Florida’s Department of Education (FDOE) has outlined detailed specifications for the 2026-2027 instructional materials adoption for Grades K-12 Mathematics. While the document is written primarily for publishers, the implications are just as significant for district leaders, school-based administrators, and specialized instructional support personnel (including related service providers). In my role overseeing special education services and compliance, I read these specifications through two lenses: (1) what will be required for adoption and classroom implementation, and (2) what will be required to ensure access for students with disabilities, English Language Learners (ELLs), and students needing intervention through a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS).
This post highlights the key “watch-fors” in the specifications—especially the parts that tend to become pain points during implementation: alignment evidence, usability, accessibility, and the practical realities of staffing and service delivery in today’s schools.
First, the Adoption Structure: What’s Being Bid (and How)
Florida is clear that instructional materials submitted for adoption must serve as the “major tool of instruction” for the listed courses. For K-5 core math, materials must be bid as a complete series (Kindergarten through Grade 5). Middle and high school courses are listed separately, including accelerated and foundational skills (remedial) options.
District takeaway: adoption decisions are not just about a single grade-level resource. Especially in elementary, districts should anticipate vertical coherence expectations across K-5, and ensure professional learning and implementation supports are planned across the full band.
The Three Big Evaluation Buckets: Content, Presentation, and Learning
FDOE frames its evaluation priorities under three categories. If you’re supporting a curriculum review, vendor evaluation, or implementation plan, organize your questions the same way. It keeps teams focused and reduces the risk of “shiny object” purchasing that later fails in classrooms.
I. Content: Alignment Is Not Optional—It’s the Gatekeeper
The specifications emphasize that materials must “clearly and completely align” to standards, benchmarks, clarifications, and examples in the applicable course descriptions (via CPALMS). This is more than a general standards alignment claim.
Correlation reports are expected. Publishers must show exactly where each benchmark is addressed and whether it is “mentioned” or treated “in-depth.”
Completeness matters. The “major tool” must stand on its own without major omissions or unrelated content that distracts from the B.E.S.T. Standards.
Accuracy and objectivity are explicit expectations. Materials must be factual, objective, and free of errors, contradictions, and biased selection of information.
Humanity and compassion. Examples and visuals should reflect appropriate care and treatment of people and animals and exclude prohibited content.
Special education leader note: when alignment is weak, students with disabilities are often the first to be impacted because teams rely on structured scope/sequence to plan specially designed instruction (SDI), accommodations, and progress monitoring. If the “core” isn’t coherent, intervention becomes guesswork.
II. Presentation: Implementation Lives or Dies Here
Many programs look strong in a pilot but fail at scale because the teacher, student, and parent resources are incomplete or hard to navigate. Florida’s specifications call this out directly.
Comprehensive resources for parents, students, and teachers. Materials should be complete enough that teachers do not have to create additional resources to meet outcomes.
Parent resources should be accessible and practical. Guidance, directions, and participation activities are encouraged, with availability in multiple languages (including English and Spanish) and closed captioning where applicable.
Teacher resources must support planning and differentiation. Look for sample lesson plans, scope and sequence, strategies for varied needs, and guidance on assessment and alternative assessments (rubrics, checklists, performance tasks).
Readability and pacing. Materials should be “bite-size,” avoiding overwhelming chunks while also avoiding slow pacing that disengages learners.
Ease of use and durability. Digital resources should run without requiring additional software and should be protected from accidental modification.
Staffing reality: in districts facing shortages (including specialized instructional support personnel), ease of use is not a luxury. When teams are stretched thin, the program must reduce friction—clear routines, consistent lesson structure, and ready-to-use supports for intervention and progress monitoring.
III. Learning: What Florida Wants Students to Do (Not Just What They’ll See)
Florida’s learning expectations emphasize evidence-based design: motivational strategies, explicit instruction, scaffolding, active participation, targeted instructional strategies, and targeted assessment strategies.
In practice, reviewers will look for whether the program:
Builds motivation through meaningful tasks, appropriate challenge, and frequent informative feedback.
Uses explicit instruction with clear directions, models, examples, and avoidance of ambiguity.
Provides scaffolding that can fade over time (support “no more and no less” than students need).
Requires active participation through frequent, short assignments and multiple response modes (oral, written, visual representations, products).
Aligns assessment to outcomes so that what is tested matches what is taught (and matches the type of learning expected).
