Instructional materials adoption with every publisher claim checked against the pages, and every committee score left to the committee
Every bid scored on the same rubric, and every publisher claim checked against the pages.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Instructional materials adoption review is the work a district committee does to choose the core materials for a subject: reading every publisher's bid, scoring it against a rubric and the state standards, reaching consensus, and taking a recommendation to the board. Instructional Materials Adoption Review puts seven agents in front of the reading and checking, with every lesson mapped to the standards and every publisher claim tested against the pages, while members, the chair and the board make every decision.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
Instructional materials adoption is how a school district chooses the core materials it will teach a subject from for the next six to eight years. For a K–5 mathematics adoption that can mean seven publisher bids, 38,042 pages of teacher editions, student books, correlations and price sheets, and a committee of teachers, specialists, principals and parents reading them at night on top of their own work. Nobody can open every lesson a correlation lists, so the publisher's own map to the state standards is trusted rather than checked.
Then the curriculum adoption process runs on paper rubrics and long meetings. Members argue every criterion of every bid, including the ones they already agree on; split scores go unexplained; a supplement left out of the price, or a sales representative's email to a member during the restricted-contact period, surfaces only when a board member or a losing bidder asks. The board packet and any bid protest file are rebuilt by hand from emails and spreadsheets. Instructional Materials Adoption Review puts seven agents in front of the reading and the checking, and keeps every score with people.
Estimated split of a K–5 adoption's calendar weeks, by hand and with the agents, from the work as districts describe it and the sample adoption's own dates. Members still score on their own and the public review period is set by law, so those rows barely move — our arithmetic, kept modest.
Seven agents read every page, map standards, test publisher claims and show where scores split; members score, the chair records, the director verifies.
Marlow Bay Unified School District is adopting K–5 mathematics under RFP MB-2026-114: seven bids, a 41-member committee and about 21,000 students. Here is what happens to Bid D, Bright Numbers K–5, screen by screen, in the working solution.
The RFP closed Friday, September 4, at 2:00 p.m.; one response arrived at 2:14 p.m. and was returned unopened. The Intake agent pulled seven responsive bids and read 38,042 pages, with the RFP's required items present in 83 of 84. When Bid E's publisher sample portal stopped answering, the screen said so and kept what was already read.
The agent mapped 9,860 lessons to the state's 148 K–5 standards across all seven bids. In grade 4, Bid D teaches 25 of 28 standards in its core books, and two of the fractions standards, 4.NF.B.3 and 4.NF.B.4, are marked as taught only in a supplement outside the price.
Bid D's correlation, page 12, says 4.NF.B.3 is "fully addressed in Lessons 6.4–6.7". Those lessons teach equivalent fractions; adding and subtracting appears only in Fraction Studio, which price sheet line 18 lists as an optional add-on at $9.75 per student per year, not in the total. For 10,600 students in grades 3–5 over six years, that is $620,100.
Bid price $3,184,900 + $620,100 = $3,805,000, confirmed by Purchasing Director Raymond Ostrowski on October 19.
Clicking the citation opens Bid D's price sheet with line 18 highlighted: "Fraction Studio, grades 3–5, online · optional add-on · $9.75 per student per year · not included in the total." Every view of a source is logged.
The score spread shows each cell's 14 independent scores as dots on a 1–4 line, with the median marked and the page-cited evidence counted. Four cells are marked discuss for the 3:30 p.m. consensus session, Bid D's cost cell is out for re-scoring after the price changed, and 36 cells already agree.
Because the price changed after scoring, the 14 members who read Bid D re-score its cost alone. Keisha sees the revised six-year cost of $3,805,000, or $30.20 per student a year instead of $25.28, cited to line 18, and her own earlier sheet, never anyone else's score. She submits a 2, partially meets.
"With the supplement it costs more than Bid A; partially meets on cost."
Bid D's standards alignment drew six 4s, three 3s, three 2s and two 1s. The members who scored 3 or 4 relied on the correlation, page 12; those who scored 1 or 2, including all four grade 4 teachers on the panel, cite teacher edition page 221, the Fraction Studio modules and price sheet line 18.
Spread agent v2.4 — it never suggests a score.
After the discussion Howard records 2, partially meets, with the reason "Evidence in the pages outweighs the publisher's claim" and a consensus note drafted from the discussion. The note goes into section 3 of the board packet, and the curriculum director verifies the score at the lock.
With the split cells settled, the 36 agreeing cells are accepted in one step and all 42 committee scores are recorded. Bid A leads at 3.45; Bid D, second on its listed price and the members' medians, now ranks seventh of seven at 2.55.
The chair locked the committee scores, Dr. Simone Achterberg verified them, and the chief academic officer recommends a bid from a memo drafted from the locked record. The board hearing is November 19 and the vote December 10; Purchasing issues the notice of intent on December 11.
The same adoption, seen by five of the people who carry it — what their weeks looked like, and what they look like now.
Seven agents read every page, map standards, test publisher claims and show where scores split; members score, the chair records, the director verifies.
Pulls bids, addenda and price sheets from the procurement system, reads every sample page, and checks each bid against the RFP's 12 required items.
Maps every lesson in every teacher edition and student book to the state standards it teaches, citing the page, and marks partly taught, only in a supplement, or not found.
Drafts the page-cited evidence for and against every criterion of every bid, so all 14 members on a panel score from the same evidence.
Tests every line of each correlation, price sheet and cover letter against the pages it names, and reads the price sheet for anything a claim depends on.
