Committee adopts amendment refocusing bill on teacher preparation and structured literacy; lawmakers debate biliteracy, timelines and oversight

An amendment to an education bill that narrows the measure to focus on teacher preparation and structured‑literacy instruction cleared the House Education Committee by a 7–6 vote on Thursday, but committee members continued to raise substantive concerns about bilingual instruction, timelines and the department’s authority to monitor educator‑preparation programs.

What the amendment does: The amendment moves the principal responsibilities from the public‑school code into the higher‑education statute and requires teacher‑preparation programs to offer coursework and field experience in the science of reading, structured literacy and scientifically based reading instruction. It removes prior language referencing balanced literacy, requires the Public Education Department (PED) to develop teacher‑preparation standards that include dyslexia and English‑learner supports, and adds a provision requiring parent notification when a student is not reading at grade level.

Support from presenters: The amendment presenter told the committee that structured literacy would be “the primary approach to teaching foundational literacy skills” and emphasized that literacy instruction for English learners “shall include evidence based practices for biliteracy, differentiation, and culturally and linguistically responsive instruction.” The presenter said PED would provide guidelines, monitor compliance, and place noncompliant educator‑preparation programs on corrective action, with probation or loss of state approval as potential consequences.

Implementation concerns and timeline: Multiple committee members and representatives of higher‑education programs told lawmakers the timeline for complying with new statutory requirements could be lengthy. The committee heard that aligning course catalogs, faculty preparation and supervised field experiences can take 16 to 18 months; supporters said that was the reason the amendment had been narrowed to set collaborative implementation and to build timelines into the rulemaking process.

Bilingual instruction, cultural responsiveness: Several lawmakers, including Representative Roybal Caballero, urged that the bill explicitly integrate bilingual and culturally responsive approaches across teacher training rather than defaulting to English‑centered instruction. The amendment text includes language saying instruction for English learners shall include biliteracy practices, but some committee members said they wanted biliteracy integrated “throughout” the statute and the implementation guidance.

Oversight and data collection: The amendment adds a PED role for evaluating educator‑preparation programs and asks for evidence of graduates’ effectiveness, including data on graduates’ application of science‑of‑reading practices during their first three years in the classroom. Supporters said the collection could use available state assessment and performance measures and would be developed with educator‑preparation programs; some members said the statute should not mandate methods that are currently impractical because statewide tracking is incomplete in some places.

Votes and committee action: The committee adopted the amendment by roll call, 7–6. After further debate on the amended bill as a whole, the committee later voted 9–3 to table the bill, pausing further action from this hearing and giving sponsors time to work with stakeholders on language and implementation.

What was left unresolved: Lawmakers did not finalize a specific timeline for statutory compliance or detailed data‑collection mechanisms. Several members asked for more engagement with deans, higher‑education faculty and bilingual‑education stakeholders; presenters and the PED said they already had ongoing discussions and would continue collaborative rulemaking should the measure move forward.

Context: Supporters said the narrower, higher‑education focus would embed structured‑literacy instruction in pre‑service teacher training — a change they argued would reduce the need for later, in‑service training and improve early reading outcomes. Opponents and concerned members urged more time to work with bilingual‑education experts, to clarify how student assessment data would feed back into program approval, and to protect local control where appropriate.