Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum Math topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board packet recommends I‑Ready as core K‑5 math resource; six‑year purchase would use Title I funds to prebuy K‑3 consumables
Summary
District staff recommended I‑Ready Classroom Mathematics as the K–5 core math resource for a six‑school‑year contract. The recommended total cost is $335,665.41; staff said Title I funds will cover $214,311.84 of the upfront consumables purchase for grades K–3.
District academic staff recommended the board approve I‑Ready Classroom Mathematics as the core K–5 mathematics resource for a six‑school‑year contract.
Chief academic officer Mr. Kumar and curriculum staff told the board the district evaluated multiple resources over a year and a half and piloted options with teachers. Staff recommended a six‑year purchase to allow time for full implementation and to avoid repeating a selection cycle after only three years. The packet presented a total six‑year cost of $335,665.41.
Funding: staff explained that Title I federal funds will prepay consumable materials for kindergarten through third grade and that $214,311.84 of the total cost will be covered by Title I funds for the 2024–25 period through a front‑loaded purchase of consumables. Staff said the district will need space at buildings to store the materials that are being purchased up front.
Why it matters: the selection replaces the district’s current mix of diagnostic and instructional tools with a single adopted core program the district expects teachers to implement over multiple years. Staff said the i‑Ready platform already provides diagnostic assessments and individualized online activities; the proposed purchase adds a core instructional program with an online platform and consumable workbooks.
Discussion points: board members praised the vetting process and recognized the committee and pilot teachers; one board member noted the selection process aimed to avoid starting a new evaluation cycle too soon. A few board members asked clarifying questions about contract length and price structure; staff confirmed the quoted cost covers the full six‑year package as presented in the board packet.
Action: the recommendation appeared as part of the board action items in the packet; no roll‑call vote on the purchase amount was recorded in the transcript during this meeting. Staff said the item would be presented for board action as listed on the agenda.
Ending: staff said the six‑year timeline is intended to give teachers time to implement the program and to use the pilot data from the current year to guide rollout and professional development.
