Mathematics Curriculum Adoption 2025-2026 Summary

The meeting was called to order at 4:51 p.m.

Veronica Galvan welcomed the committee and gave an overview of the committee’s work.  Veronica informed committee members that some adjustments to the meeting schedule may be necessary in order to meet process deadlines.  The committee’s input will always be considered in advance of changes which may include adding additional meetings or moving meeting locations. Veronica noted that the committee roster and work are public facing and meeting notes will be made available on the district’s Math Curriculum Selection Committee webpage.

BSD Staff and Committee Members introduced themselves to the group. Veronica stated that meeting observers are welcome to attend meetings; however, they must sign-in and are not allowed to participate in meeting activities.

• Roster
• Schedule

Veronica reviewed the materials selection process and timeline.  Notice of the intended math curriculum selection process was distributed in Spring 2025, applications for committee members were solicited, and the committee was formed. At the April 2026 Board meeting, the committee is tasked with making a materials recommendation to the Board in a first reading; however, the Board does not vote at that time.  The Board then has a month to review and research the committee’s recommendation.  In May, the committee submits a second reading and the Board votes.  In its work, the committee will consider:

• What is Board policy? What is state law/guidance in this area?  These items will be reviewed more in depth at the next meeting.
• It was noted that BSD was previously following a two-year adoption cycle and is now catching up to match the ODE cycle

• Instructional Materials Selection Process Chart

Toshiko Maurizio communicated that there is intentional diversity in the room; teachers, administrators, students. Toshiko explained that this committee does not make decisions, it makes recommendations and members need to be able to have open, collaborative discussions in conducting committee work. Community agreements help to facilitate honest and open discussion.  Committee members must come to this work as learners in understanding and considering various perspectives.  

• Toshiko introduced the Fist to Five Method for gauging consensus in decision making: 
  • Fist = No Support
  • 1 = Have strong reservations, but would support decision and not veto
  • 2 = Uncomfortable, but would support decision and not veto
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Support decision
  • 5 = Strongly support decision
  • All committee work is public and vote responses will be recorded. Members must be present at the meeting to vote. TOSAs are voting members.  Administrators are non-voting members.  Observers are allowed, but may not engage or vote in meeting topics.

• Dissenting Opinion 
  • Minority Report

• It is expected that committee members will fulfill multiple roles in the course of curriculum selection work:
  • As Learner:  Examine current practice, research, and relevant issues
  • As Collaborator:  Engage in civil discourse with committee members and respect diverse viewpoints while working to make recommendations that best serve the School Board and community
  • As Communicator:  Gather input and disseminate committee related information to allow for a full range of voices to contribute in the selection process
  • As Representative:  Provide an accurate and balanced representation of gathered input
  • As Advocate:  Express perspectives as to what will best serve students

Bao Vang introduced the 2024-2025 Community Agreements as a guide to committee collaboration.  Table groups reviewed the document and engaged in discussion around amendments to the agreements. Tables shared their feedback with the group and then practiced the Fist To Five Voting method to indicate their acceptance of the amended agreements. The agreements were passed with the following revisions noted in red [underlined]:

1. Focus on equity for ALL students 

2. Equity of Voice-Opportunity for all to voice their opinions and ideas (Use WAIT—Why am I talking?), encourage others to share, and active listening.

3. Honest and respectful dialogue

4. Challenge to think outside the box and be open to change; reach beyond the status quo; seek and encourage different opinions

5. Preparation as participants and facilitator (clearly stated purpose and outcomes, focus on the big picture outcome).

6. Be solution oriented, but be okay with multiple solutions. Accept that the solution may not be perfect; one size does not fit all.

7. Honor different styles of learning and processing (i.e., think time, out loud thinking)

8. Honor all team members’ opinions, backgrounds and contributions. Exercise self-awareness when you sense a belief that is being challenged you are not comfortable with.

9. Honor team member’s schedules.  Start and end meetings on time 

10. Respect the process and committee members.

Vote Totals (43 voting members)

0  = 0 votes,  1 = 0 votes,  2 = 0 votes,  3 = 1 vote, 4 = 17 votes, 5 = 25 votes

• Two Areas of Adoption Focus

• Oregon Math Project - Oregon Department of Education’s work on looking at standards to improve instruction in Oregon. Creating meaningful math for every student and consistency for all schools. Considers curricula, assessment, and best practices.  
• Four cornerstones: Focus, Engagement, Pathways, Belonging
• For the next meeting, the committee was tasked with reviewing pages 7-12 from the pre-work reading, From Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success For All  as homework and highlighting items critical as a lens to the adoption work.  Committee members should bring their copy of the book to the October meeting.

