Visalia Unified board moves ahead with K–6 writing programs and mCLASS DIBELS 8 screener amid board questions
Summary
After staff recommended two elementary writing curricula and the mCLASS DIBELS 8 reading difficulties risk screener, the board approved the items on the consent agenda. Trustees debated coherence across existing programs, rollout timing and teacher burden during discussion before the consent vote passed unanimously.
The Visalia Unified School District Board of Trustees approved the recommended elementary writing curricula and a reading difficulties risk screener as part of the consent agenda after a night of questions and debate about coherence and implementation.
Administrator of teaching and learning Brianne Phillips told the board the proposals came from district curriculum committees that piloted materials and included classroom teachers, instructional coaches and administrators. "To live our mission of every student learning every day, we need to equip our teachers with the resources to design and deliver quality first instruction," Phillips said, describing the committees’ process and the recommended products.
Phillips said the committee recommended two writing programs: a K–3 program (identified in committee documents as Bridge to Writing) and a program for grades 4–6 (Step Up to Writing). The K–3 package was described as including student print materials, teacher kits, digital licenses and built-in professional learning; the 4‑year K–3 package price shown in the presentation was $816,324.73. The 4–6 Step Up to Writing adoption was presented with a 4‑year cost of $432,785.
On reading screening, Phillips said the committee recommended mCLASS DIBELS 8 (referred to in the presentation as a research‑based assessment system) to meet California Education Code requirements to adopt a screener by June 30, 2025, and implement screening no later than the 2025–26 school year. She said the district intends to use mCLASS DIBELS 8 to identify students at risk for reading difficulties and to drive early, classroom‑based (Tier 1/Tier 2) supports; the presentation listed an 8‑year adoption cost of $651,610.40 and described training and district support for teachers.
Trustee Gaby voiced concerns about program overload for teachers and students, noting the district currently uses multiple literacy and assessment tools. "If I'm an elementary teacher ... I could possibly have Heggerty, Fundations, Fountas and Pinnell, Wonders, i‑Ready and now a new company," Gaby said. She also criticized Step Up to Writing as formulaic and questioned whether it would inspire higher‑order writing. Several trustees asked staff to clarify which tools would remain in use, what would be “off‑ramped,” and how the assessments would align.
Phillips and Superintendent Kirk Schrum responded that the adoption follows the district’s established adoption process and that the literacy team is working on an “on‑ramp/off‑ramp” plan and training to align assessments and instruction. Schrum said teachers had expressed support for a coherent core writing program and that district teams are creating guidance charts and a staggered training schedule to avoid overwhelming staff in a single year.
Because the item was placed on the consent calendar, trustees approved it with the rest of the consent items. On a motion to adopt the consent agenda (mover: Board Member Belt; seconder: Board Member Gamoyan), the board approved the consent agenda by a 7–0 vote earlier in the meeting; the meeting record shows the consent motion passed 7–0 and student trustee voted yes.
The presentation materials listed detailed components and costs for each program and emphasized teacher and coach access to digital materials and embedded professional learning. Phillips said the committee piloted materials at representative sites and included bilingual, specialized learning center and general education teachers.
The board did not remove the materials adoption from consent, and trustees asked staff to provide coherence documents and a timeline for off‑ramping other materials. Board members repeatedly requested clarity on how DIBELS and other diagnostics (such as i‑Ready) would be used together and how Tier 2 supports would be organized.
District staff committed to providing the board with alignment charts and a phased training calendar as part of implementation planning. The motion tied to the consent calendar passed earlier in the meeting; the adoption of the writing materials and mCLASS DIBELS 8 will proceed according to the district’s purchasing and implementation schedule.
