At a special work session, Francis Howell R‑III district staff recommended adopting Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s Into Reading as the district’s K‑5 core English language arts resource and said they will bring a purchase recommendation to the April board meeting.

The recommendation follows a yearlong program evaluation, vendor reviews and classroom trials of four candidate programs — Into Reading, Wonders, Benchmark Advance and Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA). Julie Reguski, the district’s K‑12 ELA content leader, summarized the selection process and trial results and said teachers favored Into Reading: "Almost 74 percent of teachers who participated in the trials recommended Into Reading." Melinda Sheets, the district literacy coordinator, described the work as the product of a two‑year effort and presented the program evaluation findings that led to the adoption process.

Why it matters: staff said this is one of the district’s largest academic purchases because the resource would be used with every K‑5 student for up to six years and affect roughly 600 teachers across 10 elementary schools. The HMH proposal totals $2,293,674.57; HMH agreed to spread payments over three fiscal years ($293,674.57 in the current year, $1,000,000 in FY26, $1,000,000 in FY27). Staff also said ceasing the separately purchased Benchmark Phonics resource would save at least $138,000 annually, a $828,000 savings over six years.

How the decision was reached: the district followed its standard adoption procedure and added extra steps for this large purchase. The team reviewed external evaluations (EdReports, Reading League, Texas reviews, IES/Florida State rubric), examined accessibility features, visited neighboring districts using candidate materials, and organized classroom trials. Reguski said teachers and trial observations praised Into Reading’s explicit phonics, structured small‑group supports and high student engagement. The trials included additional STAR benchmark assessments to measure short‑term student growth; staff reported that students in Into Reading and Wonders showed positive gains in the trial windows, while those using Benchmark Advance showed regression in the limited trial period. Reguski cautioned that trial windows and weather‑related disruptions affect short‑term assessment comparisons.

Materials and supports: staff described components that come with the HMH package: student consumable books (take‑home copies), decodable text libraries (K–3), big books for K–1, digital platforms (Waggle adaptive practice and the HMH "Family Room" for parent support), teacher manuals, anchor charts, vocabulary cards and a professional learning platform. The district estimated additional internal implementation costs of about $45,000 for summer/after‑school stipends and substitutes to train close to 600 teachers; roughly half that cost would be drawn from the district’s 1% fund allocation.

Research and alignment: staff tied the recommendation to the district’s program evaluation and Missouri guidance on comprehensive literacy and cited state legislative language requiring core ELA instruction to be "explicit, systematic, and cumulative." Reguski and Sheets said Into Reading aligns with the science of reading and the district’s shift from a balanced literacy model to a comprehensive literacy model. Staff referenced efficacy studies and offered to provide trial summaries and third‑party reports to board members before the April meeting; HMH representatives in the room said multiple efficacy studies show positive impacts, though some long‑term (3–5 year) studies are not yet available.

Questions and concerns raised: board members asked about research comparability (districts with demographics similar to Francis Howell), accessibility features (captioning and usability for students with motor/visual impairments), how Into Reading would fit current instructional minutes (staff said minutes remain the same but will be reallocated), supports for English learners and students with significant skill gaps, and whether tiered interventions would change (staff said existing tier‑2 and tier‑3 interventions will continue, with some revisions to align interventions and add structured literacy supports). Board members requested district‑level trial data, comparative district data and cost comparisons with other vendors; staff said those materials will be posted and made available before the April meeting.

Votes at a glance: the work session opened and closed with routine procedural votes by the board. The board approved the meeting agenda, the personnel report and the policy/regulation item by voice vote; at the session’s end the board approved a motion to adjourn open session. (Those were procedural approvals recorded during the meeting; the Into Reading adoption itself will be brought as a purchase recommendation at the regular April board meeting.)

What’s next: staff will present a formal purchase recommendation for Into Reading at the April board meeting and said they will post trial summaries, efficacy studies provided by HMH and other supporting data on the district’s public board materials before that meeting. Vendors and sample materials remain available for board members and the community to review in the district office prior to the vote.