• Focus of Work - The hope is that for multilingual learners in content area classes, the content is already scaffolded for them; that the instructional strategies being used meet their needs.  As a committee, we will be looking for scaffolded strategies that are embedded in curricula; marrying both math and language standards.
• BSD English Learner (EL) OSAS Math Data was shared - These numbers reflect students that have ever been an EL student; includes exited and active EL students
  • EL = English learners.  These are students that come to BSD with another home language
  • The committee was asked to consider what stood out from the data
  • This data will impact the work we do and the materials we select to address issues illustrated by the data
  • The committee viewed the “Meet Moisés” video and discussed what they noticed:
    • The teacher did not seem to have any knowledge of the student’s english language proficiency
    • Was Moisés literate in Spanish?  Could he even read in his home language?
    • The word “blocks” had multiple meanings.  That vocabulary word is not scaffolded.
    • Moisés was working very hard to keep up with what was happening around him and the expectations
    • The teacher did not look at the work on paper
    • Why the test was not considered important for Moisés - held to a different standard
    • Classroom was not set up for collaboration
    • Curricula does not teach self advocacy
  • In Beaverton, we have about 6,000 EL classified students across the district.  We also have one of the highest numbers of newcomer students in the state of Oregon.
  • Committee members should bring the book, From Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success For All to the next meeting where the committee will start looking at data, strategies, and best practices for math. The Education Week article, “Math Is Also a Foreign Language to English-Learners. How to Reach Them,” was also referenced.
  • Discussed how ELP standards overlap with math standards.  Math instruction is more web-like than linear.  There is a connection between language and content.  
  • Look for curricula that include built in mathematical language routines and strategies.  In our data, we want to see that students have the subject “knowledge”
    • Curricula should have clear, non-distracting visuals
    • Are they aligned to math standards?
    • Does the curriculum reflect a diverse range of student backgrounds?

• Selection Committee Webpage
  • Meeting Notes, documents, and information will be shared on the Mathematics Curriculum Selection 2025-2026 webpage
  • The page is currently under construction and will be continuously updated

The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Next Meeting:  October 15, 2025

Location:  BSD District Administration Office, Douglas Fir Board Room

The meeting was called to order at 4:50p.m.

Revised Community Agreements from September meeting

Veronica Galvan explained to the committee that the state establishes the cycle for content area materials selection. The materials must be in accordance with the National Materials Accessibility Standards (NIMAS) and available in alternate formats. The materials selection process must allow for parent and community participation. Once the committee makes a recommendation to the board, the community will be provided an opportunity to review the recommended materials.

The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) makes sure students have access to High Quality Instructional Materials (HQIM ) as part of an equitable education setting. Materials must 1. Align to grade level standards 2. Be culturally responsive 3. Reflect evidence-based practices. Additionally, HQIM should contain inclusive practices, supports for teachers and students, embedded assessments, and  honor the experiences of diverse learners and educators. In order to be approved for classroom use, adopted materials are subject to an evaluation process and must meet specific criteria.

Evaluators are trained to use ODE’s IMET tool and apply it to materials review. Independent adoption is also an option, but review criteria must still be met.

•  ODE High Quality Instructional Materials (HQIM)

•  Instructional Materials Review Criteria - 2021 Oregon Mathematics
•  Math IMET K-5 (Category 1 & Category 2)
•  Math IMET Grades 6-8 (Category 3)
•  Math IMET High-School Core (Category 4)
•  Math IMET High-School Third Credit +1 (Category 5)

• Math OSAS Comparison Scores 2024-2025  - Oregon Statewide Assessment System (OSAS) assessments are taken after learning occurs. In BSD, OSAS assessments are given in grades 3-5, 6-8, and 11th grade.
• OSAS District Comparisons
• Math ACT/PreACT10 Comparison Scores 2024-2025 - PreACT is given in 8th Grade, ACT in 10th grade. It was noted that at the high school level, there is higher participation in taking the ACT than the OSAS tests.
• Middle School and High School Marks (C or above) - Formative assessments.  Teacher generated.
• STAR Screener Data - New assessment that is part of BSD’s Multi-Tiered System of Support. 
• Data Driven Dialogue = The committee utilized this tool for examining
  • Phase 1: Predictions
    • Surfacing perspectives, beliefs, assumptions, predictions, possibilities, questions and expectations
  • Phase 2: Observations
    • Analyzing the data for patterns, trends, surprises, and questions
  • Phase 3: Inferences
    • Generating hypotheses, beliefs, assumptions, predictions, possibilities, questions and expectations

One presenter shared each group’s collective thoughts regarding their quantitative data set review:

STAR Screener - Starting this school year, high school only gave the test in AGS 1 and AGS 2. All ninth graders in AGS 1 would have gotten a C or below in 8th grade math.  Accelerated students did not test and were not included as well as ELD students.  The test is only given in Spanish and English, which excludes other languages.  The time the students spent taking the test was the greatest indicator of validity of the test. The STAR screener may not be the best assessment at high school.  Good for Tier 2 and 3 interventions, but it’s not telling a picture of all high school students.  From 2nd-8th grade the data was consistent at 50th percentile or higher.  When EL students are separated, the percentile drops.

