerned about that algebra item.

That's the only thing I'm concerned about.

It's just the only one I have some hesitation on.

The other stuff really sounds like an advantage for students.

I just, you know, and as you said, more of the same.

Yes.

Make it better.

Yeah.

So just Give that to you to think about.

We have a couple of weeks before our meeting.

You have some time to think about it, but the other stuff looks great.

I did one last piece just for context sake.

I don't think the vision is that every student who demonstrates a high level of need in math would be put into, you know, I think that, of course, I think the vision is more we have to figure out ways to reach and to support and to fill that lens.

You could reach more students if you made it Our scores have been flat for a while.

You guys are trying to tackle that syndrome of our flat scores over the years with an innovative approach.

Small pilot, maybe 50 to 75, maybe one grade level behind, no more.

You know, like the bubble kids, if you will, like the kids that are just in need of some extra learning time.

If it was differentiated and really thoughtful, maybe there's some project piece, you know, so we can think about like what that— yeah, what what that could look like, but that's good feedback around, you know, that this is really just an idea that came from the team that I was willing to— yep, we see the logic there for sure.

I mean, and there's, I mean, there's some time to collect some data because the other option I would say is if a student wants the extra time and knows this is something they want to build, they'll go to summer.

If they can't do summer, can you offer it at extended day?

We're going to do algebra, you know, for sure 45 minutes after school, 3 days a week or something.

So just some other options.

I just hate to a student's schedule for 2 blocks when Derpy offers so great stuff.

Every kid can find something they want in that program of study, so I hate to take any options away from them.

That's all.

Very valid.

My daughter would be devastated.

She has to do math for 2 blocks.

Devastated.

I would be upset.

And will it be optional?

So if you run this and you run a small pilot, if parents say, oh no, I don't want that second block, it's, it's The idea isn't a force.

Perfect.

Yeah.

Okay.

Great.

So that's just— that item was just a discussion and vote to refer the amendments.

Oh, yeah.

Motion is seconded.

Yeah.

Mr. Corey?

Yes.

Miss Riley?

Yes.

Mr. Stewart?

Yes.

With some thought to that map.

Thank you.

Thanks, guys.

Appreciate it.

Have a great night.

Good night, guys.

All right, all right, Steph, do you want to join us?

So, good to go with the first one?

Yeah, go back to the top.

Okay.

Um, so the first item is really around, uh, Alexia contract.

And so although this is a renewal, I'm really bringing it here because it would be a change in how we've been using it.

I think it's an important discussion, right, to just talk about why we're making these decisions.

So as you know, we're always studying like what our usage looks like.

Are we getting a return on, you know, some of our investments?

And so we've also been spending a lot of time looking at the amount of time kids are on screens.

I've spoken, I think, briefly about this before.

We actually have a JLMC, a Joint Labor Management Committee, with FREA, and that's one of the topics we're discussing, and that's been a great conversation so far.

And teachers are really— that are on that team share the same concerns, right?

And so Steph can kind of just talk a little bit about how we're recommending to differentiate the use of Lexia Core 5, which would actually be a reduction in how often we're using it.

Um, which I think will be a positive thing for our kids.

And this is really paired with some stuff later in, in our agenda today because, um, we're exploring a pilot that's a bit more play-based in kindergarten.

Um, and so, you know, we can talk about that as well.

Yeah, Steph, go ahead.

Um, so we are proposing differentiated use where we focus our energies, our Lexia energies, on grade 1 and 2, where you find the most alignment between what's happening, happening in Lexia 4-5 and core curriculum, the phonics component specifically where our kids need additional practice.

We found that in K, and we actually heard it coming out of teachers this year, that they don't want the kids on the computer the whole entire day.

They feel like with the demands of ST Math and the demands of Lexia, it was just too much.

They weren't having enough time to really dig into core instructional programming.

We also know that we need to increase the amount of oral language that, um, that our kindergartners, all students, are, um, using daily.

And so this opportunity to take them off the screen in kindergarten and instead having them engage in, like Brian had, um, alluded to, engage in the more play-based oral language activities where they're working on problem solving, they're working on critical skills, where they're working on being social with their peers around academic content.

Yes.

And so, so our first proposal is that we remove Lexia from kindergarten to allow for those other things to happen.

And then in grades 3 to 5, we want to discontinue use for a couple of different reasons.

And the first one, which we've talked about before, is a commitment committee is the departmentalization that we have happening in most of our grades 3, 4, and 5.

Um, students in grades 3 to 5 have between 60 and 90 minutes for core content, and to take a chunk of that— for some students, quite a lot of minutes— um, that they need for Lexia and take that, take that time away from core content doesn't make sense.

Um, and so we are suggesting that we discontinue using grades 3 to 5.

We talked— Brian and I talked about having this happening during the WIN block, which is our intervention block time, but reality is we have intervention providers and these— we're talking about our most fragile students who need to be on Lexia the most.

And if we have the choice of putting them in front of a qualified adult or putting them on a computer, we choose a qualified adult every day of the week.

The other thing I'll mention too is that you'll see later, we've really done a lot of work in Fall River around science and the humanities as well.

And so we're starting to pilot a little bit more with the Investigating History, OpenSciEd.

And so the demands of the content, even in 3, 4, 5, there's great rich problem-solving, project-based thinking, critical thinking that's involved there.

And so the time has to come from somewhere, right?

And when we study our usage, we're not seeing that level of usage at 3, 4, 5.

And there's almost— there's only so much time.

And so to start Steph's point, we're still able to meet the needs of our most fragile learners by putting them with an adult who's trained in a research evidence-based intervention.

But really this would allow us to really hone in on that 1 and 2, grades 1 and 2, and make sure that we can monitor the implementation at that level.

So you provided us with that data at the last meeting, so, and that all your efficacy was at K-1-2.

But you had K included the last time you shared, so now you've pulled K out.

So what will be the intervention for K?

They will still have intervention, but again, through the adult.

They were using Lexia Core 5 during the core block of English, so not during intervention.

But that's what it's actually meant to be used for, and that's what Lexia actually suggests, that it's done during core because it's supposed to be an additional layer of core content.

But reality is, for many of our schools, it's not the case.

Is a disconnect between what's happening in Lexia and what's happening in, in the core.

And so we, again, they'll still, they have paraprofessionals in every room.

Those paraprofessionals are trained, our teachers are trained, they have WIN time just like every other grade level, and we would continue our path to having the kids serviced during their intervention times in addition to being serviced in the core during small group instruction.

But that differentiated instruction where you might be actually servicing a child off core content would happen during WIN.

Yeah, and believe me, I'm fine with that.

I'm just questioning because the previous data you shared included K, and now you're saying, well, you're not doing K. And so I'm just asking what we're going to do instead because you were getting growth.

Yes, and we're really trying— I think part of this is really driven too from the screen time piece and all the research we know about young, young kids being on screens.

