District committee recommends Benchmark Advance plus UFLI-based phonics; board to vote at next meeting

Curriculum staff and a multi‑school committee recommended the board adopt a two‑part elementary literacy package: Benchmark Advance for K–5 knowledge building and a UFLI‑based foundational program for K–2 with a functional morphology program for grades 3–5.

Caitlin (district staff) told the board the committee reviewed multiple curricular vendors, ran two full days of materials review, held an open house on Jan. 17 and gathered staff and community feedback. “From our January 17 day, the feedback…was that 94.6% of staff in community surveys endorse adopting Benchmark Advance,” she said. The committee nevertheless recommended a separate foundational skills product because it found gaps in the phonics components of Benchmark Advance.

Skye (district staff) framed the recommendation using Scarborough’s rope—the combined “word recognition” and “language comprehension” strands that the committee said the district needs to strengthen. She said the recommended foundational sequence for K–2 is UFLI (University of Florida Literacy Institute) Foundations; for grades 3–5 the committee recommended adding a functional morphology program the committee referred to as CAREI.

Skye described UFLI as largely free to access except for teacher manuals and consumables and said the district has internal pilots and tier‑3 uses of the program with positive feedback. The committee recommended a staggered rollout: year 1 adopt UFLI for K–2 alongside Benchmark Advance for knowledge building; year 2 add the 3–5 morphology component; years 3–6 focus on mastery and sustained professional development.

Staff presented a multi‑year cost estimate that includes purchase, renewal cycles and professional development: approximately $815,013 in year 1, roughly $70,000 in year 2 and recurring costs on the order of $100,000 in later years. Staff said the district expects to apply REED Act (literacy incentive) funds and other state aid to offset recurring professional development and implementation costs but noted that state rules currently limit use of one‑time REED funds for partially‑approved curricula. “As of right now we can't use the REED Act…for partially approved curriculum,” staff said.

Board members asked about vendor data cited by staff, professional development time and teacher buy‑in. Skye said professional development would be delivered in multiple shorter (about three‑hour) chunks and spread across years rather than a single intensive event, and staff said they will use internal teacher experts to support scale‑up. Several teachers involved in pilots also attended the meeting and told board members they wanted to continue using the pilot materials because of observed student gains.

Caitlin told the board the recommendation will be brought back as an action item for funding at the next board meeting. No formal purchase or contract was approved at this session.

Ending: The committee’s proposal pairs a widely used knowledge‑building program with university‑based foundational curricula; the board was asked to review cost and timeline details and will consider funding at the next meeting.