(Group 2) - Wondered about instructional hours of seat work in math as compared to other districts, noting that BSD has reduced math time in half (middle and high school).  Wondered about test opt out trends, stating that students that traditionally test well are more often opting out. 

(Group 2) Would be nice to have the data by cohort to follow the same students.  Would like attendance data.  Wanted data prior to the last adoption.

The committee will review qualitative data at the next meeting generated from student and staff surveys. Staff will be advocating to get diverse participation and more representation in the survey.  A Parent Survey is forthcoming.

MLD TOSA, Tisa Meador, and Math TOSA, Kerry Forsell, led article/book study activities for the following:

• Education Week article - Math Is Also a Foreign Language to English-Learners. How to Reach Them 
  • Teaching math is like teaching another language. Scaffolding strategies are essential for English Learners (ELs). Look for those strategies in curriculum materials. Math classes provide opportunities to teach math skills and language. There are many “words” in math.  Some words have multiple meanings (e.g. tables, mean, sine/sign).  Breaking down the vocabulary of the content area.  In summary:
    • Position multilingual learners to be successful 
    • Be culturally responsive
    • Focus on persevering, not working fast 
    • Have high expectations of multilingual learners. Everyone is a “math person” including English Learners.

• Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All
  • Committee members were asked to participate in self reflection comparing their own experience with math to the beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics identified in the book
  • Committee members shared thoughts on top three mathematics Teaching Practices
  • The committee reflected on essential elements and beliefs as “look fors.” What does productive curriculum look like?

• Committee members were asked to review the IMET tool for their grade level and identify criteria critical as a lens for instructional materials selection work
• Using the Language Arts/ELP adoption as an example, committee members will complete “Look Fors” and develop a list of BSD priorities for math curriculum for the next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 6:45p.m.

Next Meeting:  November 12, 2025 (extended meeting)

Location:  BSD District Administration Office, Community Room

Welcome & Agenda Overview

Veronica Galvan, Administrator for Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment, welcomed the committee and outlined the evening’s agenda. Veronica provided a short review of High Quality Instructional Materials (HQIM) criteria, referencing  HQIM (as related to the previous Language Arts adoption), ODE HQIM, and consideration of Independent Adoption.  Veronica explained that using the Oregon Department of Education’s (ODE) Mathematics Instructional Materials Evaluation Toolkit (IMET), submitted mathematics curricula were scored  by a team of trained evaluators and identified as either “Meets” or “Does Not Meet” Oregon Adoption Criteria.  For the previous math curriculum adoption, Beaverton School District conducted its own HQIM ranking, however, the process took two years to complete.  ODE recognizes the time that the independent process takes and subsequently undertook the HQIM evaluation at the statewide level in supporting districts.

Review of Other Data Requested

Toshiko Maurizio, Multilingual Programs Administrator, shared additional data that was requested by committee members at the previous meeting.  The committee reviewed the data in their table groups, compared it to the data examined at the previous meeting, and shared key takeaways:

• OSAS Opt-Outs by enrollment for the 2024-25 school year 
  • English Language Learners were consistently one of the groups that opted out the least
  • High schoolers had the highest opt out rates
    • 20.50% of high schoolers with 504 Plans opted out.  This is significantly higher than for elementary and middle school students with 504 Plans.
    • It was noted that high school Talented and Gifted (TAG) students may have opted out at higher rates because they have already qualified for the TAG designation; whereas at the Elementary and Middle levels, the test is used as a TAG identifier and so may contribute to lower opt-outs.
• ACT/PreACT scores back to 2015-16 - (Note: Data reported here begins with 2015-2016 because the ACT test changed in Fall 2015) 
  • It was noted that while 11th grade ACT scores have been going down, 10th grade PreACT scores have been going up.
  • An ~ 30% performance gap was noted between the Black/African American population and the district average.  Committee members inquired why the district was not able to meet the needs of this presumably English-speaking population. 
• OSAS scores back to 2014-15 
  • OSAS Math Proficiency Takeaways:  
    • It was noted that performance was level, then dropped, then level again
    • Committee members discussed when the OSAS test changed, noting that students used to be able to take the test multiple times and that the number of questions was reduced from 45 to 17.  There was also a change from OAKS to OSAS.
    • The committee inquired how far the district was in its current math adoption. The high school AGS adoption took place in Fall 2016.  CPM was adopted in Fall 2017.
    • Committee members noted an overall reduction in instructional math minutes.
    • Before 2024-2025, ODE counted students as not proficient if they took extended assessments.

