District Selects a Different Vendor to Guide its Elementary Math Adoption

by Sugi Sorensen
September 09, 2025

Figure 1: LCUSD Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum & Instruction James Cartnal presents to the LCUSD Governing Board his plan to hire Hanover Research to guide the district’s elementary math textbook adoption during the 2025-26 school year at their regularly scheduled meeting on Aug. 26, 2025.

As detailed in LCMP’s May 13, 2025 article, “LCUSD Elementary Math Textbook Adoption 2025-26: Here We Go Again…”, district administration first proposed hiring UCLA’s Curtis Center at a planned cost of $43,500 to help guide LCUSD’s elementary mathematics textbook adoption. La Cañada Math Parents (LCMP) expressed concerns about UCLA Curtis Center given the problematic advice they gave the district when it transitioned to the then-new California Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSS-M) beginning in 2013, as well as the high cost of the consulting contract. At its May 13, 2025 regularly scheduled meeting, the LCUSD Governing Board voted to pull the agenda item containing the proposed contract with Curtis from its consent agenda and tabled it indefinitely. At the time it was never expressed and remained a mystery whether the district would attempt to hire UCLA Curtis at a later meeting, hire someone else, or do the adoption on their own. It now appears LCUSD chose the middle option.

At its regular scheduled meeting on August 26, 2025 (agenda here, YouTube recording here), the LCUSD Governing Board approved hiring Hanover Research, a consulting company based in Virginia, at roughly half the cost (i.e. $25,000) to replace UCLA Curtis Center as the district’s partner in helping the district in its elementary mathematics curriculum adoption during the current 2025-26 school year.

In the interest of full disclosure and out of appreciation for the action, LCUSD Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction James Cartnal had reached out to LCMP the week prior to the 08/26/25 Board meeting letting us know of his plan to bring the proposal to hire Hanover Research. LCMP thanked Cartnal in an email response after conducting research into Hanover’s prior record in advising school districts and schools on K-12 curriculum adoptions.

Who is Hanover Research?

Prior to the 08/20/25 email from Assistant Superintendent Cartnal notifying LCMP of its intent to enter into a contract with Hanover Research, LCMP had never heard of Hanover Research and to our knowledge we were unaware of any prior partnerships or relationships between LCUSD and Hanover. Though our due diligence was abbreviated, we learned the following.

Hanover Research is a global research and analytics firm based in Arlington, Virginia, specializing in custom market research, analytics, and consulting across various business sectors including K-12 education, higher education (i.e. colleges and universities), and corporations. It was founded in 2003 and is privately held. As of April 2025 it had approximately 390 employees across four continents including North America, Europe and Asia.

Since it is privately held, official numbers on its revenue and financial health are unknown, but private business intelligence companies estimate its annual revenue to be between $63 million and $75 million.

Hanover began offering research services to K-12 school districts in 2008. The slide Cartnal presented to the LCUSD Governing Board at its meeting on 08/26/25 showed among local school districts and public education entities it has worked with include:

  • Pasadena Unified School District
  • Burbank Unified School District
  • Alhambra Unified School District
  • Hacienda-La Puente Unified School District
  • Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District
  • Carmel Unified School District
  • Sierra Sands Unified School District
  • Los Angeles County Office of Education
Figure 2: Page 2 of slides from Asst Superintendent Jim Cartnal’s presentation to the LCUSD Governing Board at its regularly scheduled meeting on 08/26/25 on the district’s proposal to hire Hanover Consulting to guide its elementary mathematics adoption. Slide shows information about Hanover in the K-12 educational consulting domain.

At the 08/26/25 LCUSD Governing Board meeting, Cartnal explained the justification for selecting Hanover Research with the following comments:

“I came to know them from my professional coach, who was a former administrator and LACOE representative, who while she was a site administrator partnered with Hanover Research. I was also part of a professional development job, a like consortium, where two of our partner districts, some of them mentioned on that slide (i.e. slide 2), had engaged in learning plans or learning activities with Hanover Research.

They are a business that basically works in the P-20 space, that is pre-Kindergarten all the way up through graduate school. So they have research projects they do in higher ed. They work in the K-12 space, in TK, and they advise school districts and schools across the state of California, across the nation, and across the globe, (but) in the nation particularly.

A partnership has many, many benefits. We gain access to the wide degree of resources that they have available to us. There’s consultancy in a contract I’m bringing to the Board today. In fact in some of the proposals that I’ve seen redacted kind of sample works that they’ve given me, that fill me with confidence that this is the right thing for us here at the right time.”

