Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District recommends HMH curriculum for secondary multilingual literacy; estimated $446,340 five-year contract
Summary
Curriculum director Adam McNichol presented the RFP process and recommended HMH for secondary multilingual literacy courses (grades 7–12), citing piloting, vendor demonstrations and reference checks; staff estimates a five-year contract at $446,340 (about $111.59 per student per year) and scheduled a public comment and formal board action on April 16.
Adam McNichol, leading the instructional-materials presentation, walked the board through the district’s RFP, pilot and evaluation process for secondary multilingual literacy materials (MLL grades 7–12). He said the district launched the RFP early, piloted materials with classroom teachers and arranged vendor demonstrations and reference checks to weigh relative strengths and weaknesses.
McNichol said the district’s review committee recommended HMH (the vendor named in the scoring) as the recommended product after multi-stage evaluations and classroom piloting. He described vendor collaboration to refine student counts and implementation plans and noted the vendor flew specialists in to work with the district’s MLL specialists on making the product fit mixed-level secondary classes.
On cost, McNichol told the board the recommended investment totals $446,340 for a five-year contract, which he broke down to about $89,000 per year and roughly $111.59 per affected student per year for the projected cohort. "What you see overall is that $446,340 dollar investment. That cost is for the full 5 year contract," he said.
McNichol emphasized professional learning as part of implementation: a half-day orientation in May and a full-day session in August, supplemented by vendor coaching during the contract period. He also described budget and license challenges—vendors price per student—so district staff would refine student counts through the summer.
Board members asked about training timing, references to other districts, and whether the elementary program (Vista) influenced committee thinking; McNichol said vendor references were checked and that the committee considered continuity but still selected HMH for secondary implementation. Public comment and a formal board action on the adoption were scheduled for a later meeting (April 16), giving the public opportunity to respond before a vote.
This item was informational at the March meeting; no final contract was approved at this session.