Toshiko remarked that BSD is one of the most linguistically diverse districts in the state and recommended keeping this fact in mind during the adoption process; in particular, as the committee works to create a list of district priorities.

Summary of Qualitative Feedback (Student, Staff, Parents) 

• folder of resources 
• Math TOSA, Nick Hershman, presented a summary of an approximate 11,000 survey results including responses from students, staff, and parents. Nick explained that most of the parent survey questions were open-ended versus fixed questions and therefore produced wide ranging answers to analyze. The Math Team utilized two AI strategies to summarize survey results: 1.  Random sampling of all responses to identify themes 2.  For the Parent Survey, the team read through responses and identified 30 themes that parents were likely to express.  ChatGPT was used to classify each response into the themes. Results were disaggregated.

• Many parents indicate they want the traditional algorithm; number sense, place value.  
• Math is taught differently in different geographic areas. This poses a challenge for parents who want to assist students at home, but were instructed in math skills in a different way.
• Strong dislike reported of Dreambox
• What is the correlation between parents and students who prefer paper vs. digital format; traditional pedagogy with paper/pencil?  The committee wondered if new methods of teaching would be perceived as more acceptable if they were paper/pencil based.
• Jenn Mann, Math TOSA, noted that Parent survey responses were mostly open-ended and that the topic that came up the most was “want students to receive more support.”

Review of Current Math Sequence and Materials to Select

• Elementary
• Middle (new sequence)
• High (A high school work group is assessing whether to recommend keeping the current integrated AGS model or separating into Algebra, Geometry, Data Science.)

Review of Math Research and Best Practices, Summary of Book Study

• Look Fors

• Use a combination of discourse strategies - Sentence frames are important in the curriculum to facilitate the conversation in the intended way.  Helps facilitate understanding for progression to next steps. Need a step to follow for intervention groups.  
  • Bao noted that we also need to teach students how to listen and to have conversation with the whole class, not just the teacher.
• Clear goals:  If not clear in discussion, it can just turn into show and tell.  Goals need to be tailored to the A day and B day model.  
  • Bao noted that the curriculum should have clear targets and desired outcomes. Students build procedural fluency from conceptual understanding of math concepts. It is important to find a curriculum that includes both examples and conceptual strategies (e.g. How do I go about doing something…?)
• A common theme is that students need support with the “productive struggle” in learning math. How can we support building confidence so students feel they can succeed down the line?  How do we make the curriculum engaging for students and incorporate problem solving?  
• Teachers bring their own anxieties about math.  Having a curriculum with built-in scaffolds and supports is important.  
• Proficiency based grading has moved to more tests and quizzes for assessments.  That single modality of assessment is challenging for special education students. Would like to see more modalities for assessment.  Students with sensory impairment often need to access materials and demonstrate knowledge in a different way.  
• Providing opportunities for productive struggle yields differentiation; the key term being “productive.”
• Oregon’s Adolescent Literacy Framework includes a section about math.  There is reading in math. In reading, we assess fluency, accuracy, comprehension.  Historically, comprehension has not been a part of math education.  Understanding is key.  Today, math looks different because more teachers are emphasizing the “understanding” factor, which helps incorporate the joy in learning math, rather than just focusing on speed and accuracy.

• When you teach for comprehension, it makes math like the other content areas
• Is it a disservice to students if they don’t understand the “why” behind their work?
• We want students to understand that there are multiple ways to arrive at a math solution - procedural understanding.  Understanding the landscape of the problem.

Finalization of Committee Priorities 

• Qualitative data results
• Review BSD Strategic Plan and Math Specific Strategic Plan Goals
• Review ELA priorities 
• Review Math Looks Fors 
  • Priority development: Each committee member marked their top three priorities

• Next steps: The Math TOSA Team will use the indicated priorities to create a rubric
• On December 3,  the committee will apply the rubric to a publisher gallery walk preview
• The team will condense the rubric scores to debrief on December 10 and narrow down publishers to invite to make formal presentations.

Closing

• The next committee meeting will occur on Wednesday, December 3, 2025 where committee members will participate in a Materials Gallery Walk Preview by level and submit an initial evaluation of materials.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:40p.m.

Location:  BSD District Administration Office, Community Room

Veronica Galvan, Administrator for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment welcomed the committee and outlined the evening’s agenda.

Secondary Math Teacher on Special Assignment, Jennifer Mann, introduced the rubric the committee would be using to evaluate sample math curricula from the Oregon Department of Education’s (ODE) Mathematics adoption list.  The curriculum Priorities/Look Fors identified by the committee, qualitative data (survey) results, as well as the district’s strategic plan and math specific goals, guided the development of the rubric.

