Faculty will collaboratively examine PS–8 writing instruction, assessments, student work, and current research to identify strengths, gaps, and opportunities for a coherent developmental progression. Through input from teachers, students, families, consultants, and academic leaders, the committee will build shared knowledge, refine a direction and goal statement, and recommend standards as agreed learning outcomes without prematurely selecting or piloting materials. Participants will use structured critique, reflection, and shared decision-making to revise curriculum maps, unit plans, assessments, exemplars, and teacher reflections. The resulting documented curriculum will support consistent implementation, clear communication, and ongoing professional dialogue among all teachers of writing.

Faculty will map current PS–8 writing instruction, assessments, student exemplars, and teacher reflections to identify strengths, gaps, and developmental coherence. They will investigate research and innovative practices, consult teachers, students, families, and external experts, and use empathetic listening and shared decision-making to define a direction and goal statement. Through structured critique, feedback, and reflection, the committee will propose shared standards, scope-and-sequence priorities, assessment expectations, and a documentation plan for the curriculum mapping tool. Faculty will present findings and recommendations to academic leadership, revise them in response to feedback, and establish clear communication and next steps toward a fully articulated writing curriculum.

The committee will create a current-state PS–8 writing map, stakeholder input synthesis, research scan of effective practices, and a shared direction and goal statement. Working drafts will include proposed standards progressions, unit and assessment inventories, anonymized student-work exemplars, teacher reflections, feedback logs, and decision records for critique by writing teachers, consultants, families, students, and academic leaders. By the end, the committee will publish a curriculum-review portfolio in the mapping tool and a phased roadmap for completing and approving the coherent writing curriculum without prematurely selecting or piloting resources.

Begin with a gallery walk of anonymized PS–8 writing maps, unit plans, assessments, student exemplars, and teacher reflections, noting strengths, gaps, and questions about coherence. Grade-span teams use listening protocols to compare current practices with a brief research or consultant case, then draft one evidence-based claim and one inquiry connected to the essential question. The committee reviews its charge, Year 1 and three-year roadmap, stakeholder roles, input channels for teachers, students, and families, and academic leadership’s approval role before co-designing working norms and responsibilities. An exit reflection captures baseline understanding, individual learning goals, and priority evidence needed to shape the direction statement and eventual documented curriculum.

Conclude with a 75-minute Writing Curriculum Review Forum for all writing teachers, academic leaders, student and family representatives, and external consultants. The committee will present the mapping-tool audit, research findings, proposed direction and goal statement, draft PS–8 scope and sequence, shared assessments, anonymized student exemplars, and teacher reflections. Participants will examine artifacts at facilitated stations, offer warm and cool feedback, and identify gaps in coherence, development, instruction, feedback, assessment, and reflection. The committee will synthesize input, document revisions and unresolved questions, and submit agreed learning outcomes and a Year 2 action plan to academic leadership for approval.