When scoring closes, marks the cells where members disagree and summarizes what each side cited.
Records every member's disclosure and checks it against the bidder contact log and the gift register until the award, proposing a ruling with the evidence.
Drafts consensus notes, the recommendation memo, the public notice, comment responses and the warning letter, and assembles the board packet.
Score, record and verify. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The chair can ask the agents about anything in the adoption. Each answer cites its sources and opens the screen it is about; the committee decides.
Why is Bid D's alignment marked discuss?
Fourteen members scored it on their own and the scores run from 1 to 4: six gave 4, three gave 3, three gave 2 and two gave 1. The 4s cite the publisher's correlation, page 12. The 1s and 2s, including all four grade 4 teachers on the panel, opened Unit 6 and found no lesson that adds or subtracts fractions. Rubric v3 says materials outside the bid price do not count. The committee decides the score.
Does Bid D really teach grade 4 fractions in its books?
Not all of it. The correlation says Lessons 6.4–6.7 fully address 4.NF.B.3, but those lessons teach equivalent fractions. Adding and subtracting fractions is only in Fraction Studio, which line 18 of the price sheet lists as an optional add-on, not in the total. The same is true of 4.NF.B.4.
What does Bid D really cost over six years?
The bid price of $3,184,900 plus $620,100 for Fraction Studio (10,600 students × $9.75 × 6 years) is $3,805,000: $30.20 per student a year, not $25.28, and more than Bid A's $3,612,400. Raymond Ostrowski confirmed it on October 19, so Bid D's 14 members are re-scoring cost on their own.
Draft the consensus note for Bid D alignment
Drafted in the cell for you to edit, citing the correlation, the teacher edition and the price sheet. The score is yours to record; I left it blank.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The curriculum adoption rubric, the spread rule and the records rules are settings, versioned and on the audit trail; the chair can read them without changing them.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Rubric weights (rubric v3) | Alignment 30%; rigor, coherence, English learner supports and cost 15% each; accessibility 10% | Must add up to 100%; the chief academic officer approves a new version |
| Materials outside the bid price | Do not count toward alignment | Part of rubric v3 |
| When a cell goes to discussion | Scores span 3 points, or two camps of at least 4 members two points apart | Both thresholds adjustable |
| Scores hidden until scoring closes | Always on | The chair sees names only after close |
| Re-score when a price or claim changes | On | The panel re-scores that cell on its own |
| Agents may suggest a score | Off by policy | The Spread agent shows the split and the evidence only |
| Records and privacy | Life of the adoption plus 5 years (schedule CUR-07) | Scores private until the lock; pricing confidential until the notice of intent |
| Deadlines and escalations | Re-score 3 days · ruling 2 school days · comment response 10 school days | Escalates to the chair, counsel, director or chief academic officer; 7:00 a.m. digest |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
Sources: Florida Statutes s. 1006.283 (district instructional materials review; student editions viewable online at least 20 calendar days before the board hearing) and s. 1006.30 (reviewer affidavit), cited as an example of state law · FERPA, 34 CFR Part 99 · "target" = design goal, measured in the live solution · "demo" = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · "estimated" = our arithmetic, kept modest. Marlow Bay Unified School District, its publishers and bids, and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Instructional materials adoption review is the work a district committee does to choose the core materials for a subject: reading every publisher's bid, scoring it against a rubric and the state standards, reaching consensus, and taking a recommendation to the board. Instructional Materials Adoption Review puts seven agents in front of the reading and checking, with every lesson mapped to the standards and every publisher claim tested against the pages, while members, the chair and the board make every decision.
The curriculum office sets a rubric, the committee signs disclosures, Purchasing issues the RFP, members read and score the samples, the committee reaches consensus, the materials go on public review, and the board hears and votes before Purchasing awards. In this solution each step is on one record: the agents read and draft, and named people score, record, verify, recommend and award.
Members score on their own first. When scoring closes, the Spread agent shows every member's score as a dot and marks only the cells that split, with what each side cited, and never suggests a score. In the sample adoption 36 of 42 cells already agreed and were accepted in one step; the chair records each remaining committee score with a reason code and a note.
The Alignment agent maps every lesson in every teacher edition and student book to the standards it teaches, with the page, and the Claim Check agent tests each line of the correlation against those pages and the price sheet. A standard taught only in a supplement outside the bid price is its own category, and under the sample rubric it does not count toward alignment.
Yes. Criteria and weights are settings that must add up to 100%, and a new version needs the chief academic officer's approval. The spread rule, re-scoring on a price change, records retention and deadlines are settings too, versioned and on the audit trail.
It depends on state law. Florida, for example, requires student editions to be viewable online at least 20 calendar days before the board hearing, with the hearing and the vote on different dates. The solution tracks the review window to the day; in the sample adoption it runs 23 days.
Yes. No agent suggests, writes, changes or locks a score. Members score alone, the chair records the committee's score with a reason, the curriculum director verifies at the lock, counsel confirms disclosure rulings, and nothing goes to a bidder or the public until a named person approves it.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your rubric, board policy and a sample of past bids — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own adoption first.
Plans drafted in minutes, and no student judged on sessions that never happened.
1-min demoAI Lesson PlanningEvery lesson drafted from the adopted curriculum, every activity cited to a standard.
1-min demoAI Essay FeedbackStudents get feedback in days, not weeks, with every comment signed by their teacher.
1-min demoWe'll run Instructional Materials Adoption Review on your rubric and a sample of your own bids.