District implementation tip: during adoption review, ask to see a full unit’s arc—core lessons, checks for understanding, intervention supports, and summative assessments. A single “model lesson” can hide gaps that show up in week 4 when reteaching is needed.
Program Design Expectations: Benchmarks Are Not Taught in Isolation
One of the most important sections for K-12 program design is Florida’s expectation that benchmarks are integrated purposefully. The specifications provide examples (elementary and secondary) showing how a “benchmark of focus” connects to prerequisite or related benchmarks.
What this means for districts:
Look for intentional connections across strands (number sense, algebraic reasoning, geometry, measurement, data).
Expect reinforcement across the year rather than a “teach it once and move on” model.
Plan for mastery by year’s end with benchmarks addressed at multiple points.
This design approach aligns well with MTSS: integrated instruction makes it easier to identify whether a student’s difficulty is a prerequisite skill gap, a conceptual misunderstanding, or a procedural fluency issue.
MTRs Must Be Embedded: Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning Standards
Florida is explicit that the B.E.S.T. Standards for Mathematics should be taught “through the lens” of the Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning Standards (MTRs), embedded throughout lessons authentically. The specifications also reference the Concrete-Representational-Abstract (CRA) instructional model as an important support for conceptual understanding.
When reviewing materials, look for evidence that lessons routinely prompt students to:
Represent problems in multiple ways
Engage in mathematical discussion and justification
Use patterns and structure
Assess reasonableness of solutions
Apply math to real-world contexts
Special education connection: CRA and multiple representations are not “extra”—they are foundational accessibility practices that support a wide range of learners, including students with language needs, working memory challenges, and processing differences.
Digital and Accessibility Requirements: Where Compliance Meets Equity
The specifications place heavy emphasis on digital resources and accessible instructional materials (AIM). Florida also references federal requirements connected to IDEA and NIMAS/NIMAC, and state statutes requiring electronic/digital formats for adopted materials.
Key accessibility expectations for digital materials include:
Presentation controls: adjustable font size/type, color/background, high contrast, text-to-speech (including correct reading of math formulas), alt tags for images, captioned videos, and compatibility with refreshable Braille displays.
Navigation supports: adjustable non-text elements, keyboard shortcuts, and accessible navigation information for Braille displays.
Study tools: digital highlighters, extracted notes, note-taking tools, resizable calculators.
Assistive technology compatibility: ability to run common AT tools in the background (magnification, speech-to-text, on-screen keyboards, switch scanning, etc.).
District leader reminder: AIM is an IEP team consideration tied to FAPE. If a core program’s digital platform is not accessible, districts can find themselves building workarounds that are expensive, inconsistent, and difficult to sustain.
ELL and Multilingual Supports: Readability Is a Design Requirement
Florida includes specific readability features that support ELLs, including clear language, transition words, chunking, relevant visuals, and integrated representations (graphs, charts). The specifications also call for multilingual glossaries/dictionaries with content vocabulary translated into Florida’s primary languages (including Spanish, Haitian-Creole, Portuguese, Vietnamese, French, Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Tagalog, and Urdu).
In practice, adoption teams should ask:
Are language supports embedded at point-of-use (not buried in a separate appendix)?
Do visuals clarify the math, not just decorate the page?
Are translated supports usable for families at home?
Compliance Guardrails Districts Should Not Ignore
The specifications also reference required instruction planning and reporting rules and multiple Florida statutes. Materials must align with state standards and be factual and objective. The document also states prohibitions regarding certain unsolicited theories and indicates that social emotional learning (SEL) is considered extraneous within these instructional materials specifications.
Whether or not a district agrees with every policy detail, the operational reality is straightforward: adoption-eligible materials must meet the state’s criteria. Districts should ensure their review committees understand these guardrails to avoid selecting resources that later create compliance concerns.
Where Online Therapy and Related Services Fit into the Math Adoption Conversation
Even though these specifications are for mathematics instructional materials, they intersect with related services in real ways. Students receiving speech-language services, occupational therapy, or other supports often need:
Accessible language and vocabulary supports for math discourse
Tools for written expression, organization, and problem-solving routines
Digital accessibility features that reduce barriers (text-to-speech, captioning, keyboard navigation)
Consistent home-school resources that families can understand and use
When districts face therapist staffing shortages, online service delivery models can help maintain continuity of services and collaboration with educators—especially when digital instructional materials are already central to the student experience. The strongest implementations I see are the ones where general education, ESE, and related services align around shared tools, shared language, and shared progress monitoring expectations.
For more information, please follow this link.
