Hundreds testify for and against 'Advancing the Science of Reading Act' as House committee weighs teacher-prep changes

The House Education Committee held an extended hearing on Senate Bill 242, the "Advancing the Science of Reading Act," which would require educator-preparation programs (EPPs) to incorporate science-of-reading instruction and structured literacy into coursework and field experience, and would require school-level notifications, intervention plans and progress monitoring for students who exhibit signs of dyslexia or reading difficulty.

Senator Stewart, the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, told the committee the measure is intended to align teacher preparation with classroom practice so new teachers are ready to teach reading "on day one." She said the state already spends money on in-service retraining — "right now, we're spending about $20,000,000 a year to retrain teachers" — and the bill would extend that alignment to higher education so teachers graduate prepared to use evidence-based methods. "Structured literacy is really the most evidence based approach to instruct students, and that includes English learners," testified Dr. Linda Cavazos, who described work in districts using structured literacy.

Deputy Secretary Amanda DeBell of the Public Education Department said the state’s literacy data show the challenge the bill aims to address: "Currently, we are at 39% proficiency statewide." She outlined provisions the department supports in the proposal: EPP literacy coordinators, alignment with the New Mexico literacy framework, and parental notification and progress monitoring for students identified with reading difficulties.

The hearing drew broad and polarized testimony. Business groups and many district leaders supported the bill as a lever to improve workforce readiness; the Greater Albuquerque Chamber said investing in early literacy is essential to a future workforce. A long roster of classroom teachers, principals and district literacy coaches described improved early-grade results in districts that have adopted structured literacy and LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) training.

Opponents — including the Association of Bilingual Education, a coalition called Transform Education New Mexico, higher-education faculty, the Albuquerque Teachers Federation and the attorneys representing the Yazzie/Martinez plaintiffs — cautioned that the bill, as drafted, could undercut bilingual and multicultural programs and reduce teacher autonomy. Elizabeth Valenzuela, executive director of the Association of Bilingual Education, told the committee that the Bilingual Multicultural Education Act Advisory Council must be consulted on changes that affect bilingual instruction and warned that the draft modules "fail to account for bilingualism and translanguaging".

Melissa Candelaria, representing the Yazzie plaintiffs, opposed the bill in its current form. "By mandating the science of reading as the sole instructional approach for literacy instruction and banning balanced literacy, this bill restricts educators' ability to use proven, research-based strategies to support English learners and Native American English learners," she said, citing the risk that a single-method mandate could worsen outcomes for multilingual students if bilingual approaches are not integrated.

Several witnesses urged a slower implementation timeline and additional funding. Stan Rounds, representing the School Superintendents Association, recommended moving the effective date to July 2027 to allow a two-year transition. Administrators and teacher-prep faculty said higher-education programs are engaged and some faculty cohorts are already receiving LETRS training, but they asked for time, funding and close collaboration between PED and the colleges to align coursework and field experiences.

The committee did not take a final vote. Members raised multiple technical and policy questions — including the statutory language that defines and disallows "balanced literacy" approaches — and the sponsor agreed to work with stakeholders to revise the bill. The chair suggested the bill could be further developed in the interim if the committee does not schedule immediate follow-up amendments. The transcript shows substantial debate about bilingual instruction, teacher preparation logistics, program funding and the balance between a required statewide standard and local teacher discretion.

The bill’s proponents argue it will reduce long-term remediation costs and improve literacy outcomes; opponents argue the current draft could exclude bilingual strategies and reduce instructional flexibility for diverse classrooms. Committee members asked for clarified language and fiscal detail before any final action.