LCMP’s due diligence into Hanover came up mostly empty. Among the Southern California districts Hanover acknowledged working with on the K-12 Curriculum and Instruction advisory section of its website, we could only find fragmentary information about its work with Chula Vista Elementary School District in north San Diego County.

As background, Chula Vista is the second largest city in San Diego County and the district serves 28,845 students (as of 2024-25) over 50 elementary schools in grades K through 6.1 The district is a relatively low socioeconomic status (SES) district with 62.5% in its unduplicated pupil count, meaning students in the district who were English learners, foster youth, or eligible for free/reduced price meals when enrollment counts were taken. However, it performs relatively high academically, at least in math, with 44.72% of its students performing at or above grade level on the CAASPP during the 2024-25 school year. For context, the average for all of California is 35.5% at or above grade level, thus placing Chula Vista in the top 30.1% of public school districts by % of students at or above grade level on the CAASPP math assessments.

Unfortunately the testimonial on Hanover’s website about its work with Chula Vista Elementary School District does not reveal the extent of how its math performance is owed to Hanover’s advice, if at all:

Figure 3: Screenshot from Hanover Research’s website with a testimonial describing its work with Chula Vista Elementary School District.

A sampling of Chula Vista Elementary schools reveal all use iReady Mathematics as their primary elementary math curriculum and has used iReady since 2023. It may be reasonable to conclude that Hanover helped Chula Vista in its elementary textbook adoption that arrived at the selection of iReady. If this is true, it does not instill confidence in Hanover’s guidance since Curriculum Associate’s two iReady elementary math curricula — iReady Classroom Mathematics and iReady Ready Mathematics — are both known to be seriously problematic. However, even if Hanover was involved in Chula Vista’s selection of either iReady product, it is not known if the district made the decision at Hanover’s recommendation, or against its advice.

Research into Hanover’s work with nearby public school districts also came up empty. Pasadena USD’s work with Hanover appears to have been assistance provided in the conducting of a LCAP stakeholder survey in 2020-21.2

Thus given the lack of specific information indicating good or bad past work with public school districts, we do not know if the selection of Hanover based on its past record was sound. What we do know is Hanover’s proposed action plan to assist LCUSD in its elementary math adoption, indicated from Cartnal’s presentation to the Board at its 08/26/25 meeting, seems logically sound and is free from red flags. The ultimate success of LCUSD’s partnership with Hanover Research depends upon what specific advice and guidance Hanover consultants provide to the district, and what the district chooses to do with that advice.

What Will Hanover Do?

During his presentation to the district Governing Board on 08/26/25, Cartnal presented Hanover’s proposed seven-step plan for the district to select a new elementary math curriculum during the 2025-26 school year:

Figure 4: Slide 5 from Asst Superintendent Jim Cartnal’s presentation to the LCUSD Governing Board at its regularly scheduled meeting on 08/26/25 on the district’s proposal to hire Hanover Consulting to guide its elementary mathematics adoption. The slide shows the first four steps of Hanover’s proposed plan for the district’s elementary math adoption.
Figure 5: Slide 6 from Asst Superintendent Jim Cartnal’s presentation to the LCUSD Governing Board at its regularly scheduled meeting on 08/26/25 on the district’s proposal to hire Hanover Consulting to guide its elementary mathematics adoption. Slide shows steps 5 through 7 of Hanover’s proposed plan for the district’s elementary math adoption.

Cartnal clarified that there was not enough money to have Hanover complete all seven steps in its proposed plan, so they will only focus on steps 2 and 3:

  1. Math Adoption Best Practices Report (2-4 weeks) – Research and analyze best practices for math curriculum adoption for high-performing district like LCUSD, and identify evidence-based selection criteria and adoption processes that lead to improved student outcomes. [NOTE: Hanover will not do this step.]
  2. Math Adoption Rubric Development (4-6 weeks) – Hanover will develop a Math Adoption Rubric to help guide the district in its evaluation and selection of high quality instructional material (HQIM) aligned to the district’s priorities and instructional goals.
  3. Math Adoption Survey (6-12 weeks) – Hanover will design, administer, and analyze a comprehensive survey to teachers, administrators, parents and students about math curriculum preferences and experiences.
  4. Math Adoption In-Depth Interviews (6-10 weeks) – Conduct structured interviews with key stakeholders including math teachers, curriculum specialists, administrators, and parent representatives. Also gather detailed insights on classroom realities, resource constraints, and student learning needs. [NOTE: Hanover will not do this step.]
  5. Math Student Outcomes Data Analysis (10-12 weeks) – Conduct a comprehensive analysis of LCUSD student math performance trends over the past five years across all grade levels and school sites. Identify patterns in achievement be examining assessment results, course enrollment, and proficiency rates in math. And analyze changes in student outcomes over time to identify areas of growth, stagnation, or decline in math performance. [NOTE: Hanover will not do this step.]
  6. Math Curriculum Vendor Scan (6-8 weeks) – Conduct a comprehensive review of available math curriculum vendors and programs suitable for the district’s needs. Compile and compare key characteristics, features and specs of each curriculum option. [NOTE: Hanover will not do this step.]
  7. Math Adoption Capstone Report (4-8 weeks) – Synthesize findings from the survey results, interviews, vendor scan, and best practices document to provide data-driven curriculum recommendations with detailed rationale and implementation guidance. [NOTE: Hanover will not do this step.]

