Eleven years ago, I wrote a blog post comparing math curricula to jelly doughnuts (go read it; it’s good and accurate).
At the time, it felt like every program hitting the market was either completely overstuffed with too much in the lessons to get through in a single block, or so loaded down with extra bells, whistles, and deep-fried decorations that the core mathematics got lost under all the glaze. Not to mention teachers having to sift through a plethora of books, online resources, and boxes of extra-help materials.
Looking back at that post today, I realized a hard truth: after evaluating those programs over a decade ago, our district didn’t adopt either. Instead, we relied on a supplementary program for over 11 years. The consequence? Years of students moving through our system with significant, systemic gaps in their mathematical understanding and skills.
This school year, however, brings fresh hope. We have officially kicked off a new math curriculum piloting process, and the landscape feels noticeably different.
Pilot #1: Innovamat (Building Thinking Classrooms & True Spiral Design)
We are currently piloting our first of two programs: Innovamat. Centered around Peter Liljedahl’s Building Thinking Classrooms framework, this program places rich student discourse and active problem-solving at the center of every lesson.
What excites me most about Innovamat is how pared-down and intentional it is, paired with its true spiral curriculum design. Rather than teaching concepts in isolated, multi-week blocks, Innovamat continuously revisits core mathematical ideas throughout the year, building upon itself. Curriculum creators seem to have finally realized how unwieldy and unrealistic past iterations were for everyday classroom execution. Innovamat certainly took note of others’ pitfalls.
Innovamat strips away the extra noise and focuses on the absolute essentials and deep understanding:
- Manageable Lessons: The pacing is realistic, allowing teachers to complete an entire lesson within a standard math block.
- Cohesive & Spiraled Structure: Concepts are continuously revisited in light, intentional touchpoints, preventing the “teach it once and forget it” phenomenon while keeping learning connected.
- Focus on Discourse: Students are standing, talking, and working through math concepts together rather than passively sitting through lectures.
That isn’t to say it is without challenges. Because our students have spent years in a system that lacked deep, conceptual discourse, accessing some of the task-based material requires scaffolding and persistence. But because the core design is clean and intentionally spiraled, I am hopeful that our students will begin closing those foundational skill gaps quickly.
Pilot #2: Savvas enVision Math (Topical Architecture)
Later this fall, we will pivot to pilot our second curriculum option: Savvas enVision Math.
This second program also integrates elements of Building Thinking Classrooms and emphasizes student discourse, but it takes a more traditional, topical approach. Instruction is structured in distinct units focused on specific domains before moving to the next.
Savvas enVision also brings back a few more traditional support structures: multiple books to navigate, margin notes and guides for teachers, and built-in accessibility prompts designed to help teachers differentiate on the fly for all learners. There is more of the traditional teacher-led lesson design.
Comparing these two structural philosophies side-by-side will be an incredible learning experience for our district:
- Do our students benefit more from a true spiral design, like Innovamat, that offers continuous spaced practice, or from a topical approach, like enVision?
- Do we thrive with a streamlined, ultra-focused layout, or do we need the additional embedded teacher margin notes and resource options offered by a traditional publisher?
Hope on the Horizon
It is encouraging to see curriculum publishers finally listening to teachers and creating programs that prioritize student thinking over fluff.
While closing an 11-year gap in math understanding won’t happen overnight, placing student discourse, collaboration, and manageable lesson design at the center of instruction is the exact shift our students deserve. I look forward to sharing our findings as we move through both pilots this year!
Are you using either of these programs? What has your experience been?






