District committee recommends i‑Ready math; board to consider formal adoption June 10

District 1 staff presented the final phase of a yearlong K–8 math curriculum review and recommended adopting i‑Ready Classroom Mathematics for the 2025‑26 school year. The curriculum committee reported it had reviewed four publisher submissions, used a rubric and teacher manual reviews, and built consensus that i‑Ready best matched the district’s priorities for coherence across grades, conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, math language routines and differentiated instruction.

Why it matters: Adopting a single K–8 curriculum aims to improve vertical alignment and student progress across grade levels. Staff said i‑Ready earned high marks on EdReports and offers a mix of classroom manipulatives, print workbooks, digital practice and embedded assessments that produce individualized learning paths.

What staff told the board - Committee process: Publishers made presentations (K–2, 3–5, 6–8 and administrators/parents). Committee members completed scoring rubrics; HMH Into Math and Amplify Desmos were eliminated in earlier rounds, leaving i‑Ready and McGraw‑Hill for final comparison. The committee recommended i‑Ready by consensus. - Curriculum features: Staff highlighted the program’s CRA (concrete‑representational‑abstract) progression, classroom manipulatives and kits for K–5, teacher background resources, weekly fluency practice, math language/discourse routines, and tiered intervention pathways when students struggle. - Assessment: Staff noted i‑Ready’s digital benchmarking and formative checks; they recommended the district transition away from the Galileo benchmarking system (the provider will no longer update Galileo) to i‑Ready’s benchmarking. Staff cautioned against over‑assessing students and said the district will choose which assessment options to use.

Questions and concerns from board members and staff Board members asked about potential drawbacks, especially assessment load and first‑year implementation complexity. Staff acknowledged a steep initial rollout, a large volume of materials, and the need to prioritize components for teachers rather than requiring every element immediately. They advised using May for public and staff review and tentatively scheduled a formal adoption vote for June 10.

Next steps The district has the full curriculum on display for public review at the district training center; staff asked parents and teachers to review materials in May and to submit questions ahead of the June adoption vote.