Looking closely at the slides Cartnal presented to the Board, a concern is that the stated outcomes for step three seem not to come from a neutral perspective, and appear designed more to provide preemptive cover should the final curriculum selected turn out to be controversial. Here are two of the stated outcomes from Hanover’s slide 5 for step 3 – Math Adoption Survey:

  • “Reduce post-adoption resistance by involving all stakeholder groups in the selection process”
  • “Counter vocal minority opinions with representative data from the broader school community.”

Shouldn’t the consultant focus instead on developing our math adoption rubric and survey, analyze the results, and then decide where to go from there? The process appears designed from the outset not to prioritize finding the best curriculum for LCUSD, rather to minimize dissent and create the appearance that the process was ‘fair’ to “counter vocal minority opinions” and “reduce post-adoption resistance.”

During Cartnal’s presentation to the Governing Board and the Q&A afterwards, the Board asked several questions about how the adoption process would proceed given there’s only enough money in the proposed contract for Hanover to complete two of the seven proposed projects. With regard to each project, Cartnal stated:

  • Step 1 – Math Adoption Best Practices Report – Cartnal was asked by Board member Josh Epstein if the district would internally do the other five steps that Hanover would not complete. Cartnal responded that he has been working with Erica (Brandoff) of Hanover from a “collegial perspective” on some of the other items and that they are “on pace with respect to the best practice report.” This implies there may have already been collaboration with Hanover on this step.
  • Step 5 – Math Student Outcomes Data Analysis – Cartnal stated that student performance is something the district does in house “all the time” and so the district doesn’t need Hanover’s assistance here.
  • Step 6 – Math Curriculum Vendor Scan – Cartnal stated, “that’s what our credentials are for. That’s what the state list is for. That is what the data is going to guide us for.” The ‘state list’ Cartnal was referring to is the State Board of Education (SBE)’s list of approved mathematics instructional materials (K-8), which is scheduled for release in November 2025.3 The ‘data’ Cartnal referred to is presumably the survey results (i.e. step 3) and student CAASPP performance (i.e. step 5) but curiously does not include any information about how the district’s existing elementary math curriculum – Everyday Mathematics from McGraw-Hill – is working out, such as how much teachers use it as intended, and how much they’ve had to adapt it to address gaps or other deficiencies.4
  • Step 7 – Math Adoption Capstone Report – About the capstone report Cartnal said the following: “a capstone report is something that I would welcome to bring to the Board, and we fully expect to be the outcome of this kind of arc of what we’re trying to do with the elementary math adoption.” Given at several other points in his presentation Cartnal emphasized that Hanover would only be tasked with completing steps 2 and 3, it is assumed that the district will write the capstone report itself.

In addition to the expectation that Hanover will focus on steps 2 and 3 of its proposed 7 step plan, Cartnal also added that contracting with Hanover gains the district access to their research library. Cartnal stated:

“In addition to those two product outcomes, we also get access, as a member, to their research library. And that provides us an opportunity to read a lot about best practice articles, as well as the work that they’ve done in partnership with other districts, for you know, to help guide other districts, for instance, that perhaps Jamie (Lewsadder) and I will try to gain and with the students, and the High School team, gain that parent feedback on the cellphone policy.”

Governing Board Concerns

Four of the five LCUSD Governing Board members – all except Board President Caroline Anderson – asked questions of Cartnal or expressed their concerns or praise after his presentation of agenda item 12.f at their 08/26/25 meeting. Questions focused mostly on why Cartnal was recommending Hanover, their expertise in mathematics, if he and they are aware that the district can select a math curriculum not on the state approved list [i.e. the State Board of Education Adopted Programs in Mathematics (grades K-8)]5, what Hanover’s position was on the 2023 California Mathematics Framework (CMF), how he planned to tackle the five of seven steps in Hanover’s adoption process plan that they would not do, how the district could apply lessons learned from this elementary math instructional material adoption to future adoptions in other subjects, and what the timeline for the adoption would be.