•  Rubric 

Organized by instructional level, committee members individually reviewed the following curricula for a set time period:

• Elementary
  • McGraw Hill Reveal Math
  • Savvas enVision Mathematics
  • Imagine Learning Illustrative Mathematics
  • Accelerate Learning STEMscopes Math
  • Great Minds Eureka Math Squared Universal Edition
• Middle
  • Amplify Desmos Math
  • Great Minds Eureka Math Squared Universal Edition
  • MidSchool Math Core Curriculum
  • Savvas enVision Math
  • Imagine Learning Illustrative Mathematics
• High
  • CPM Core Connections 
  • Imagine Learning Illustrative Mathematics
  • Savvas enVision 
  • McGraw Hill Reveal
  • OpenUp Resources HS Math

Committee members individually ranked the curricula they reviewed for their instruction level from 1-5, with 1 indicating top choice.

Following ranking, committee members engaged in discussion with their assigned table groups regarding the rationale for their ranking.

At the next meeting on December 10, 2025, the committee will review another set of ODE approved math materials followed by a debrief of all materials evaluated.  At the conclusion of the next meeting, the committee will select four publishers per instruction level to invite to make formal presentations.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.

Next meeting:  December 10, 2025 (extended meeting)

Location:  BSD District Administration Office, Community Room

The committee was given an opportunity to review publisher responses to additional questions asked regarding Spanish translation, resources, and digital supports, necessary engagement time with online (versus print) resources to experience a program’s full value, scope and sequence for block schedules, supplemental materials, and progress monitoring tools.  

The committee was instructed on the final voting process consisting of a ranked choice point-based system as follows:

• First Choice = 5 points
• Second Choice = 4 points
• Third Choice = 3 points
• Fourth Choice = 2 points
• Fifth Choice = 1 point

Each committee member may only submit one Google response during voting and can only vote for a preference one time.

Organized by instructional level, committee members individually reviewed the following curricula for a set time period in a continuation of the materials gallery walk preview:

• Elementary
  • Big Ideas Oregon Math
  • Curriculum Associates i-Ready
  • HMH Into Math
  • Origo Stepping Stones

*OpenUp Resources was eliminated from further consideration based upon initial review by the math materials planning committee and IMET criteria.

• Middle
  • Curriculum Associates i-Ready
  • Accelerate Learning STEMscopes
  • HMH Into Math
  • McGraw Hill Reveal Math

*Agile Mind, Big Ideas Learning, Carnegie Learning, CPM Core Connections, EdGems, and OpenUp Resources were eliminated from further consideration at the agreement of committee members based upon an initial review of criteria reflecting adoption priorities including high quality, full Spanish translations and language supports, family supports, student/teacher resources, and low-floor/high-ceiling tasks.

• High
  • Carnegie Learning
  • Big Ideas Oregon Math
  • Agile Mind
  • CPM Core Connections

*Accelerate Learning STEMscopes Math was eliminated from further consideration as the program did not encompass the full range of high school core curriculum.

Using a rubric, committee members individually ranked the curricula they reviewed for their instruction level from 1-5, with 1 indicating top choice.

• Rubric 

At the conclusion of the Gallery Walk and initial ranking, committee members were given an opportunity to revisit all materials. 

Utilizing a Google form, committee members submitted an initial ranked choice point-based vote indicating preference for curricula in their instructional level.

In instructional level groups, the committee engaged in structured conversations on materials reflections and were given an additional opportunity to revisit all materials.

Utilizing the Google form, committee members submitted their final ranked choice point-based vote to determine four publishers per instructional level (Elementary, Middle, High) to invite to make formal presentations to the committee.  The results were as follows:

1. Curriculum Associates, Inc. (i-Ready)      66 points
2. Savvas Learning (enVision)                       62 points
3. Imagine Learning (Illustrative Math)       59 points
4. Accelerate Learning (STEMscopes)          54 points

1. Curriculum Associates, Inc. (i-Ready)      34 points
2. Savvas Learning (enVision)                       27 points
3. Imagine Learning (Illustrative Math)       26 points
4. McGraw Hill (Reveal)                                  15 points

1. Carnegie Learning (HS Math Solution)    45 points
2. McGraw Hill (Reveal)                                  45 points
3. Imagine Learning (Illustrative Math)       38 points
4. Big Ideas Learning (Oregon Math)           26 points

Final vote results were shared with the committee at-large. 

Next steps:  Committee members will attend the publisher presentation session aligned with the instructional level materials they reviewed. Elementary/Middle presentations will be held on Tuesday, January 13, 2026 and High School level presentations will be held on Thursday, January 15, 2026.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

Publisher Presentations

A full day of publisher presentations occurred on Tuesday, January 13, 2026 and Thursday, January 15, 2026.  

