Cornwall selects i‑Ready for K–5, IntoMath for grades 6–8 after year‑long pilot review

Megan Argenio, the presenter for the Cornwall Central School District’s math pilot update, told the board at its Feb. 10 working session that a yearlong, evidence‑based review of math materials led staff to recommend i‑Ready for K–5 and IntoMath for grades 6–8.

Argenio said the review began with vendor presentations and returned materials to grade‑level teams for classroom use; the committee then used a 12‑component rubric and six hours of analysis to compare programs. "The complete analysis took us 6 hours to do," Argenio said during the presentation.

The choice matters because the recommended resources include digital diagnostic tools and online components that the district plans to use to guide instruction and intervention. Argenio said the committee prioritized items such as online platform quality, differentiation, diagnostic tools, lesson format, scope and sequence, and family support when scoring vendors.

District staff described the selection process in detail: teachers and department chairs reviewed materials from multiple vendors in March–April 2024, teacher pilot teams completed structured feedback forms in November, and administrators used a rubric tied to 12 components to norm and score evidence. Committee membership for the review included building and department leaders who returned consolidated feedback to administration for final analysis. Argenio said the K–5 work will be rolled into i‑Ready and grades 6–8 into IntoMath, and that AIS (academic intervention services) staff will be trained on the diagnostic tools in the spring to support tier‑2 students.

Board members raised substantive questions during the discussion. One board member said they had heard mixed feedback from recent school visits and follow‑up research, and asked whether the district piloted the New York State alignment version of i‑Ready (Argenio responded that the district piloted the New York‑aligned materials). Other board members asked for the rubric and underlying data that produced the committee rankings; Argenio confirmed the rubric is based on the 12 components presented and said staff will provide the board with that documentation.

Concerns about i‑Ready’s strengths and weaknesses also surfaced. A board member summarized widely circulated criticisms — including gamification, adaptive diagnostic limits, and teachers’ questions about sustainability — and requested the committee's scoring details and evidence supporting the final recommendation. Argenio and other staff emphasized that no program is perfect, that both finalists had strengths and areas for growth, and that the next steps include targeted summer curriculum hours, continued SIP (school improvement planning) meetings, and ordering materials for fall 2025 as practicable.

Argenio described the plan for implementation and support: train AIS teams on diagnostics, continue pilot teacher training through the spring, schedule multiple summer training options, and provide in‑year vendor support. She also said principals and SIP teams will develop supplemental materials and pacing guides as needed to address identified gaps.

The board did not take a formal vote on purchase or contract at the Feb. 10 working session; staff presented the recommendation and committed to deliver the rubric, the grade‑level evidence, and an implementation timeline at future meetings.