Parents and board members press district over Innovamat math contract and scope changes
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters and some board members said an Innovamat contract amendment and payment schedule raised concerns about prepayment, scope changes for grades 4–5 and ultimate cost. District leaders said the original contract included the payment terms and that curriculum review and piloting continue.
Several residents used the March 20 public comment period to press the board about the district’s contract with Innovamat, a K–5 math curriculum vendor, and about subsequent revisions approved earlier by the board.
Carolyn Incarnato, a resident, said the district’s original agreement included a large prepayment schedule that she described as inappropriate for public funds and said a later revision changed grade coverage and increased per‑pupil pricing over future years. “Prepayment with public taxpayer funds is not okay,” she said, and said she was concerned the district might have to replace fourth‑ and fifth‑grade materials after the amendment.
Jessie Palladini and other commenters asked why board members had not raised the contract details when the amendments were before the board. Several residents requested district test data and evidence of Innovamat’s effect on student outcomes.
Business Administrator Ray Slam and Superintendent Russ Rogers responded that the payment schedule complained of appears in the original contract signed before Slam’s tenure and that the more recent revision kept the same per‑pupil pricing for the years compared. Rogers said the district has an ongoing curriculum‑review process and that the curriculum committee and pilots have informed decisions. “For grades K through 3 mathematics, we have implemented Inova Math, and our third grade math scores last year were 10% higher than the state average,” Rogers said during his remarks about curriculum review.
Rogers said the district is reviewing math and ELA curricula for other grade spans and will pilot alternative programs; he and board members said details were discussed in curriculum committee meetings and that negotiating contract terms while discussions were ongoing limited what could prudently be disclosed in public before the board reached agreement.
Members of the public said they would like clearer, regular reporting on pilot results and the district’s measures of student progress so parents can assess return on investment. Board members agreed to continue discussing curriculum outcomes in committee and to share research and pilot findings with the public as decisions are finalized.
