Bethel Park staff to pilot two K–8 math series in 2025–26 after vendor review

Bethel Park School District staff told the Curriculum Committee they will pilot two different K–8 math curricula during the 2025–26 school year after narrowing five vendor proposals and testing them with teachers and special-education staff.

The decision follows vendor demonstrations, rubric-based reviews by building teams and a plan to include general-education and three special-education teachers in pilot classrooms to evaluate accessibility and alignment with Pennsylvania standards and state assessments.

District staff said the pilot responds to expiring licenses and a need for a single core resource that aligns with state expectations. K–5 currently uses MyMath by McGraw-Hill; that license is scheduled to expire in 2026–27, and 6–8 has not had an adopted core resource, staff said. The district invited five vendors for one-day demonstrations, eliminated one product for each grade span after the demos, and plans to narrow the selections to two resources for a classroom pilot.

Dr. Walsh introduced the agenda item and framed the work as a response to math achievement concerns. Missus Spiglioli (curriculum staff) described the process: vendors gave hour-long demonstrations, staff used a rubric informed by research and best practice, and building teams provided feedback that will determine the two pilot series.

Spiglioli said the district will not pilot a product that releases a new edition in fall 2025 until that edition is available; in that case, the district would pilot the second-choice product while it evaluates the new edition. She said the aim is to bring a program-change proposal to the board early next spring so teachers can be trained before the next school year.

Committee members and public commenters raised several implementation concerns. Board members asked whether the PA Core standards and the federal accountability structure require particular teaching approaches and whether students taking different curricula would be at a disadvantage on the PSSA. Spiglioli said Pennsylvania’s PA Core standards include the Common Core standards and that the PSSA assesses proficiency in those standards; she added that curricula should provide conceptual understanding as well as procedural skills. She also said the district expects teachers to expose students to multiple strategies but not require mastery of every strategy.

Board members and parents repeatedly raised the issue of parent support: some parents told committee members they cannot help children with math homework because the methods look unfamiliar. Spiglioli and other staff noted that many modern curriculum packages include parent-facing resources, videos or “parent books” and that technology in newer series can identify missing prerequisite skills and route students to targeted practice.

Staff also described how modern programs provide ongoing, formative measurement—pre-assessments and technology-driven diagnostics—to guide reteaching and small-group instruction rather than wait for end-of-year benchmarks.

Public comment echoed those concerns. A parent asked whether the district can adapt a purchased series to still “put the Bethel Park stamp on it” and whether contracts lock the district in for multiple years. Spiglioli said multi-year licensing provides financial advantages and that the first year the district typically implements the core as written while using district practices and supplemental tools (for example, Reflex or Formative) alongside the adopted program.

No formal adoption vote was taken at the committee meeting. Staff directed the pilot process to proceed: reconvene early next school year to select two pilot programs, include special-education teachers in pilot implementation, and return a formal program-change proposal to the board for approval in time for teacher training before the following school year.

The committee also discussed complementary district work: a homework policy under review at Curriculum Council and ongoing conversations about the state’s approach to the “science of math” (a research-informed set of practices some states promote). Spiglioli said Pennsylvania currently has no statewide “science of math” mandate comparable to the state-level science-of-reading initiatives in other states.

The committee agreed to continue evaluation, return detailed pilot plans to the board and to post the vendor-evaluation rubric and resources online for transparency.