And also, we are going to be speaking to about a pilot that will be— we hope is happening in May, and that really will kind of, um, okay, yeah, solidify why— our why.

Yeah, that's our 3rd item.

Yeah, here.

Okay.

Yep.

Sounds extremely refreshing to me that as you guys are talking about a revision on Lexia, we're actually revisiting more classical style learning, human.

So it's, it's more human-based rather than screen-based.

I think that's so important for the early growth and development of a child in that stage of life.

That early growth and development, they're really looking, they're looking for somebody to guide them and to form relationships and that whole conceptual piece, I think is incredibly important.

This is like really good news to me that you guys are drawing back on that.

I know we had this discussion in our last instructional meeting, and I wholeheartedly back it up.

Thanks.

So the difference, just so you know, is about $50,000.

I think it's— yeah, it might even be more because I think it's option 2 we could go with, right?

Right, the 73.

I'd have to pull up the plan.

It's definitely significantly— yeah, I think option 2 works.

I have to look.

Um, so it's almost half, you know, almost half.

I mean, you are cutting more than half the students, so that always makes sense.

Yes.

When is Lexia— when will it be used?

How will it be used?

So it'll still be used in grades 1 and 2, um, in our plan, and we have seen some good data there in the lower grades.

Um, so we're just adjusting and moving from K and then from 3 to 5.

So you can still utilize it in grades 1 and 2, and it would still be used during core instructional time as a station where that's very— that's a model that we use in our grade, in the lower grades.

So it makes sense.

Trying to do it in the upper grades was problematic because they don't do stations like they do, or centers like they do in the lower grades.

And so you guys will continue to accrue data so that's— so you can make future decisions decisions as to how effective or ineffective it is.

Absolutely.

Okay.

It's a vote to refer.

Say it again.

That's a vote to refer.

Second.

Mr. Corey?

Yep.

Ms. Riley?

Yes.

Ms. Stewart?

Yes.

So the second item is around iReady ELA, really the assessment component.

As you may know, we utilize iReady Math right now already for assessment for diagnostic.

We've had— we've built our own assessments, you know, over the years, but we're really looking at some different options with platforms, right?

And so Steph can talk a little bit about this piece as well.

So our current benchmarking is previously released MCAS, and we administer 3, 4, and 5, 3 times a year.

And we've been doing that for— I can't even remember how long.

It's probably been 15 years.

And what I hear and what I witness during data dives is that it's not concrete enough.

We're testing students on end-of-year grade-level standards, and the teachers don't know what to do with that data because the response, which makes sense.

Because of the fact that they're NCAS release dates.

Right.

So they say, I hear and understand the reason why I hear, well, this is end of grade level.

Of course they're not showing proficiency.

It's only November.

And they're not finding that the data is granular enough to actually act upon beyond saying, well, the kid doesn't know how to identify main idea and supporting details, or whatever the case may be.

When you're using something, when you're using iReady, iReady gets more granular where it identifies the standard but the nitty-gritty pieces of it.

And so it will group, it will support teachers in receiving better data that can be acted upon.

In addition, it gives teachers resources for how to differentiate the core as well as what you might do to intervene.

So there's the 2 aspects of the support.

But iReady is not your core?

No, no, no, no, no.

This is— we would utilize, and we wouldn't even be utilizing the MyPath component.

This is literally kids right now, the student experience right now is that they're taking an assessment on the computer.

It's just that the assessment is— we've had it for several years and we revise it obviously, but it's those MCAS released items.

We felt like this— still they're taking the assessment on the computer, but the data information we get from it, we feel like in the pilot, because we've done a pilot, we can act on that a little bit more effectively.

And we've been using it in math, so I do think for some teachers too, the familiarity with the platform around like, okay, I know what these reports look like because I've seen this, you know, in the math world.

And even our department heads and coaches and those folks.

I should back up and say there are 2 different assessment tracks in iReady.

The first one is iReady Inform, which is what they— the new name for the diagnostic.

And so the diagnostic is administered 3 times a year, and that diagnostic will adjust for students.

So if a child starts in grade 3 and is doing really well, it will bump up to grade 4 and bump up to grade 5 and give the kids more and more complex tasks to work on and answer more complex questions.

So if a child is in grade 3 and I as the teacher pull a report on that child, I'm able to see okay, I can really be pushing this student toward more of a grade 5 standard.

Or if a child is struggling when being assessed, it will drop down to try to find their instructional level.

With that, that's a little scary, right, because we have a grade 3 student and say he is showing that he's working on the grade 2 standard.

That doesn't mean that I'm teaching just the grade 2 standard.

I'm working on accelerating that child to get to the grade 3.

So I had mentioned the tools that are given to teachers.

The differentiation tool to me is the most impressive piece, and so that would give the teacher tips, not curriculum, tips about how to— what to do in her own core curricular materials as to how to bring that child, how to scaffold up for that child who happens to be at a different grade level.

Standard at that point.

The other component is the standards mastery, which is what we're suggesting would take the place of those benchmarks.

So the standard mastery is you identify the standard that you want to assess.

And so I might say that I want to assess standards 2 and 5, and all my questions are going to be around standards 2 and 5.

And I would identify those standards based on what have we actually taught in that unit.

So if the unit has been around Standards 2 and 5, the assessment will be around 2 and 5.

So the assessment is going to directly assess how kids did in relation to what I taught.

Currently, the benchmarks are a wide array of standards, and it's hit or miss whether or not you're going to actually be assessing what you taught during that unit because it is a comprehensive end-of-grade about assessment.

So Brian, have you been using your EOI from iReady Math as an MCAS predictor?

There's been— yeah, they've done some correlations.

It's been fairly close.

I mean, one of the things that we— because we also have math benchmarks, so one of the discussions we're having in math is do we need both, right?

Right.

So it's like the alignment, what's more, what's a better predictor I guess, right?

I know in math the piece we love around the iReady is the fact that, you know, you know where students are in that moment, right?

And you can provide some— and so show growth over time.

It's really hard enough to show that growth in just the benchmarks because oftentimes the content changes as well, right?

You might have geometry domain, algebra, right?

So, but they have definitely run some correlations and it seems like there's some alignment there.

I know iReady's done some work on that end, at least with the Mass Assessment.

Yeah, because we take the RICAS, which is the MCAS, and we've been using iReady in both for the last 6 years.

It's a pretty close predictor, but the value of iReady is in the usage of the data and the reports, which is work.

It is not just, you know, oh, we got this report, let me press a button.

Teachers have to dig into that data and really utilize what it provides.

So what would be great would be to see some data presentations on what our BOY, MOY, and WLY look like.

Yeah, and I can actually share with you, I did it with principals on the math lens.

Actually, at a principals meeting, we did a middle of year and end of year, and then we actually brought them in to sit with principals.

So principals and their department heads came and unpacked with iReady some of that data.

So we, I can actually share some of that stuff with you as well.