During the extensive Q&A session, Cartnal and other district staff made several comments about the recognition that many in the community have concerns about the recently adopted CMF and are keenly interested in working with all community stakeholders to find an elementary mathematics curriculum that all parties can agree on. Cartnal and Superintendent Wendy Sinnette made passing references to the controversial adoption of the district’s current K-5 elementary math curriculum – Everyday Mathematics – back in 2015-17, mistakes made during that process, and the desire to avoid repeating them. For example, Sinnette towards the end of the Q&A said:

“We always want to learn from past issues or areas of concern. And we’ve not always had the smoothest adoption processes. And one of the things that I charged Anaïs (Wenn) with, and then with Jim the last year, was I wanted for us to develop something that was a little bit outside the box, you know a little bit best practices, a little bit cutting edge, in terms of our adoption practices. It’s very much rooted in what our teachers think, and what they feel.

But we also know that our parents are very involved so if we have a system whereby we’re collecting data and reaching out to people and involving them – the survey – as to what they’re interested in, what they’re looking for… And then we can collect all that data, create a rubric. I think it will set us up for a much more collective process, maybe a process that people feel is more transparent. At the K-8 level, where we have parents on the committee, it’s very hard to get parents to sit down and be a part of those processes so maybe if we front-load it with their input, I think teachers will feel stronger if they’re heard from the get go, and their feedback is taken on the surveys and then they see the rubric come out. Because sometimes for them to have an actual tool to use in the process might be very efficacious for just them feeling like professionals who are giving their solid research.

There’s some controversy over the (California) Math Framework, so the more that we can really establish ourselves in this practice and build people’s confidence as we onboard it, I think it will serve us a lot. And then it could be the model for what we do in Science and what we do in English. And so I think it’s worth trying because if we just reinvent the same wheel, we might have the same levels of criticism.”

One other interesting detail disclosed by Cartnal in answering the Board members’ questions was the revelation that he applied for and the district was accepted into a math adoption consortium headed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE.) He said not a lot of districts were accepted into the consortium and that being accepted into the consortium “provides an opportunity to take the team to LACOE and get coached on some of the best practices.”

Timeline for Adoption

In response to Board members Thuss, Epstein, and Radabaugh’s questions about how the seven-step process proposed by Hanover will be modified given only two were approved for funding, and what the final adoption timeline would look like, Cartnal sketched out the following timeline:

  • Now (i.e. end of August and early September) – Finish development of the step 1 Math Adoptions Best Practices report. Start development of the step 3 Math Adoption Survey.
  • September to mid-October 2025 – Release of the Math Adoption Survey and dialogue with stakeholders over their priorities and concerns. Conduct in-depth interviews with teachers and maybe students, though not early elementary ones.
  • Mid-October 2025 – Release of the results of the Math Adoption Survey and starting of the development of the step 2 Math Adoption Rubric. Note that Cartnal stated at several points during his presentation and dialogue with the Board that the survey would inform the rubric development so de facto the district will move the Math Adoption Rubric development step to after the Math Adoption Survey step.
  • November 2025 – The SBE releases its approved list of K-8 adopted math curricula aligned to the 2023 CMF. It is important to note, though it wasn’t mentioned during the 08/26/25 meeting, that the 31 curricula on the state’s adopted curricula list from 2014 are still considered SBE approved and can continue to be used given the math standards adopted by the SBE in 2010 have not changed.
  • January/February 2026 – Completion of the step 2 Math Adoption Rubric. Using the rubric, review the SBE’s state adopted list of curricula (along with the earlier 2014 list and presumably other curricula on neither list that meet the CCSS-M), talk to teachers, work with an elementary math adoption teacher steering committee, and participate in the LACOE math adoption consortium.
  • Spring 2026 – Incorporating all of the above steps, narrow the list of math curricula down to a much smaller list to pilot. Board member Thuss asked if the final adoption would be completed by Spring. Both Cartnal and Sinnette responded that they do not want to rush the adoption process and Cartnal said he has recommended to Sinnette that the district not pilot in the Spring. Though they did not commit to a detailed timeline of when the piloting and final adoption would occur, it was implied those steps would get pushed out to Fall of 2026. On this topic Sinnette said, “I don’t think there’s any reason to rush. I want us to be strategic. I want us to have all of our research done, get all of our input, our rubric, make sure teachers are on board, and then just map out a timeline whereby we can do our best work.”

