Whitnall board reviews and moves toward adopting Envision math after yearlong pilot

The Whitnall School District board heard a detailed recommendation to adopt Envision (HMH) as the district’s high-school core mathematics resource after teachers piloted four candidates and completed rubric reviews.

District curriculum staff told the board they piloted McGraw Reveal, Carnegie Learning, Envision and additional materials over the past school year and that teachers found Envision the best fit. "It was pretty unanimous that Envision was the resource that they wanted to to go with," the presenter said, citing teacher feedback and rubric results tied to the district’s strategic plan.

The recommendation was framed as part of a multi-year implementation and continuous-improvement effort. Staff said they will align scope and sequence to address known gaps—particularly where ACT content (for example, statistics and probability) falls later in typical textbooks—so students encounter those topics earlier in a revised sequence: "Oh, well the ACT this year was 17% statistics and probability, but that doesn't come up until coursework until chapter 12," the presenter said, arguing for intentional sequencing changes.

Staff emphasized features they said improve classroom engagement and teacher workflow: three-act problem tasks to connect math to real contexts; an extensive question bank and editable assessments; QR-linked virtual-tutor videos for students; a parent portal; and a Canvas LMS integration. The presenter noted that an independent EDA review placed Envision in the highest alignment band and that the platform supports multilingual accessibility, with Spanish as the most accessible quick option.

District staff gave cost and contracting estimates during the presentation. They described a six-year contract amount in two ways in the meeting record: the presenter said the six-year contract was "approximately about a little under $10,000 a year" for the core package (digital access, classroom sets and teacher editions and embedded training), and later summarized a "full cost" as "about $50,000 for six years" while also listing first-year professional development as about $3,500. The board requested the procurement documents and the rubric; staff said they would share the rubric and confirm final contract amounts in follow-up materials.

Trustees asked several substantive follow-up questions. They pressed for explicit evaluation criteria from the pilots and for measurable success markers; staff replied they will use ACT trends, algebra II passage rates and internal dashboard markers (passage rates and pre-AC assessments in grades 9–10) to monitor implementation. Trustees also raised concerns about customization versus fidelity; staff said the implementation plan includes upfront and ongoing professional development, building internal experts, and targeted coaching to preserve essential sequence and rigor while using platform customization where appropriate.

Staff proposed a one-year pilot for the district’s Math-for-Success intervention (SuccessMaker) for tier 2/3 students, with per-student pricing dependent on enrollment. That pilot would run alongside the core adoption and be evaluated for growth (staff said the aim would be approximately 1.3–1.4 years of typical growth to justify continued investment).

Next steps: staff will provide the rubric and procurement details to the board, finalize the contract figures, and set a data-led timeline for Year 0/Year 1 implementation and PD. No formal contract vote was recorded in the transcript excerpt; the board’s questions signaled expectation of follow-up materials and monitoring benchmarks.