Hernando County schools plan May adoption of new English language arts textbooks

Tiffany Howard, a member of the district curriculum team, told the Hernando County School Board at a workshop April 22 that the district plans to adopt new English language arts (ELA) instructional materials in May and purchase them for use over the next five years, pending board approval and the state’s release of the short bid list.

Howard said a recent change to Florida’s statute governing instructional materials — tied to the state’s work on “science of reading” policy — moved ELA up one year in the state adoption cycle, creating the current schedule for an immediate adoption. She told board members the district began committee work in October 2024 and followed state guidance about approved publishers and the adoption timeline.

The curriculum team split elementary committees into two grade bands (K–2 and 3–5) to prioritize foundational literacy. Both elementary committees recommended Benchmark Advance; Howard reported teacher vote results of 73 percent (K–2) and 92 percent (3–5) in favor of Benchmark Advance. For middle school, committees and teacher voting favored McGraw Hill StudySync (about 86 percent); for high school, teachers chose Savvas My Perspectives (about 90 percent).

Howard said publishers not on the state-approved list or those that offered only digital products were removed from consideration. She told the board that the teacher committees narrowed multiple presentations to two finalists in each grade band and that the finalists were sent to teachers for the final selection. Materials were posted for public review in March on the district’s Let’s Talk page; Howard reported the district had received no public comments on the finalists to date.

Howard outlined estimated per‑student costs and teacher kit ratios presented to the board. She said the K–2 base package is $215 per student. She described middle- and high‑school per‑student prices as lower (reported in the presentation as approximately $172.50 per middle‑school student and about $161.50 per high‑school student) and summarized teacher‑kit ratios the district was quoted: roughly one teacher kit per 18 students in early elementary bands (shifting to 1 per 22 at a different price threshold), one kit per 50 students at middle school, and one kit per 75 students at high school. Howard noted teacher kits for elementary were quoted in the presentation at roughly $3,000 per teacher; she said these were base-package figures and did not include optional add‑ons.

Board members asked several operational questions. Mr. Johnson asked whether McGraw Hill materials complied with the Florida Department of Education’s approved list and whether language describing “diverse cultural backgrounds and gender identities” in some publisher materials presented legal risk; Howard replied the district only considered publishers on the state‑approved list and that any materials brought forward had already been approved by the state. Board members questioned how inclusion (ESE) teachers would access materials; Howard said ESE teachers would have digital access and that she would check how many additional print teacher manuals might be purchased for ESE staff.

Members also asked about teacher training and timing. Howard said teachers would have digital access over the summer and that publishers had agreed to provide webinars and recorded tutorials; in‑person training would be scheduled for district in‑service (preservice) time and a follow‑up session in October. She said the district was exploring the feasibility of optional summer or late‑school‑year sessions but that publisher commitments and contract approval timing would affect when print materials could arrive.

Howard presented ordering timing: subject to board approval and the state bid release, the district planned to place orders in late May so materials would be available for the start of the next school year. No formal adoption vote took place at the April 22 workshop.

Board members also raised budget questions. A board member noted the draft budget included about $4.5 million for instructional materials; Howard said she would check historical spending and explained that instructional‑materials funding runs through the district’s FEFP general fund allocations. She said the district retains funds set aside in prior years for instructional‑materials purchases but that timing and total FEFP changes could affect implementation decisions.

Next steps: Howard said she would provide additional details to the board before the May meeting, including answers on ESE print materials and training scheduling. The board will consider a formal adoption and contract authorization at its May meeting; ordering would begin after board approval and the state bid list was released.