On January 13, 2026, the district’s Math Materials Selection Committee members heard formal presentations from the following publishers in accordance with their respective instructional levels:

Elementary (K-5)

• Curriculum Associates, Inc. (i-Ready Classroom Mathematics OR edition)
• Savvas Learning (enVision Mathematics)
• Imagine Learning (Illustrative Mathematics)
• Accelerate Learning (STEMscopes)

Middle (6-8)

• Savvas Learning (enVision Mathematics)
• Curriculum Associates, Inc. (i-Ready Classroom Mathematics OR edition)
• McGraw Hill (Reveal Mathematics)
• Imagine Learning (Illustrative Mathematics)

On January 15, 2026, high school representatives from the district’s Math Materials Selection Committee heard formal presentations from the following publishers:

High (9-12)

• McGraw Hill (Reveal Mathematics)
• Imagine Learning (Illustrative Mathematics)
• Big Ideas Learning (Oregon Math)
• Carnegie Learning (High School Math Solution)

At the start of each presentation day, selection committee members were provided instruction on utilizing a rubric to assess presentations and alignment of materials with district priorities and goals. At the conclusion of each presentation day, selection committee members engaged in reflection and discussion to debrief curricula strengths and gaps. Committee members then voted on two publishers per instructional level to advance to the pilot phase of the materials selection process.

• Rubric

The voting results were as follows:

• Results

Savvas Learning (enVision Mathematics)  

Middle:  Savvas Learning (enVision Mathematics) AND Imagine Learning (Illustrative Mathematics)

High:  Carnegie Learning (High School Math Solution) AND Imagine Learning (Illustrative Mathematics)

Piloting is scheduled at 42 BSD schools based upon teacher interest, for four week periods:

Pilot #1 Window:  February 2, 2026 - February 26, 2026

High:  Carnegie Learning (High School Math Solution)

Pilot #2 Window (MS/HS Only):  March 2, 2026 - April 3, 2026

High:  Imagine Learning (Illustrative Mathematics)

Pilot #2 Window (ES Only):  March 3, 2026 - April 3, 2026

Elementary:  Curriculum Associates, Inc. (i-Ready Classroom Mathematics OR edition)

Public viewing of pilot curricula online and in person will be available at the District Administrative Office and several school sites during the piloting timeline.

Upon completion of school-based piloting with students, the Materials Selection Committee will review feedback from piloting teachers, students, and the community to inform curricula recommendations to the BSD School Board for adoption.

Location:  BSD District Administration Office, Douglas Fir Board Room

Toshiko Maurizio, Administrator for Multilingual Programs, welcomed the committee and thanked them for their dedication during the publisher presentations the previous week.

Publisher Presentation Debrief - Bao Vang, Executive Administrator PK-8 Schools, Mathematics, led a debrief exercise. Tables were arranged by instructional level and allowed time for brief discussions together using the following guided questions:

• Which pilot presentation(s) did you attend?
• What went well for you during the pilot publisher presentations and selection?
• What could we do better for next time during the pilot publisher presentations and selection?
• Anything else we should know about the pilot publisher presentations and selection?

Committee members were also offered a survey link to submit responses electronically.

The committee was organized by instructional level in groups of three.  Using wipebooks to brainstorm ideas, committee members considered:

• What do we want to learn from the pilot?
• What can we learn from student and teacher experiences?  
• What data must be collected?
• How should we evaluate the data to inform our final curriculum recommendations?

The committee members engaged in private reasoning time to review the rubric used for publisher presentations as a starting point, and identify key items that would be helpful on a pilot evaluation tool; the goal being to distinguish a shared vision of what’s missing and what evidence is needed to make a good decision.

The committee then broke into instructional level groups for final discussion and to share thoughts. District Math Teachers on Special Assignment took note of committee reflections and suggestions to incorporate in the creation of a rubric for pilot materials evaluation.

Veronica Galvan, Administrator for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, reviewed with the committee the timeline for piloting and decision making in accordance with the School Board reporting and approval process.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.

Location:  BSD District Administration Office, Douglas Fir Board Room

• Welcome/Announcements
  • Veronica Galvan welcomed the committee and reviewed the meeting agenda.  Veronica informed the committee that both Veronica and Toshiko Maurizio (Multilingual Programs Administrator), had an unexpected conflict with the committee’s next meeting scheduled for April 8.  The April meeting is a significant meeting where the committee will vote on its curriculum recommendations to the Board.  As it is important for the administrators to be present for the voting process, Veronica presented the committee with a new meeting date of Monday, April 6 (Grading Day) and offered several options for the meeting time (1-4pm, 2-5pm, or 4:45pm-7:45pm).  Teachers would be compensated for their time. Committee members filled out a survey to indicate their preference and agreed to reschedule the meeting to April 6, 2026 from 1:00pm - 4:00pm. 

