Duxbury Middle School teachers report higher engagement, more planning time needed after year-one switch to Illustrative Mathematics

Duxbury Public Schools received a midyear update on the first year of implementing the Illustrative Mathematics (IM) curriculum at Duxbury Middle School, where teachers said the program has increased student talk and strategic thinking but requires more planning time and targeted supports for students with language and reading disabilities.

The presentation to the Duxbury Public Schools School Committee described IM as “a research‑backed, student‑centered curriculum” that emphasizes problem‑based learning, collaborative student discourse and conceptual understanding rather than teacher‑led procedures. Dan Whelan, a Duxbury Middle School teacher who helped lead the update, said the work requires teachers to “anticipat[e] what strategies students might use,” and described planning as “a little more like improv. But you do have to go in for sure with a plan.”

Teachers and special‑education staff told the committee that the curriculum has produced more student engagement and peer discussion. “Students that would probably try to, like, skate by through a math class without saying a word are now encouraged to talk,” a middle‑school teacher said during the presentation, adding that student‑led strategy sharing has become routine in many lessons.

At the same time, staff described operational and instructional challenges. A teacher who identified themself as a special‑education instructor said IM is “language heavy” and that the increased academic language has created additional barriers for students with reading or language disabilities. To respond, teachers reported embedding audio into assessments, adding sentence frames and taped model responses to student workbooks, and using manipulatives or graphic organizers. They also said some lessons provide only a small number of practice problems and that teachers are supplementing with digital practice tools such as DeltaMath and Desmos to provide the repetition some students need.

Teacher presenters described the deeper classroom routines IM requires: anticipating student strategies, selecting student work to highlight, facilitating synthesis discussions, and supporting productive struggle so students work through problems instead of being shown procedures. “He or she who talks the most learns the most,” one teacher said, summarizing the instructional aim of the program.

District leaders told the committee that professional development and coaching have been a priority and will continue. The committee heard that some grant funding supported initial implementation and that the district is exploring additional funding sources to sustain training and materials. Administrators also said they are piloting some IM practices at the high school and that a small number of high‑school teachers have begun using open IM resources; the district will evaluate whether a formal high‑school adoption is feasible in future years.

Committee members asked about family communication and homework. Teachers said unit‑level family letters and a family support hub exist and that teachers also send classroom‑level communications; presenters acknowledged that survey response rates from families were limited and said they will continue outreach.

The committee did not vote on curriculum changes at the meeting. District leaders said they will continue two‑year-plus supports for teachers, conduct walk‑throughs to strengthen grade‑level transitions (notably fifth to sixth grade), and monitor student data as implementation continues.

An extended teacher presentation and Q&A followed committee remarks; staff said they expect the instructional shifts to be iterative and to require sustained coaching over multiple years.