But that's been, to your point, I think part of our need was like we get the benchmarks, and I've asked this in my role to staff, I'd say, okay, so what?

What do I do?

Like with the current benchmark.

Yeah, I say, so with the current benchmark, okay, the student was not meeting expectations, what are we doing with this information?

And also then you're creating your own database, you're trying to map that longitudinal information.

This kind of does it for you.

That's the benefits of buying the program.

And now we can transition our time into actually saying, oh, this is where they're at.

Yeah, what can we do, right?

How do we intervene?

What do I need to tweak in my instruction, right?

So we did administer— we did, um, our pilot was at the end of the year, so we don't have data to say the growth that happened from one assessment to the next, right?

But the reason that we did it is because I wanted people to experience, at least at the very least, experience the diagnostic.

Some schools chose to also, because I put it out there like, hey, who wants to experience the standards mastery?

Just because I think that the usability piece of it from a teacher's perspective, well, what's the student experience, does play a part in this.

Right now our assessments take about 120 minutes, which is a bit excessive to not get data that we feel is like really actionable.

And they say that Standards Mastery, which I chose to administer 2 different standards that were aligned to our core, that it takes about 15 minutes per standard.

So the assessments were slated to be 30 minutes, but of course student work— students work at different paces, and so at times I'm sure it took longer and sometimes it probably took less time.

We did administer a survey.

It was late in the game, so we didn't get a ton of responses, and there were like, I want to say 90-some-odd— I'll say 90 just to not overestimate.

It's definitely 90% or more said that they would prefer to administer iReady, and they gave the rationale for why.

And so I did include the responses Um, that I did get, which was like 12 people, it wasn't much of anything, um, in, uh, some— a document that Brian can share with the team, the survey data.

Oh yes, yeah.

And so it— there was some really interesting facts, so I put in both the actual responses from the teachers, the paragraph ones, um, and then also an AI summary in case anybody wants to just read things.

So is your thought that you'll do the diagnostic 3 times year, but the standards they can use as many times?

I was going— so I was— when we talked as a team, we talked about administering the Standards Mastery at the end of each unit.

Okay.

And so that we have a common assessment that's happening across our schools.

Additionally, like a common formative, summative, yeah.

Right.

To me, I look at all of those as formative and summative.

Because it's early in the year, we can use them all.

Yeah.

And we do want to administer in grades 2 through 8.

Our 2nd graders right now are taking the Wonders assessment, and there are many issues with that curriculum-based measure.

And so we want to offer them something that's more standards-based and not— and it's not— I don't want to bash anyone, but let's just say not the best assessment.

So Dr. Riley, you've experienced this in your district.

Can you describe it?

It's abstract to me.

So it's a computer-based program?

It's an assessment.

I mean, we use it for our diagnostic assessment work.

We don't use it for unit assessments because we have a math program that does that.

We actually use iReady Math, so it's aligned to what we're doing in our unit tests.

It's a good predictor and helps teachers teachers identify where there are weaknesses, not just student weaknesses, but where we have some instructional weaknesses and we need to beef up.

So it is a, it is a good tool to be used by teachers to make adjustments to instruction.

Is it supported by AI?

No.

Okay.

No, it's tied to standards.

So it will literally read from a test.

Tom took the math test.

He struggled with these particular standards.

And not just this, What's good about the iReady is it's not just the standard.

It'll say you struggled with measurement, but really foundationally what you struggled with was with the understanding of how an inch compares.

It's very good at getting drilling down to exactly what skill that student needs support in.

So if a student demonstrates mastery in a concept, then that reads out in the assessment.

Yeah, and it bumps them up.

That's what Mrs. Kennedy was sharing with us is if a student is performing above grade level, it'll keep pushing them.

It'll keep pushing their thinking and trying to get them to understand the next concept even though it may not be a concept that the teacher has shared with the class yet.

They might be able to grasp that and continue to grow.

So this whole attitude around mastery general mastery of any kind of curriculum, um, seems to be coming to the forefront more at this stage than it used to previously.

Previously, I sat on the board of the Mastery School and saw some of the work— the school that your sister worked at, Dr. Riley— and saw the work in, in their approach and what they were trying to achieve throughout the course of the year, that a student would not move up until that student mastered the concepts of whatever steps they were on.

And then I hear former Mayor Ed Lambert on the advertisement for his portfolio, the capstone project, and students, I think at the high school level, have to develop portfolios that show their mastery of certain concepts.

So this whole attitude about mastery seems to be— am I right or wrong when I say that it's coming to the forefront?

Because this is about mastery, and we never really— it was never in that, you know, in the old classical learning, that term was never used, you know, even though, you know, I don't know, am I right or wrong?

I'm just curious.

Yeah, I mean, you're certain— I mean, you know, you're talking a little bit about the whole competency determination graduation requirements piece, which is an ongoing conversation.

But we do know that there's certainly a shift or an appetite for how are kids demonstrating what they know, right?

Through projects, through capstones, through different mediums instead of just saying, hey, it's gonna be, you know, one assessment that's gonna say that I know X, right?

This particular piece in iReady, what this helps us with is just getting data that we can use more effectively to intervene with students, right?

I've asked Steph, you know, I've been in this role for 2 years and I've asked her many times, what's the purpose of the benchmark?

You know, like literally, what is the purpose?

What do we do with that information, right?

And so we feel we're coming to you saying that we feel if we have something like this similar to what we have in math, we can act on that in a different way and actually use that.

There's a value at the district level.

Yeah.

So it's not like, yeah, Yes, it's great for teachers and teachers can intervene and support students, but what it provides at the district level is a window into how across the elementaries how we're doing, where there are strengths.

Because also if you can see that a school is really knocking it out of the park and they're doing some good things, then maybe that may be a school that we want to highlight and maybe have other schools look at, well, what's happening in this school that's really, you know.

So exactly, as an example, what we did with principals in the middle of the year.

Was pull the middle-of-the-year data around iReady mathematics.

We had them look at all their schools, each other's schools.

They worked in groups together to talk about, hey, what is happening in 4th grade over there, right?

They then set short-term goals around let's, let's target something for 6 to 8 weeks and have a conversation around.

And then they came back and we saw that growth, right?

And so then we said, hey, let's bring iReady in again and let's have them sit now with the principal and the lead Because the principal is the one that's making those decisions every day in that building.

And so it's important that they know the impact of what needs to happen in PLC, what needs to happen with PDM, right?

So this, you know, this really is, uh, for us is just, you know, an evolution of the current system that we have where we feel like we can get a lot more data.

Um, great, great.

How are we paying for it?

How are we paying for it?

Um, this could be money you just saved.

Yeah, exactly.

Minus that.

Yeah, so, so this is $44,000.

Yeah, this is $44,000.

We had a savings of $70-something thousand on the other, so we're really just sort of adjusting.

And what's important to us is we are really taking a hard look in the last couple of years at all the different platforms and what are we really using, what makes sense, why do we need this, do we need it, you know.