• Debrief of Pilot #1 - Overview 
  • Middle School Math TOSA, Jennifer Mann, explained the protocol that the committee would follow for reviewing Student and Teacher feedback from the first pilot programs.  After sharing Pilot #1 Teacher and Student evaluation data, the committee would spend about an hour taking a deeper dive into the data. The committee will follow this same format again for debriefing the second pilot curricula.  Jennifer informed the committee that Student Survey data was collected from third grade and up.  In its review of the pilot data, the committee is ultimately tasked with the goal of identifying strengths and limitations of the curriculum based on the experiences of pilot students and teachers.  At the April meeting, the committee will review Student and Teacher evaluation feedback of the Pilot #2 curricula and make a comparison of strengths and limitations.  

• Reviewing Pilot #1 Feedback Protocol
  • 20 minutes - As a whole group organized by instructional level (elementary, middle, high) each committee member had an opportunity to engage and speak using a sentence frame: “The most important strength/limitation I see is___. A way we might address this is____.”  Committee members were also offered the opportunity to submit curriculum strengths and limitations via a Google form as well.
  • 5 minutes - Allocated for committee members to view the strengths and limitations noted by other groups.
  • 25 minutes - Allotted for table group discussion (by instructional level) where groups subsequently identified and recorded on chart paper, strengths and limitations of the curriculum based on the experiences of pilot students and teachers.  
  • 10 minutes - Allotted for private reasoning time to digest the data
  • 20-30 minutes - Allotted for a guided walk-through of the data, a presentation of what was collected and how it was organized, and guidance on how the committee might go about making sense of the information.

• Review of Pilot #1 Teacher and Student feedback 
  • High School Math TOSA, Nick Hershman, reviewed how the Student and Teacher pilot evaluation data was collected and organized for review by the committee
  • See Pilot Evaluation Shared Folder
  • Teacher Survey:  Included both fixed form and open-ended questions.
    •  Fixed Form questions were scaled as follows:
      • 1 = Does Not Meet Expectations
      • 2 = Nearly Meets Expectations
      • 3 = Meets Expectations
      • 4 = Exceeds Expectations
      • N/A = Does Not Apply
    • Results were summarized using a color-coded scale, based upon a 2.7 scale in alignment with BSD grading guidelines where 2.7 = B
      • Neutral = 2.7 = Beige
      • Above 2.7 = Green
      • Less than 2.7 =  Red
  • Open-ended questions/responses are indicated with a “q” on the tab title
    • Nick suggested that committee members use the  “Command F” function to search open responses for key terms
  • Student Survey:  Students in third grade and up filled out surveys with their email addresses, which connected them to their record in Synergy so that grade level/demographics could be determined.  Based on level (3-5, 6-8, 9-12), students answered one fixed form and two open-ended questions.  The fixed form question asked students to rate their experience with the curriculum on a 1-5 scale with 1 being the lowest rating and five being the highest rating.  The open-ended questions asked students to reflect upon what they liked and disliked about the curriculum and were framed with sentence prompts. 
    • With the assistance of AI, student survey open responses were sorted in increasing order by grade, and from most positive to least positive sentiment within each grade
    • Student program rankings were sorted by: All students, then grade level, student ethnicity, students receiving special education services, ELL identification 

• Closing/Next Steps
  • The next committee meeting will be rescheduled to Monday, April 6, 2026 from 1:00-4:00pm at the District Administrative Office.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:35pm.

Location:  BSD District Administration Office, Community Room

• Welcome/Announcements

• Debrief of Pilot #2 - Overview 

Secondary Math TOSA, Nick Hershman, provided an overview of the Pilot #2 student and teacher evaluation feedback.  He explained that at this meeting, the committee will also look at community feedback in comparison.

• See Pilot Evaluation Shared Folder
  • Pilot #1 Feedback results for Savvas enVision+ (K-5), Savvas enVision+ (6-8), and Carnegie Learning (9-12) are located in the folder “Pilot 1.0 - Feb.”
  • Pilot #2 Feedback results for Curriculum Associates i-Ready (K-5), Imagine Learning Illustrative Mathematics (6-8), and Imagine Learning Illustrative Mathematics (9-12) are located in the folder “Pilot 2.0 - Mar.”
  • Teacher Survey:  Included both fixed form and open-ended questions.
    •  Fixed Form questions were scaled as follows:
      • 1 = Does Not Meet Expectations
      • 2 = Nearly Meets Expectations
      • 3 = Meets Expectations
      • 4 = Exceeds Expectations
      • N/A = Does Not Apply
    • Results were summarized using a color-coded scale from Dark Red (Does Not Meet Expectations) to Dark Green (Exceeds Expectations). The color coded scaling from Pilot #1 feedback surveys was adjusted accordingly to match Pilot #2 coding. M/E = Meets or Exceeds, N = # respondents. The graph is organized by most positive to most negative responses.
  • Open-ended questions/responses are indicated with a “q” on the tab title.  Student open responses are on the first tab of each instructional level feedback sheet.
  • Student Survey:  As with Pilot #1, students in third grade and up filled out surveys with their email addresses, which connected them to their record in Synergy so that grade level/demographics could be determined.  Based on level (3-5, 6-8, 9-12), students answered one fixed form and two open-ended questions.  The fixed form question asked students to rate their experience with the curriculum on a 1-5 scale with 1 being the lowest rating and five being the highest rating.  The open-ended questions asked students to reflect upon what they liked and disliked about the curriculum and were framed with sentence prompts. 
    • With the assistance of AI, student survey open responses were sorted in increasing order by grade, and from most positive to least positive sentiment within each grade
    • Student program rankings were sorted by: All students, then grade level, student ethnicity, students receiving special education services, ELL identification

