Table of Contents
It has been more than a year since Winchester’s early literacy program came under fire in a big way, but Superintendent Dr. Frank Hackett said change is coming.
Albeit maybe not as fast as some would like.
An Early Literacy Team made up of educators is looking at seven different evidence-based literacy curricula and circulating those materials among teachers for their input, Hackett said. The goal is to narrow the possibilities to at least two, and pilot those programs in the 2025/2026 school year.
When asked how it felt to be finally making strides Hackett said simply, “It feels good.”
But maybe not to everyone.
Parent Cheryl Timko said that during the preliminary budget hearing earlier this year, she was glad to see the district taking what she called “baby steps” toward a change, but she worried real change is still too far off.
“I am one of those parents who stood at the microphone last January (2024) when we met in the auditorium, and I made a comment nearly similar to this last year, and here we are again talking about the importance of elementary literacy,” she said.
Nothing new
The issue of early literacy is squarely in today’s spotlight, but it is not new to Winchester.
Hackett noted that when he started as superintendent, there was already an organized group, United for Literacy, focused on the issue. In 2021, the group sent the newly hired Hackett a letter with 401 signatures attached.
The letter raised concerns about the district’s literacy program and “its negative impact on many students, including our most vulnerable learners.”
Organizers asked the district to set seven goals that ranged from forming a committee of parents, teachers, administrators and experts to look at the current curriculum and replace it with evidence-based curriculum and instruction. It also asked Town Meeting for money to support the development of multi-year districtwide goals to support systemic change in literacy assessment and investing in training.
Then came a Boston Globe article in January 2024 which revealed that Winchester, along with more than 100 other districts, were using an early elementary reading curriculum that the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education considered low quality.
That article prompted parents like Timko to rally outside as well as speak up inside the Jan. 16, 2024 School Committee meeting.
Next came the Collaborative for Educational Services study in June 2024. The goal of the study was “to understand the current state of the district’s elementary literacy program in Winchester, and the ways that educators and parents experience it.”
Hackett admitted the results of the study were painful and hard to hear, but in a way it was also good because it was the impetus to seek out true change.
The 111-page report contains numerous findings and stated pretty clearly that educators and families wanted a greater sense of safety, collaboration and trust when it came to district level leadership.
Click here for the full story from the Winchester News on the report.
The struggle is real
But one parent, Stefanie Mnayarji, said they didn’t need a Globe article or a report to tell them there was something wrong with the elementary reading program
Mnayarji, who is running for School Committee, said all one had to do was pay attention to how many parents were paying upwards of $150/hour for reading tutors for their elementary aged kids.
As PTO president at the Ambrose School, Mnayarji helped build an after-school program that included a free reading program for students in K-2. She said when they first announced the program in their weekly PTO newsletter, the reaction was almost instantaneous.
“The newsletter goes out Sunday at 9 p.m.,” she said. “By 9:03 that night, everything sold out. We had 45 unique students in K-2 signed up for the after school class. Three minutes – Taylor Swift wishes she was that hot.”
Once they saw the success of the program at Ambrose, they started conversations with the other elementary schools, Mnayarji said.
The program used after school was Orton Gillingham, an evidence-based curriculum that Mnayarji said is well respected and widely used. It is the type of curriculum that parents are asking the School Committee to utilize.
Like Mnayari, Hilary Eaton also had a close encounter with the literacy limitations in the Winchester Public Schools.
Eaton and her husband moved to Winchester six months into the pandemic. At the time, they had two young children, one 11 months and one 3 years old, one neurotypical and one neurodiverse, and a literacy curriculum was not on her radar. That would soon change.
Eaton said she learned from her neurodiverse daughter’s kindergarten teacher, whom she called the best teacher in the world, that her daughter was struggling to learn to read.
“That didn’t click with me,” Eaton said.
She said while her daughter often had trouble with social situations, her ability to learn had always been ahead of the curve. When she realized that her daughter’s teacher lacked the tools to truly address the issue, Eaton attacked the problem herself. She said she went to Barnes & Noble, found a book on phonics and worked every night with her daughter – and it worked.
It didn’t occur to Eaton until later that her daughter’s struggle was not unique and Eaton shouldn’t have had to solve it herself.
So where does it go from here?
Timko pointed out that as of January, the district has spent one year and over $50,000 “and counting” to dig into the issue and get a report that showed the change parents and educators are calling for.
That’s another class of students that have gone through with no consistent, supported, evidence based literacy curriculum “and that breaks my heart,” she said. She added she has four more years to go before her youngest of three hits kindergarten.
“Let’s get on top of this now,” she said. “Parents and teachers, the community, are aligned on this issue, and voters have shown that they are as well.”
Hackett said he understands parents’ frustration, but he has said all along “we need to do this right.” That included creating the Early Literacy Team last fall and giving it the time to get its collective arms around the issue, talk to people, do some visioning and team building.
“And now we’re in such a good place,” Hackett said, adding, “I’ve been super clear that we’re not implementing a program next year.”
Hackett was also quick to note that just because they don’t have a new curriculum in place doesn’t mean change isn’t happening. Many teachers are using UFLI (University of Florida Institute), which has a variety of resources aimed at kids struggling with literacy, he said.
“It’s science based and generally, it seems teachers really like it,” he said.
Teachers are using other tools as well. Hackett said for the first time in a while, teachers seem excited about the prospect of new curriculum and have been open in talking about what they’ve been using.
School Committee Chairman Karen Maruyama Bolognese said she believes when the dust settles it’s likely the district will invest in more than one curriculum because the chances that one single curriculum could solve all reading struggles is slim.
Mnayarji also said she believes the answer to the literacy issue will be more complex than just one curriculum and she’d like to see a solid foundation curriculum that would leave room for teachers to make adjustments on the fly.
Which brings us to funding
Timko has said the School Committee should create a funding plan now so when a curriculum is decided they can jump on it immediately.
“It’s important that the district puts itself in a position to really compete for state resources,” said parent Paras Bhayani. “Everybody in the room gets sort of the joke of this budget and the next one, which is we’re headed for an override.”
When that time comes, he said he’d be the first person to canvas his neighbors to fight for the override, but first the district has to help itself. Bhayani pointed out that Gov. Maura Healey put $25 million in the budget last year and has promised another $25 million this year for literacy.
He’s referring to the Literacy Launch; Reading Success from Age 3 through Grade 3, one of Healey’s 2024 priorities. The program is aimed at making sure schools, educators and students across the commonwealth have access to high-quality evidence-based reading instruction through literacy materials, technical support, coaching and professional development.
Bhayani said he’d love to see WPS compete for some of that money because that would signal to residents that the district is doing all it can to bring money in to fund the initiative.
“And ultimately convince more people to support an override if and when it has to come,” he said.
He also urged the School Committee to fill the empty literacy leadership slot. He said the full-time position has been maintained in the budget, despite being empty, and it was time to elevate the stature of the role and make sure it is filled by a well-resourced senior individual.
Hackett told Bhayani and Timko in January they needed to manage their expectations.
He said just this week that one reason he has been deliberate in the process is because “if we’re going to spend $100,000 on a new program, we want to make sure we’re doing it right.”
He was quick to add that a new literacy program may not cost $100,000, that costs vary. And given today’s technology, those costs often have more to do with online licensing fees than actual books, Hackett said.
It’s also not just about the actual curriculum. Bhayani said teacher training for the new curriculum could also add significantly to the overall cost.
But Hackett, like Timko, said he believes that when they land on a program, not only is the School Committee committed to funding it, but the community will be too.
“I think this has brought us together as a community, where we should be,” he said.