And you really need to narrow that.

Yes, there's no reason to be doing a thousand different things.

So, sorry, Mr. Corrin?

Yes.

Ms. Riley?

Yes.

Ms. Jordan?

Yes.

So this 3rd item relates, I think, to that first one as well.

As you may know, you know, in April, I had the opportunity to visit, you know, to travel and visit EL education schools.

We really learned a lot on that visit.

That Miss Kennedy went as well.

We were able to see elementary and middle schools and really spent some time unpacking, you know, different types of curriculum and expeditionary learning sort of as an approach.

And so what we're bringing here really is we'd like to explore— we've really been studying particularly in K what's happening.

One of the things we liked about EL education units is that they intentionally start in K with a unit that's focused on play and cooperation and really around developing like those social skills for, for students, which we see as a huge need in kindergarten.

Um, and so Steph can talk, you know, just a little bit more about, um, what we'd like to explore.

Yeah, so, um, when Brian and I got back, we had a conversation with the ELA department heads and coaches in the elementary level.

We shared with them what we had learned We took a good hard look at what was happening in some of the units, what it offered our students, what it offered our teachers, and how it would maybe meet some of the needs that we have right now as a department.

And so from there, they did a lot of digging in, a lot of questioning.

We met with the, with the professional development person I guess, a salesperson, and he answered a bunch of questions that we had about the program and how it met the needs of kids, or how it supported meeting the needs of kids for teachers.

And then schools had conversations with— the leads had conversations with their principals, and then they went to their teachers and had conversations with them around a pilot in whatever school team decided that this would be a good fit for them and their students.

And so, um, there were a couple of parameters.

If a school wanted to try piloting, they had to have their whole team on board.

Otherwise, it was going to be a mess when it came to PLC and really supporting teachers, um, in implementing 2 different things at the same time.

And so, um, we have 23 classrooms that would really like to dig in and explore the kindergarten.

There are 5 classrooms who want to explore the first grade materials.

And we did— I want to name 2— we did apply for the PRISM grant.

We haven't heard back on that yet.

We won't hear until the end of the month.

Okay, so we're— because we are starting to think about what our core— we currently have Wonders.

We've had that for— this is year 6 now.

So, you know, we're starting to have some initial We just ended year 6.

Okay, so we're starting to have some conversations around that.

I think, you know, depending on what happens with the PRISM, um, we would then more formally start to explore like what could that potentially look like in K-5.

Um, okay guys, but we can't hop around from curriculum to curriculum to curriculum, right?

So Wonders is a green-rated curriculum.

It meets all the research base.

I would have never picked it for Fall River, so I'll start there.

It doesn't— it does not reach the multicultural equivalent of what we would love to have for our students here.

But I also hate to see such a huge investment in a program, right, which had to have cost quite a bit of money for the number of students we have, and now we're saying let's move on to Elm, which is another green-rated curriculum.

I totally hear you, but we're also using ARC, which is another green-rated curriculum.

So I feel like you gotta pick one.

Yeah.

And stick to it.

Yeah, the ARC is just for DLE right now, only for DLE.

Right, but it's another— yes, it's another green-rated curriculum by EdReports.

So like, you're literally using 3 all rated the same.

So I feel like you gotta pick one and stick with it.

Like, it just feels like we're hopping around a little bit.

You want to pilot this, I hear you.

Let's see what the pilot looks like.

You're not going to find it much different than ARC.

EL and ARC are a lot, and I worry that you already invested some time in PD in ARC, and now you're gonna pilot EL.

Did you think about piloting ARC as your core with EL?

Like, could you split some of these ones?

I just worry that we're gonna have some folks who are gonna wanna stick with Wonders, then you're gonna have some folks digging into EL.

We've got some folks working in ARC.

Yeah, so really our intention now is to explore the EL.

But if we got funded with the PRISM, we would go through the same process we used at the middle school adoption.

The middle school adoption, we did have a year where we had like, I was at Talbot as the principal.

We were doing Springboard, I believe, at the time.

Right?

And then another school was doing Amplify.

We did a full year and studied those results with teachers.

So that is where we would move to if we felt like, okay, we got that funded and we really wanted to explore it.

Then we might have that conversation and say, yeah, you know what, maybe it's, you know, maybe we need to study ARC, you know, at these schools.

I just want to see you move to some consistency.

I worry when I hear like this is the 3rd program now.

Like, you know, we really— I think it's important to provide consistency and just to really think about when we choose something, does it meet the needs of all learners for us?

And we have a varied group of learners.

And then I think it's fidelity and continued professional learning.

So that's why I just worry about like trying another one.

So they're all, they're all rated highly by EdReports, the same rating for all 3 of those programs.

So I just want you to be mindful of that because you're literally picking a 3rd one now, and it just feels like that's too scattershot.

So you want to pilot K, let's see what it looks like.

But I think if you decide it's L, then I think you look at L broad-based for everything, or you look at ARC and you think about it broad-based for everything.

I think Wonders has tried to adapt to reach some of those second language learners.

I don't— personal opinion, I don't want to fight about Wonders.

I don't think they quite hit the mark.

Yeah, no, I think both ARC and ELL do a little better job of supporting those students, but I just don't want to see us dabbling in all these different programs.

Pick a program, stick with it, train, train, train, and continue to support it.

Yeah, no, that's my only angst about different dipping into L now.

Absolutely.

No, I think, I mean, the feedback obviously makes sense.

For, for my perspective, it was really going and being able to see it and then coming back and realizing that as we've had conversations with teachers and leads, we feel like we're not meeting the needs of all students in kindergarten in particular right now, right?

Um, and you know, some students have different learning profiles, and so we certainly didn't want to say, hey, let's continue doing the same thing.

Right?

So really this is an opportunity for us to say let's learn from it and, and try to see what's there.

But it's not a formal sort of we're going to pick something new right now, but we do want to kind of study it a little bit more closely.

And teachers are aware that this is a pilot and we, you know, of course we're going to go into it like totally transparent.

And I believe this would only be a unit.

No, this is more than one unit, right?

Okay, yeah.

And so the other piece is that we wanted to just see what what it looked like in the upper grades.

So, um, there is a team at— a team of 3 teachers at Fonseca, um, who would love to dip in and start doing some work with the 5th grade because the 5th grade is a humanities approach.

And we wanted to see like, what does this actually look like when you are a 5th— from a 5th grader's perspective?

Um, and then we wanted to see what it looks like in grade 1 because grade 1, Brian and I just went to a meeting the other day all about that first grade promise.

And so right now we're not getting the results that we need, um, and we want— we just need to try something different.

I'm just trying to understand it a little bit more.

Is this another— is this another program, computer-based program?

No, not computer-based.

No, it's a reading curriculum.

It's a reading curriculum, and, and it targets, uh, the English language All students, not particularly targeted.

The EL is not— doesn't mean English learners in this particular program.