Public Comment and Final Approval of Contract

After Board Q&A ended, one public comment was submitted, by me:

“Board member Thuss said she was unaware if we, the district, had adopted a (K-8) curriculum that was not ‘state approved.’ Yes, the current elementary math curriculum in use in K-5 LCUSD – Everyday Mathematics — was not on the CDE approved list in 2015-16 when it was adopted formally by the LCUSD board. The state allows LEAs to adopt materials not on the state approved list, as long as they minimally meet the state standards.”

I submitted the comment during the meeting because no one on staff answered Board member Thuss’s question asked during Q&A, “We do not have to adopt texts or curriculum that are on the…we have the option of choosing outside of the adopted list by the State Board of Education. I don’t know if we’ve ever acted in that way. But I’m happy to hear that that’s an option?”

Following the Q&A and reading of my public comment, Board member Radabaugh made a motion to accept the proposed contract with Hanover Research in an amount not to exceed $25,000. The motion was seconded by Board member Epstein and approved unanimously 5-0 in a voice roll call vote.

The next step in the elementary math adoption process will presumably be completion of the Math Adoptions Best Practices report, beginning of the development of the Math Adoption Survey, and convening of the Elementary Math Adoption Steering Committee, which Cartnal mentioned by name in the latter part of his answers to Board members’ questions, but which to our knowledge has not been constituted yet. LCMP has asked Cartnal for a list of members of said committee, but as of the publication date of this article has not received it yet, possibly indicating the steering committee has yet to be formed.

While LCMP awaits these next steps, we will give an encore presentation on Mathematics Instruction in California Public Schools and the California Mathematics Framework, last given to Superintendent Sinnette and Assistant Superintendent Cartnal in a private meeting on May 18, 2025.6 All LCMP members, district personnel, the Governing Board, and Hanover will be invited to the presentation which is tentatively planned for early October. It is LCMP’s intent to embrace the spirit of transparency and openness in the elementary math curriculum selection process voiced by both Cartnal and Sinnette during the former’s presentation to the Governing Board at its meeting on 08/26/25. The webinar will articulate LCMP’s concerns about the CMF approved by the SBE in July 2023.

  1. Data from 2024-25 school year according to Ed-Data: https://www.ed-data.org/district/San-Diego/Chula-Vista-Elementary ↩︎
  2. Deduced from a search on Pasadena UD’s website here: https://www.pusd.us/departments/data/research-other-reports ↩︎
  3. The California State Board of Education (SBE) formally approved a major revision to the state’s California Mathematics Framework in July of 2023, to which commercial publishers were solicited to submit instructional materials (i.e. textbooks and associated resources) aligned to the framework for review by the CDE’s Instructional Quality Commission. The schedule for the instructional material review process can be found on the CDE’s website here. ↩︎
  4. LCMP has written extensively about the deficiencies of Everyday Mathematics (see here and here for example) during the battle over its adoption in the 2015 to 2017 timeframe and one of the observations gleaned from districts who adopted Everyday Mathematics was that they used it ‘with fidelity’ less and less each year to the point that by 4 or 5 years into its adoption its actually use barely resembled its intended use.

    For example, in our survey of neighboring Glendale Unified School District’s (GUSD) use of Everyday Mathematics from 2007 to 2016, we found that:
    “GUSD used Everyday Mathematics for a period of about eight years beginning in about 2007, but quickly encountered problems. For example, read this letter from a parent in 2008 describing the problems. Teachers began to supplement Everyday Mathematics with other material, and by 2011 began to have great success with Swun Math, a curriculum developed by a math teacher in Long Beach, California. The GUSD math selection committee ditched EM from its candidate list in 2016, narrowing their finalists down to two textbooks — enVision and Math Expressions. When asked about the EM experience, GUSD officials claimed EM was great for the district. Off the record, several teachers reported to La Canada Math Parents that they hated EM, so much so that by year five one teacher estimated that at least half the teachers were not using it at all.” ↩︎
  5. California Education Code (CEC) § 60210 allows local educational agencies (LEA’s – school districts in most cases) to select textbooks that have not been formally adopted by the SBE as long as the LEA certifies that the curricula they are selecting is aligned to the state’s academic content standards, and they also meet the state’s social content standards (i.e. CEC sections § 60040-60044 and 60048.) ↩︎
  6. I gave an earlier, shorter version of this presentation to LCMP parents on Mar. 26, 2025. ↩︎