All activities Professional learning
A selection committee weighs three fictional math platforms on evidence, assessment data, accessibility, and privacy, then tells families the honest story of the choice in plain language, in more than one language, with a real way to talk back.
Choosing a digital curriculum platform is only half the job. The other half is explaining the choice to families who will see it on their child's screen every night. In this session, committees in fictional Laurel Ridge ISD compare three fictional grades 3–8 math platforms using the evidence behind their claims, the kind of assessment data they produce, accessibility, privacy, and AI features. They read a small local pilot honestly, choose, and then replace an overhyped AI-drafted announcement with a plain-language communication plan (newsletter blurb, family FAQ, social post) that says what they know, what they don't know yet, and how families can weigh in, in the district's main home languages.
Hook
Read aloud the AI-drafted announcement at the top of Handout A. Ask: "If you were a parent, what would you believe after reading this? If you were the superintendent, which sentence would worry you most?" Collect two or three answers. Say: "By the end of today, you'll have made the choice and written the version you could defend at a board meeting and a kitchen table."
Facilitator noteParticipants usually flag "proven," "completely safe," and "every student." Hype is a media literacy problem too; the families reading it deserve the same honesty we ask of students.
Explore
Hand out role cards. Everyone reads the three platform profiles and the pilot notes on Handout A, but each person reads through their role's lens and marks lines with a symbol: ✓ strength, ✗ concern, ? need to ask. The Curriculum Lead watches instructional fit and evidence; Accessibility watches screen readers, captions, and alternatives; Data Privacy watches data use, retention, and AI training; Bilingual/ESL watches languages for students and families; the Family Representative asks, "What will this look like at my kitchen table at 8 p.m.?"
Facilitator noteThe Family Representative role matters. Committees without one tend to pick for teacher convenience and discover the family problems after launch.
Practice
Committees complete Handout B, rating each option Strong, Mixed, or Weak on each criterion and writing the exact line from the packet that justifies the rating. In the last column, they note what would change our mind: a question for the vendor, a condition in the contract, or a pilot measure.
Facilitator noteLook for committees that separate the vendor's own study from independent or local evidence, and that recognize an assessment dashboard's mastery percentage is not the same as item-level data a teacher can act on.
Apply
Each committee makes a recommendation, with conditions (for example, "Numina, only if the AI chat is off by default and student data is excluded from model training in the contract"). Then they reread the Laurel Ridge pilot notes and write two sentences: what the pilot shows and what it can't show yet. They choose one way to share it with families: a single plain sentence, a simple labeled chart, or a student-work example, and explain why that choice won't mislead.
Facilitator noteThe pilot is two classrooms for six weeks with no comparison group. It can show that students and teachers could use the platform and what they said about it. It can't show that the platform raised achievement. Saying so builds trust.
Create
Using Handout C, committees write a newsletter blurb (about 100 words), a family FAQ (four questions families will really ask, with honest answers), and a social post (under 50 words, with a clear way to learn more). Every piece must say what was chosen and why, one thing the district doesn't know yet, and how families can give feedback, including at least one non-digital channel. Then committees plan languages: which home languages, who writes or reviews each version, and how translation errors will be caught. If a bilingual colleague is present, they review one translated line per committee live.
Facilitator noteIf a committee uses an AI chatbot for a first-draft translation, a fluent human reviewer is not optional. Watch for mistranslated technical terms like "assessment," "data," and "opt out," which carry weight for families.
Debrief
Committees post their blurbs and FAQs. Everyone does a gallery walk in role as a family member (a grandparent raising two grandchildren, a parent who works nights, a parent who reads Spanish more comfortably than English, a parent of a child who uses a screen reader, a parent worried about AI). On each poster, they leave one sticky note: "What I understood" and "What I still need to know."
Facilitator noteThe "still need to know" notes are the most useful feedback of the day. They're exactly the questions that would have flooded the front office after launch.
Reflect
Individually, participants check their committee's plan against the leaders' five questions: What is the vision? What evidence will guide us? What changes in instruction? Who might be left out? How will families understand the change? They circle the weakest answer and write one sentence about how they'd strengthen it before a real rollout.
Facilitator noteMost committees find "What changes in instruction?" is the weakest. A platform choice communicates a tool; families also want to know what their child's math class will look and feel like.
Run the whole session on paper: the packet, the matrix, handwritten communication drafts on chart paper, and a sticky-note gallery walk in family roles. For multilingual drafts, pair committees with bilingual colleagues or invite a community partner, such as a family literacy volunteer, to review translated lines in person.
Committees draft Handout C in a shared document so the gallery walk becomes comments in role. The facilitator can project an approved AI chatbot to produce a first-pass translation of one blurb, then have a fluent reviewer mark every change they'd make, which models why human review is required. For a real rollout, the same materials go out through the district's newsletter and family messaging tools, with a short feedback form and a paper option at every campus front office.
Does it need a screen? Drafting in a shared document leaves a record of how the message changed after the in-role feedback, and projecting an AI translation next to a human review shows the translation risk in a way a warning can't. The selection work itself is better on paper, where every rating has to point to a printed line.
What you should be able to see or collect if it worked.
Leaders choose a platform on evidence, accessibility, and privacy, then tell families the honest story in plain, multilingual language with a way to respond.
Take the next platform, pilot, or AI feature decision on your campus and draft the family FAQ before the decision is final. Share it with two families from different backgrounds and revise from their questions.