Okay.

Yes, that's a good— not to be confused.

Yes, yes.

We love acronyms.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's the acronyms that, you know, there's so many different ones coming out.

This is a different pedagogical approach than Wonders, what we'd experienced in Wonders.

So it comes from sort of a different philosophy.

Around teaching kids.

And as we referenced, you know, in K as an example, there's an explicit focus in like the first unit of the year all around cooperation, social skill development, like that sort of thing.

And that's intentional, right, in their design, because they recognize that these kids are brand new to school.

And so how do we start the year in a way that the curriculum actually supports kids who are learning to develop social skills at that stage in the game?

So, and so, and you're hoping to get a grant to pay for this?

That was my question.

When I wrote the grant, well, when Brian and I wrote the grant for PRISM, um, we spoke specifically about the issues that we're finding with, um, Wonders, uh, one of which is the— well, there's 2 that really stick out.

Knowledge building.

They say it's a knowledge building program, but if you look at the actual units, they're not really building knowledge across a unit.

They build knowledge for a week using 3 texts and then that knowledge is thrown to the side, which is different than what we have with Reading Street.

And then the other piece is the oral language.

We know that we need to be supporting our students in acquiring complex language, and Wonders is not— we've had to do a lot of work with WIDA 2020 over the past couple of years to include language instruction.

One of the questions that we asked Elle was specific around how has WIDA 2020 helped with the design of your program, and so part of this program is the Unlock ELD portion, which really does dig into explicit instruction in language function features.

When you talk pilot, are you talking pilot at one school or broad-based across across?

So we actually already spoke to leads and teachers.

So it would be specifically 23K classrooms, 5 grade 1s, and 3 grade 5 classrooms.

That would be the total scope of it.

And would it be for the entire year?

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Not all schools are participating for different reasons.

And so it's— there's, I think there's 4 schools that are not participating.

Okay.

So Did you say yes to getting the grant or no?

We don't know yet.

We won't know, I think, until August 24th.

We'll still try to do it.

So if you don't, if we don't get the grant, come to you and ask?

Yes.

I mean, did you ask them to give you some materials?

Uh, I think we could do that.

And I can suggest that this is a small price in comparison to what a contract with them could be.

We've gone back and forth with them, um, and they have lowered the price by 25%.

And then we tried like other avenues.

I'm not done.

We're still working on it, but one avenue was we buy one of each of the materials we need and then we run our own copies, which is legal.

And so we could do that.

It would just be time.

So we're looking at, we're exploring all the possibilities too.

So when we did the quotes, we did like, what if we got one per grade, you know, per grade level, or one per teacher, or one, you know, or one per school?

And so this month, or even if you paid for K but they gave you one 5.

It's small.

Yeah, you like the idea, Dr. Riley?

I, I mean, like I said, I'd like some consistency.

If, if you decide it's L, then we can't— I don't want to hear 5 years from now, now we're gonna try this.

Like, we can't keep hopping around.

Um, and I am worried that we've selected ARC for MLLs because it is a good rich series, again rated just as highly as L. So why aren't we piloting that so we can have consistency for all.

And I think we did talk about that if we got the PRISM, that that could likely be an option.

Um, another one that's come up is CKLA, only because it's Amplified Middle School.

Yeah, who knows, right?

So there are different— we're really digging into like what are the knowledge-building programs that allow for oral language development, and those 3 pop as like the top 3.

Yeah, yeah.

So this is not a done deal yet.

You're waiting to hear about the grant, right?

Well, we're negotiating.

We're hoping that it gets— well, we're hoping to find— I mean, I don't think this cost is going to eat what's left of your $35,000 anyway, because this is such a small pilot.

We should still have funds in that savings if we decide to move forward.

Motion.

Second.

Thank you, Steph.

I think you're good.

Mr. Corey?

Yes.

Ms. Redd?

Yes.

Yes.

Go visit a school that has art as its core.

Uh, yeah.

What is that?

Go visit a school that has art as its core.

Well, we see it in DLA.

Yes.

Working hard, Austin.

That's only a small number of classrooms, but I've seen it there a few times.

I can see it.

See it in the core.

See what it looks like.

Especially with ELs when you have a lot of different— has a lot of nonfiction, which builds a lot of vocabulary.

It's foundational skills instruction that is something that needs to really be there.

Yeah, I mean, I did the science of reading through Letters, and they talked about art throughout that entire program.

So it definitely has those skills in it.

So I'd just like to see us pick one thing and stick to it.

Thank you so much.

Kelly, do you want to join us?

Yep.

There you go.

Bye.

Oh, thank you.

Okay, so the next, um, item, um, is again, this is really a discussion.

This is a continuation, but we've really studied— we have Elevation, which does 2 different things, right?

So Elevation is a tool that sort of is like a data warehouse, um, for data for our English learners.

Then there's another part of the tool that is sort of the professional learning component.

What we've noticed in, in, um, Kelly, the MLO director, has sort of studied usage.

We surveyed staff, we looked at the reports around the usage of it.

We really have not seen for quite some time much usage out of the elevation strategies component, and so we're really just proposing to reduce that piece of it but keep the platform to capture all of our data, which was a— would be a fairly significant savings.

I forget how much, but $48,000, yeah, I think.

Yeah, so, so that's really what this is.

We've, you know, we captured sort of in the narrative what the survey results were and what we've studied, but again, this is just us kind of taking a closer look at what are all the things we have out there, are we using it, what are our structures for professional learning.

We have folks that are great at providing and facilitating facilitating PD, and we know that we can provide the PD that, you know, is needed through our coaches and the folks in those roles.

So that's really what this is.

And I know it's the next item on the list, but tell me how you're partnering this conversation.

You've got the Lexia English Language Learner and this, so it looks like there's not high usage in that one either.

So we're actually, the full proposal is to discontinue Lexi English, which we'll talk about in a second.

Um, so what are they doing?

So we don't see them using Elevation.

Yeah, so Elevation is for the adults.

So that's the first— yeah, so that— this is for an adult.

These are learning modules for adults.

It's this extra $48,000, but we have not seen— we have structures for professional learning.

Yeah.

And so similar to students, we're not saying, hey, go over there and do that module.

Right, right.

It's like, no, you're in there's some follow-through, right?

So, we're just not seeing the return on that.

We've looked at all the modules people have started.

Many of them have been started, never completed.

They have like 2-sentence answers because they're checked by AI.

They're not humans.

It's not human interaction.

So, it's really more— So, that's really an adult learning platform where we say, we've been paying for this for a few years and we're not using it.

And so, why continue paying this $48 a month?

So, what data are you collecting in it that you're keeping keeping it for.

The other component is all about the compliance.

So that's where our kind of EL census that we're doing in Rhode Island is kept.

That's where it auto-generates.

It's beautiful.

You push a button and it prints out the FEL forms for the parents.

It prints out the FEL— so it's like a data warehouse for them.

