Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum Mcgraw Hill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears request for McGraw Hill math project manager and potential multi‑year curriculum purchases
Summary
Administrators described progress on a multi‑program McGraw Hill math pilot, asked the board to fund a 90‑day on‑site project manager at about $52,000, and presented subscription pricing for several curriculum programs with multi‑year discounts.
District curriculum leaders asked the board on Monday to approve a short, targeted contract for an on‑site McGraw Hill project manager to accelerate implementation of a multi‑program math pilot and to review quoted multi‑year prices for several curricular materials.
“Someone on‑site who has the expertise in the programs from McGraw Hill is probably the direction to go this year,” a curriculum official said, asking the board to approve a 90‑school‑day contract at roughly $52,000. Administrators said McGraw Hill offered a full‑time project manager alternative at a higher price (about $90,000), but staff recommended the 90‑day option to provide concentrated coaching across K–12 while limiting cost.
Why this matters: The district is piloting multiple McGraw Hill products (Reveal, ALEKS/ALEX, MathPlus) across elementary and secondary grades. Staff said first‑year pilots require more on‑site coaching to achieve consistent instruction and to help teachers implement the six recommended instructional practices that accompany the materials.
What was presented: Curriculum staff gave the board an itemized price summary. For example, a three‑year subscription plus consumables for McGraw Hill was presented at about $184,000 (expended in year 1 under some scenarios); longer‑term pricing produced larger discounts in some cases. Social studies materials (TCI) and other packages were shown with multi‑year and one‑year pricing options; staff said one‑year purchases typically carry a higher annual cost but allow more flexibility.
Staff emphasized tradeoffs: administrators said they prefer to pay for a project manager and embed professional development to preserve teaching positions funded by Title I rather than redirect federal salary dollars to smaller line items. “In year 1 of a pilot, it's always very difficult to get a handle on its effectiveness…they tell you it takes at least three years before you fully implement,” a curriculum leader said.
Board questions and implementation details: Board members asked how many teachers the manager would support (staff estimated roughly 35–40 K–12 teachers districtwide), whether the manager might be an internal hire, and how the 90 days would be scheduled (school days only, not calendar days). Staff said they would recommend scheduling October–December to front‑load coaching, and they offered to survey teachers about implementation experiences.
Requests and next steps: The board did not vote Monday; administrators will return to the consent agenda for formal approval. Staff also committed to pursue negotiation of multi‑year pricing, to check whether McGraw Hill would bundle a project manager as part of a larger purchase, and to supply a teacher survey and details about on‑site schedules before the next vote.
Ending: The board signaled interest in concentrated on‑site coaching to support fidelity of implementation but asked for clearer scheduling, teacher feedback and negotiated pricing before approving the contract or larger purchases.