• Reviewing Pilot #2 Feedback Protocol
  • The committee followed the same procedure for reviewing Pilot #2 feedback as was implemented for Pilot #1 with the goal of identifying strengths and limitations of curricula based upon the experiences of pilot students and teachers.
    • 20-30 minutes - Allotted for a guided walk-through of the data, a presentation of what was collected and how it was organized, and guidance on how the committee might go about making sense of the information.
    • 10 minutes - Allotted for private reasoning time to digest the data
    • 25 minutes - Allotted for table group discussion (by instructional level) where groups subsequently identified and recorded on chart paper, strengths and limitations of the curriculum based on the experiences of pilot students and teachers.  
    • 5 minutes - Allocated for committee members to view the strengths and limitations noted by other groups.
    • 20 minutes - As a whole group organized by instructional level (elementary, middle, high) each committee member had an opportunity to engage and speak using a sentence frame: “The most important strength/limitation I see is___. A way we might address this is____.”  Committee members were also offered the opportunity to submit curriculum strengths and limitations via a Google form as well.
  • Nick noted that the number of people piloting in a school was highly variable.  To balance survey representation, a weighted treatment of the data was also applied.  However, Bao Vang, Executive Administrator - Math, advised the committee to look at the numbers in their entirety (e.g. 6 teachers = 6 separate votes)

• Comparison of Pilot Curricula, Community Feedback, and Discussion
  • The committee forewent its break to continue the work of comparing pilot curricula
  • Nick Hershman explained the protocol for comparing pilot feedback.  Comparative data summaries are located in the “Comparisons” shared folder. The response spreadsheets have two tabs, “Community Survey” and “Teacher.” Community survey respondents may have multiple identities (e.g. Parent/Guardian, Staff, Community Member).  The Teacher tab is sorted alphabetically by publisher.
  • Veronica Galvan clarified that pilot teachers were forced to select one of the two publishers to indicate their preference.  “Neither” was not a choice; although, in their comments they could indicate “Neither.”

• Comparison Protocol (1 hour allotted) Goal:  To compare the two pilot curricula and identify strengths and limitations of each.
  • 10 minutes - Private time for committee members to review comparison data individually
  • 15 minutes 
    • Table group discussion about strengths and limitations
    • Think about strengths & limitations of each
  • 35 minutes - As a whole group organized by instructional level (elementary, middle, high) each committee member had an opportunity to engage and speak using a sentence frame: The curriculum I think we should choose is _________ because _________. 

• Reflection/Voting

Committee members were given a final opportunity for reflection and then proceeded to vote on their recommendation to the Board via Google form.  Votes were cast by instructional level.

• Vote Results (37 voting)
  • Elementary (K-5)
    • 16 votes - Curriculum Associates i-Ready
    • 0 votes - Savvas enVision+
  • Middle (6-8)
    • 9 votes - Imagine Learning Illustrative Mathematics
    • 0 votes - Savvas enVision+
  • High (9-12)
    • 11 votes - Imagine Learning Illustrative Mathematics
    • 1 vote - Carnegie Learning

• Closing/Next Steps

Veronica Galvan announced that the committee’s recommendations would be presented to the School Board for a First Reading on Tuesday, April 14, 2026.  On May 12, the Board will vote on whether to adopt and purchase the recommended curricula.  Veronica reminded the committee that the results of the committee’s vote are confidential until they are shared publicly with the Board at the April meeting.  Toshiko Maurizio, Multilingual Program Administrator, clarified that the committee submits a recommendation to the Board, but the Board can change its mind.  Veronica shared that there will be one last committee meeting in May to wrap up the group’s work.  A Google survey form is available for committee members to provide additional feedback.  Additionally, any committee member who does not agree with the outcome of the vote can submit a written dissenting opinion.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 13, 2026 at 4:45 p.m.