It's a data warehouse that's actionable.

All around their ELD, like just for English learners.

So that piece is— we use that piece all the time.

When we do our LAT meetings, all that sort of stuff, we're leveraging it.

And it communicates to parents and translates into the home languages.

Okay.

So that piece is— So you want to keep that piece, we want to get rid of the— We're just looking at— exactly, we're just studying it.

It wasn't high priority.

It's not being used.

It doesn't necessarily even align with a lot of the— you know, we're doing a lot of work with systemic functional linguistics right now.

That's where our PD needs to be.

And so that's— yeah.

That's an easy one.

Yeah.

Motion.

Second.

Yeah.

Mr. Corrin.

Yep.

Mr. Riley.

Yes.

Mr. Stewart.

Yes.

And then the second one, as you know, we just briefly mentioned, we've also had Lexia English for English learners.

And, you know, as Kelly's gone through and really studied, you know, some of the data I can just share with you from the backup.

For instance, at the high school we have 165 students using it, but the average is only 22 minutes per week, and overall completion rates were 22%, right?

And so as you go through, there's that, that pattern and trend.

So we've actually studied this.

We right now with the work we're doing, and we've actually been making some really strong gains the last 2 years with the work we're doing with English learners because we really have kids in content.

We're doing Systemic Functional Linguistics.

Um, and what we actually would want to propose, and it's not captured here, but I can share this with you separately, there's a very, um, we've been playing within a few, with a few schools with, uh, Moat, um, which is, Kelly can kind of talk about what it does.

Um, Lexi English is $125,000.

We're not using it.

We're recommending we discontinue it.

The moat that we're looking at exploring is $14,000 or $6,000, something like that.

That's if we— it's if we present at that conference.

Yeah, I tried to get them down.

I said, can you give us a discount if we present at that conference?

So, um, Kelly, I'd like Kelly to talk a little bit about, you know, anything else you want to add around the Lexia English, but really what moat, you know, the success you've seen around that.

And it's obviously much more cost-effective, um, and connected to our actual what kids are doing.

And it's a concept that Stephanie also spoke to as well, and I'm sure you've seen it with the TNTP and the CCSO— coherence.

Yeah, right.

So coherence is this idea that, like, right now most of our most struggling students, they go to ELA, they're learning about, you know, dinosaurs.

Then if they're an ELL, they're pulled out and they're doing the life cycle— totally different topic, different language function.

And then if they have special needs, they're on a different platform learning, you know, puppies.

There's no coherence.

So our kids who are most at risk have to carry like 4 different topics in their heads to learn the skills.

So there's a new push also that the big curriculum providers first of all start aligning that ELD.

That's why Elevations— not Elevations, Expeditionary Learning EL now has an ELD component that's aligned to it.

California told them we're not buying your HQIM anymore if it's a sub-separate thing, right?

Because we're all finding it's not really HQIM.

So along those lines, our team wants to replace Lexia, which also was really targeted toward ELD 1s and 2s, Lexia English.

Most of our kids now are 2-somethings and on.

We want them to have the targeted speaking and listening, but aligned to their curriculum and their, and the functions.

So the language that they're learning.

I'm not familiar with MOAT, so does MOAT help with the alignment?

MOAT is cool.

MOAT does a lot.

I would say get a copy of it.

It's easy to download.

You just said something about listening.

Listening, it works on their listening skills?

We can do active listening, but we can make the task.

So if we're learning, if we're arguing about climate change and our language of explanations and arguing science, we can make a listening activity where the kids listen and it replicates what they have to do on their standardized test.

And it also has a speaking component.

And unlike other speaking platforms that where the kid's voice gets uploaded to the cloud, takes a few minutes and goes somewhere else, and then the teacher can't find it, it lives right in the Google Doc.

So you can just click and see the kids right there.

So right now in summer school, one of our MLL coordinators Allison Semple made some moats in alignment with our narrative writing, and we want the teachers to play.

And so we told them, if you guys could make moats about their field trips but position it as real life, like, oh, you're a podcaster and you went on a whale watch.

So making it— our kids also live in a multimodal world, right?

They like TikToks, but school's very still, computer, one direction.

So trying to kind of harness something that's relatively easy to use that we think, yes, will help with access, but more will give them more of a multimodal experience and can be connected to our actual curriculum rather than— and they're not using it.

So regardless, at this point, I mean, if you're getting less than 20% usage and we're paying $125,000, that's at the end of the day, it's right.

And there was no adjusting to practice if we weren't looking at it.

So what was it?

It was just kids off on a computer doing nothing.

So this is data that we also will track.

We're tracking their writing using Read Aloud rubrics, and we'll be tracking their speaking because, um, we want them to have authentic conversations in class as part of meeting goals.

And we'll share some with you when we get some record— you know, we can share a few.

Yeah, but the access isn't authentic.

They have to talk into a computer.

So even most of us at this table, if I said I was going to record you and you had one try, you probably wouldn't do well.

Yeah, it's— the access is harder than the MCAS.

Yes, it's, it's a harder test.

And we're asking students who already have a second language, who probably have more skills than some of those students, to demonstrate proficiency in a way that doesn't make sense.

But we can't change the access, so we've got to make sure kids are ready for it and they can do it.

But I like this idea.

Yes, this is obviously just a significant cost savings in terms of— Those are easy to bring to the school committee.

Thank you.

But it's just important for me to be transparent with that because we're studying these things, We're not seeing it.

Why continue doing it if we're not?

You know, and we come back and reassess.

Yeah.

So you don't need emotion for this.

This was just because we're not going to bring the Lexi English contract forward, but I just wanted to be transparent.

And then the moat is so low.

If we're going to bring the moat forward, we want to be like, just so you know, another add-on.

Exactly right.

And that's what I think.

It's a small— the moat is like 14 or 19, but at least when you see it, you'll know and say, hey, I remember that.

Yeah.

We're saving 100 grand.

Yeah, no kidding.

It's an easy convert and it sounds better, which is great.

It's a little bit more work for us.

I was gonna say it's not a problem for the teachers, but I believe in teachers also, that it's important that we do.

Yeah, no problem with work if the teachers are seeing progress.

They'll gladly take on a little more work.

And they like to.

You should see— and I just got one today because they're going on a whale watch on Monday, so they have the kids predicting what's going to happen.

Like, they're doing it and sending it to us, and this is summer school.

So yeah, the teachers are more technologically advanced than I am.

Of course you do.

Great.

All right, um, okay, the next one is, um, really this is really the purchase of, uh, OSC kits.

Um, you know, I— again, this is sort of a renewal because we've been doing OpenSciEd.

Um, we have had some, you know, great implementation.

Um, we just hosted a visit with over 10 districts, um, you know, maybe a month or two ago.

I don't even know what month it is now.

I think they were from Rhode Island.

Yeah, all over.

Yeah, and Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and that was awesome.

