By Barbara A. Preston | October 1, 2025
Montgomery High School Principal Heather Pino-Beattie took to the podium at the Montgomery Board of Education on September 16 and was one of several educators who expressed concern about “toxic behavior” of some members on the board.
“Montgomery High School is in the top two percent of public schools in the nation — top one percent of non application high schools,” she said.
Montgomery Township educators at the school board meeting on September 16.
“We are a place families move to for excellence, stability, and integrity. Yet today, highly qualified candidates tell us they will not even apply here because of the toxic behavior of this board.
“Your public mistrust of our educators, your attempts to dismantle our curriculum, your desire to insert yourself into decisions that are beyond your purview as board members, and your constant undermining of our processes. That should concern every single person in this room.”
Jennifer Riddell (APSMT), a math supervisor at Montgomery Township School District, also spoke during the public comment session, referring the school board’s August 26 meeting in which some members of the board refused to approve certain curriculum items.
One of the items had American Red Cross lifeguard re-certification for teachers who needed it in order to be swim instructors at school district pool as part of the PE curriculum.
Another item was a Bridgeway program, which is a behavioral health service based on referrals that the guidance department uses for its suicidal risk assessment team.
Riddell referred to the meeting as a “debacle.”
Eventually, the district was able to get board approval on items mentioned above.
Advertisement
However, a new AP course titled AP Seminar — a foundational course that engages students in cross-curricular conversations that explore the complexities of academic and real-world topics and issues by analyzing divergent perspectives — was not approved.
Mary McLoughlin, Superintendent of Schools, said, after the vote, “I just want the board to know there’s a new course that students have registered for that they will be sitting in next Thursday. It’s an AP course that there is [now] no curriculum for right now. You’re all good with that? Just check-ing.” (It was approved in a revote).
Board member Michelle Dowling, who’s term expires in December and who is not running for a second term, added her opinion.
“I need to say that I feel like we are really stepping on the toes of our educators, we want them to work on curriculum on a very regular daily basis. They are not only in front of our students, but they’re trying to give us the best curriculum they can.
“This is their job. I’m not quite sure where the board is coming from? Where is it indicated that they’re not doing what they are supposed to be doing? Or, that children are not succeeding the way that they’re supposed to succeed?
“We want an engaged faculty that is looking at the curriculum on a consistent basis and making adjustments and improvements as they go along. We are literally saying that we are not allowing our teachers to do their job.”
Here is a segment of dialogue from the August meeting regarding Agenda Item 2.6, which listed courses and curriculum to be approved by the board for the 2025-26 school year.
A board member asked, “Why is the list so short?”
Superintendent McLoughlin responded that the school board only approves major revisions and new courses. Board member Joanna Filak asked, “So math in LMS and science in LMS and UMS and English...’”
McLoughlin, said “No major change ... There may have been pacing re-arrangement but nothing substantial.”
Board member Ting Wang opined that, “I think even for a pacing change, or if there are personnel changes for the existing curriculum, the [superintendent] should have to ask the board for reapproval of those courses.
“Is there a hidden condition here,” Wang asked McLoughlin: “This has always been the process for when there are no major changes.”
Filak: “We approved over $57,000 for curriculum writing, but only a few courses are listed [for approval].” Wang: “I would appreciate more of a summary for those major revisions, and also for the ones not listed. As a board member, I also have concerns for the ones that have been approved in the past, and I want to know what’s the strategy for that.”
McLoughlin: “You want to know what about what was approved in the past?”
Wang: “I can give some examples. Let’s say for the literacy … the Lucy Calkins Units of Study. That remains in the primary literacy program?”
Lucy Calkins is an American educator and professor at Columbia University who is best known for creating the Units of Study reading and writing curriculum.
Wang said, “Many professionals actually raised concerns that the Lucy Calkins’ approach lacks explicit, systematic instruction aligned with this research.
“Parents in our township have voiced concerns at board meetings … In response, I think our schools began supplementing with programs such as the Heggerty method. And director Fiona talked about that, I think it’s a positive step.
“But Calkins … continues to serve as a primary framework for reading and writing. That’s a concern.
Advertisement
“Also, there’s a podcast on that from The Atlantic. ... Also, The New Yorker talks about that.
“So, there’s a strong belief that this material is problematic. ... I would think the [school] board need[s]to see more evidence to support this choice.
“As a board member, as a parent, and an educator, I really have concerns of continuing [to use] this Unit of Study as a core program of our literacy instruction.”
Fiona Borland, the Montgomery School District Director of Curriculum, Instruction, and Staff Development, pointed out during the public comment section that Units of Study by Lucy Calkins is one facet of the district’s literacy program. There is no perfect right way to teach literacy. You need to pull from all different resources, all different kinds. The district also uses The Really Great Reading (RGR) program, rooted in The Science of Reading, which focusing on foundational skills like phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
Board Member Ania Wolecka-Jernigan said at the August meeting, “We’re just getting a very high level view. Maybe we could get … a more detailed view of how funds are being allocated across … other areas.
“What we are trying to say is that as board members part of our function is to focus on curriculum and instruction. We’ve been getting limited data points.
“It’s fair to say that both sides have not fulfilled to the fullest. It would be nice to have more input into the work that’s being done. There’s no lack of trust, it’s just part of our roles and responsibilities.
“I would like to have more info shared with me - not to just have an expectation that I’m going to say yes without some info, some insight. We want to be results based.”
Board Member Michelle Dowling reiterated her previous concerns.
“That’s the point I don’t understand.
“Our students get into most, if not all, of the colleges they apply to. We’ve had students at the podium saying how well-prepared they were for college.
“I just don’t understand where you are getting your data, in terms of what we’re not achieving, and how we are not moving forward.
“I understand wanting more information. But, it is really upsetting to me, this notion that we are failing or not doing what we are supposed to be doing, because our role as a board is also to protect and trust the teachers we have hired.”