We visited more than a year ago now, but we've— yeah, yeah.

So, um, so really this just allows us to expand, um, down into the lower grades.

Adding 2 more units, is that what you're doing?

Yeah, so this would be 2 units.

I think the expert— I think here it's 2 units per grade total is what we're going to try to pull off because obviously there's a lot going on.

I know a full grade level is probably 4 units.

I think that's unrealistic right now, particularly K, 1, 2.

We're always competing for time, so this would be able to get us to 2 units per grade in K-5.

And another heavy lift for teachers.

Yes, and they've already been doing it in, in 5th grade in most schools.

Many schools are doing it across the board.

I mean, it's very good, but it's a lot of work.

Do the OpenSciEd piece.

But it's good.

And it will help our— right, again, going back to testing.

Just learning literacy.

Engineering, so much critical thinking is built into OpenSciEd.

So really in some ways it's a continuation, but again I wanted to, you know, it's, you know, so we're adding a couple more units.

This supports vertical alignment, correct?

Yes, exactly.

So where this is what we're using, you know, you go through middle school, this is the core curriculum.

Curriculum through there.

And science is important.

Um, it's not, it's not like a— right, like that, you can learn so much through social studies, through science, through all these other areas.

So it's like, it can't be sort of this afterthought.

It is the way we can teach language and the way— and critical thinking.

Yes, exactly.

So are you saying that a child in 5th grade in a science, science curriculum in 5th grade is going to vertically align to the science program in 6th grade?

Well, yeah, so the, the idea is that the content will be different, but the pedagogy and approach and this focus on critical thinking and even the routines.

So as an example, one of the routines, you know, when I was at Talbot that I love is like kids will do a sciences circle where they will literally talk about a phenomenon, right?

Everything is phenomenon-based.

They'll have a big circle where they're discussing like what do they think is happening.

Phenomenon in the sky too.

I mean, maybe this summer— there was one today.

I know, I know, I know that I'm not talking about this model.

I'm talking about there's going to be a moon crescent and Venus very, very relatively close to each other Friday night the 17th.

Yeah, yeah.

Is that— would that be like a typical subject that kids would— they would start with class and then they go for all the nitty-gritty science.

So they want— but it's already in.

They already have it in my teaching, and then they get into the nitty-gritty.

Yes.

Cool.

Yes.

And again, it's a big part, you know, it's already been— I believe this is already even adding, it's not going to cost more.

I really brought this here because it's over the $20, but you already projected it.

Yes, exactly.

Now, Brian, going back into ancient historical times, how far is this?

When I was not— when I was in 4th— when he was in 4th— when I was in 4th grade and 5th grade, 5th grade, there was never a real push on science back then.

It was mostly reading, SRTA programs, that kind of stuff.

I don't recall having a heavy dose of science until 7th, 8th, and then high school.

Shame on your teachers.

The kids love the science.

Kids are naturally curious.

Why is the sky blue?

Why this?

Why that?

What if that's science, right?

Yeah.

Brian, do you budget this at your office level?

Or we see it in the school budgets?

I just want to go back.

Mine, I believe.

Yes.

Just because I know some school committee members are going to ask, so I want to be able to look at what the budget looks like so I can pull it.

Okay.

Yeah.

And the kids would rather do this than the extra math.

Oh, God.

Yeah.

So nobody wants to— because this is kind of playful too, right?

Except for Brian.

Well, I worry about that.

Brian doesn't love math.

Right.

You didn't need double math, did you?

I love the math too.

I didn't need double math either.

That's the difference.

I know.

Okay.

All right.

Second.

Oh, second.

Mr. Corey?

You got it.

Miss Riley?

Yes.

Miss Stewart?

Yes.

We haven't said no all night, Deborah.

I know.

Well, most of it's been money savings.

It's easy to say yes to that.

The next 3 are $2 million.

Right.

Am I excused?

Yes.

Thank you so much, Kelly.

I appreciate the time.

Take care.

Good work.

Kelly, this is what— well, this is what you shared with me already.

I just gave them copies of them.

Yeah, thank you.

I'll give you one too.

I gotta find out more about MOAT.

Yeah, it's pretty cool.

Sorry, it's fun.

Are you enjoying the district?

I am.

Good.

It's exciting.

Okay, so, um, this next item is around, um, really we'd love to provide the American Red Cross CPR cert as part of the CTE Health 1 curriculum.

Definitely.

Um, so You know, it's, it's all the, Mr. Fitzgerald has sort of outlined.

He's met with the director of CTE, Miss Sylvia, around how this could work.

There would be a cost to it.

I don't know if I have it.

It's, it's, you know, yeah, because it's really just around the certification process.

Yeah, it's, it's not, it's not incredible.

We have, we may, I know we have some trainers, and it may include— I may come back and say, hey, I just want to, you know, there could be a small cost, but let's get another person certified as a trainer.

Um, but really we just think this is important.

It's very important.

Not in the general health curriculum at the high school level?

I don't think the certification is.

I'm not sure if the certification is.

Yeah, it's been too long for me to remember that.

I'm not sure.

In Rhode Island, it's in our 11th grade curriculum, so all of our 11th graders get CPR certified.

Yeah.

So that's what I was asking.

I don't think it is, but that's— it sounds like it isn't.

I'm sure.

Yeah, I feel like Mr. Fitzgerald would have been all over that.

Yes, exactly.

So that's why I'm assuming it's not in there.

Right, right.

And I'm looking at this, Brian, and I'm saying right off the bat, if a kid saves another kid's life, that's increasing their empathic skills.

You know, they develop a huge human sense of— a life skill.

It's a great life skill.

Great life skill.

You're a human.

And I'm now reading number The Durfee Health One teachers are already instructor certified, which is great.

So we've already gone through that.

So the cost is the cost incurred by the student.

I don't think no, no, no.

We would pay for it.

Yeah, that would be our cost.

That would yeah.

It would be us paying for them to be certified, right?

Yes.

But will you check the other things?

Yes, I will.

Yes.

Thank you.

I will for you.

Just giving me a little angst.

Yes.

Motion.

Oh yeah, absolutely.

Second.

It's not a motion.

Oh, just a discussion.

Okay.

Oh, it should have been invoked, probably, but maybe because the cost— well, that's all right.

We'll still support it when you put it on the regular agenda.

Do you want a vote to refer?

No, I think the cost was so low that it was not.

I bet it's already in.

Yeah.

So it's a given then, right?

Yes, it's a given.

Yeah, it's going to be carried out.

Good.

Okay.

Next one.

Okay, so building blocks.

We already voted on this.

We did.

So here was the issue.

When I started to think it's me.

No, no, we did.

When I brought it forward, um, there was— well, there was an error.

We brought forward only the curriculum purchase.

There's like another $14,000 for PD.

We'd like both.

That's all it is.

So because it's a new, um, you know, curriculum we're using in preschool, which Miss Darius outlined last time.

But for some reason, I don't know why, in the backup it was only the curriculum amount but not— did not include the professional development amount.

So this is $30,000.

What's my— my— yeah, but it should be, uh, the total.

It's in the back.

It's the last, last page, which is what, um, the new— so it just put it at $15,000 because it was like 30-something plus 12.

Okay.

Yeah.

Oh, so that's the total.

That's the total.

So just out of transparency, I want to bring it back to you because what we discussed last time, to be transparent, was just the $30,000.

Then I realized, wait a minute, the PD wasn't in the backup.

So I just wanted to come back and say the actual amount is $50,000, and that includes the professional amount.

That's all it is.

Perfect.

So crossing your T's and dotting your I's.

Well, I'd rather— it's a difference, right?

You, you may say, hey, wait a minute, we discussed this and the amount was $30-some grand.

It's actually $50,000.

Yeah, I'd rather— yeah, if it goes to a warrant and say And you see that contract and you're like, wait a minute.

Yes.

Yeah, that's all.

Yes.

That was truly the only question for that.

You did.

I'm sorry, I did not see that.

I apologize.

Okay.

And then the last item.

Wait, you need to vote.

Yes, I do.

Motion.

Second.

Mr. Corey?

Yes.

Yes, excellent.

Okay, and then the final item is, um, yeah, responsive classroom, which I mean I'm a huge proponent.

Um, you know, as an elementary principal, this was transformative in my school when I was at Letourneau.

Um, and really we have some folks, you know, over the last several years, um, like other things, I think some training has sort of gone by the wayside.

You get new staff, we get new staff.

We really want to bring some cohorts back.

One of our principals is also a trainer, so we're actually looking at what does that look like to maybe even tap into one of our school leaders and then eventually maybe do a train-the-trainer approach because this is important to us.

But really it's all around teacher language, morning meetings, and adding to new teacher orientation.

Yes.

If you have somebody who's already trained, then you can utilize that.

Exactly, yeah.

So we're gonna run a couple of— this would be one cohort sponsored by RC, but we have one of our principals and a couple of teachers that, um, we're also working with to maybe even add a second cohort.

Um, it's kind of homegrown.

Yeah.

Um, but really this is, you know, I think instrumental just around like Tier 1 social-emotional learning, um, that sort of thing.

So you've seen, you've seen how beneficial this whole thing is.

Yes.

It's, um, what do you think about training all your principals so they can support it in their building?

Yeah, so we're actually asking principals, VPs, to go to the training.

So that's what we're doing.

You need their support to make it really work.

And honestly, this was driven from, as I've, in my role, I'm in schools quite a bit, and principals saying to me, Brian, what about RC again, right?

Because we've, you know, maybe we don't have some of those teachers, whatever it might be.

And so I'm like, yes, I mean, that is so instrumental for us.

So yeah, the principals will attend, we're asking VPs to attend, even SACs, you know, any folks in those roles that are supporting teachers teachers in some capacity.

So there's the shared understanding across the board, right?

And I'd love for this to be a regular thing, just to be transparent.

I don't want this to just be— but I'm anticipating let's have a cohort every summer because we're going to have new teachers.

So I, I don't know, just it's, um, you know, you go through the whole school year and you know it and you're doing pieces of it, then you have a refresher and you're like, oh, and I got that component.

And there's of course 2, which is great.

So So like I may come back to you next year and say ideally I want to come back next year and say give me a— give me another cohort of 1 and let's add a course 2 for our teachers that really are at that level.

Can you give me an example of what a SAC's role might be in a responsive classroom?

Yeah, so how I utilize them, I'll go back on my experience as a principal.

My SACs oftentimes would actually push into morning meeting, co-facilitate morning meeting with the teachers as they were learning how to facilitate morning meeting.

Meeting.

Yeah.

There's distinct components.

There's a greeting every day, a share, an activity, and a message.

And it's really important that we start the day in that way.

So, so everybody's on the same— Yeah.

We literally have the kids in a circle.

Mm-hmm.

You know, for— and morning meeting is just one component of our thing, right?

Yeah.

It's one little component that you could see.

But there's a lot of work on teacher language, using reminding and reinforcing language with kids.

And then when you get into course 2— Reinforcement, that kind of thing.

Yep, and then when you get to course 2, there's a lot about relationships.

Good.

How do we empower kids to, you know, build those relationships, be kind, grow their own self-esteem?

It's really— even academic choice was a great component.

I remember doing so many sessions with teachers just on, hey, how can we have kids have an innate need to have control over a situation?

So how do we build in some academic choice that makes sense, right?

I think it also teaches kids kids how to advocate for themselves.

You know, like, it's— you kids need agency, and this is a way to teach them how to advocate for themselves.

I love that.

Because otherwise what they do is have behaviors, right?

If they don't understand something or they don't know how something works or they're frustrated by something and they don't know how to deal with it, they'll act out.

So this kind of teaches them how you advocate for yourself.

So it's really growing agency from the youngest ages.

It's, it's It's just a way of— it's a different way of framing how you address proactively before students demonstrate behavior.

It's all about culture and climate.

I really will say this, like, this is one of the most transformative things I think in a school when you really have all the adults speaking the same shared language.

It really transforms them.

In the past, those ideas have been buried.

I'm talking about, again, ancient history, but I'm really happy with the development of more conceptual SEL learning that, you know, we're becoming more responsive to that each and every— this generationally now.

So these young kids are picking up on it's all about advocacy, it's all about empathy, it's all about human relationships and socializing, socializing responsibly with one another, you know, because Because the device always leads a kid sometimes down a dark pathway, and we're constantly having to monitor that.

I had some very difficult cases at the high school level when I was working, and it was— it made me sad, you know?

But I'm really happy to hear that you guys are hitting it up, and you have practical life experience around responsibility.

Yeah, many of our— yeah, yeah.

I did it when I was— when I worked for Brian.

I did it in 4th grade and kids loved it.

What did you see?

They would talk— so they would talk about it the night before, what they were going to talk about the next day, what they were going to bring in, how they were going to talk through it.

They were all excited.

And then even just your rituals and routines, how we walk in the halls, the expectations and all that stuff.

How we greet each other.

How we greet each other.

Eye contact, right?

These are things that are important that you're learning, right?

And the late, the late great Kathy Assad, who taught English at Durfee for many years.

She was also the advisor to National Honor Society.

Whenever anybody would enter her classroom, uh, one of the teachers or the counselors or the VPs or the adults, she would stop her learning and the children in her classroom would all stand up and greet the visitor and then sit down, and then they would resume.

So that to me is like, that's showing some class.

That's good stuff.

So maybe I'll support it.

Motion.

Second.

Mr. Corey?

Uh, okay.

Miss Riley?

Yes.

Miss Stewart?

Yes.

Okay, we have a motion to adjourn.

You got it.

Mr. Corey?

Yes.

Miss Riley?

Yes.

Miss Stewart?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.