Senate Education panel considers amendment to restore K–12 supplemental reading instruction

The Senate Education Committee met April 1, 2025, to review a strike‑all amendment to S.15 that would add a requirement that public schools and approved independent schools provide supplemental reading instruction to any K–12 student whose reading proficiency is “significantly below” grade‑level standards or prevents progress in school, according to language presented by the Office of Legislative Council.

Committee members were told the amendment was developed by parties who had met to find common ground after Act 139 — Vermont’s K–3 literacy law passed last year — removed an earlier statutory provision for supplemental instruction in grades above third. Beth St. James of the Office of Legislative Council walked the committee through a side‑by‑side of current law, S.15 as introduced, and the proposed amendment and said the draft strikes and replaces the subsection of 16 VSA §2903 that concerns supplemental reading instruction.

Why it matters: Witnesses told the committee the change would restore access to evidence‑based reading interventions in grades 4–12 that some advocates say was unintentionally narrowed when Act 139 focused statutory requirements on K–3. Testimony cited declines on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — including that 42% of Vermont fourth graders scored at “below basic” in 2024 — as part of the case for restoring supplemental services for older students.

Testimony and debate Beth St. James, legislative counsel, said the proposed amendment would keep Act 139’s requirements for systematic, explicit, evidence‑based instruction in grades K–3 while adding a duty that schools provide supplemental instruction for K–12 students who meet the “significantly below” threshold. “I drafted the strike‑all committee amendment,” St. James said, describing how the draft reorganizes and clarifies cross‑references in the existing statute.

Doreen (no last name provided), who identified herself as a licensed reading specialist and a longtime teacher and principal, urged the committee to adopt language that restores supplemental instruction for students beyond third grade. “We are proud to stand before you today in full support of supplementary reading instruction for K–12 students who are significantly below grade‑level proficiency,” she said, summarizing the position of local educators and literacy advocates.

A recurring point in committee discussion was the meaning of the phrase “significantly below.” Byers, identified as a former deputy commissioner of the Vermont Agency of Education and a longtime assessment and measurement expert at the University of Vermont, told senators the phrase is intended to mean statistically significant: the cut score must account for measurement error so schools can be 95% confident the designation is accurate. “The term significantly refers to statistically significantly,” Byers said, and described standard error bands and confidence‑interval logic used in assessment practice.

Representatives of the Agency of Education (AOE), the Vermont Principals Association (VPA) and the Vermont Superintendents Association said the agency has published screening guidance that operationalizes which students trigger parental notification and school intervention. Gwen Carmoli, director of curriculum and chair of the Advisory Council on Literacy, and Jay Nichols (identified as VPA director) said AOE guidance generally treats the lowest performing students — roughly the bottom quartile on nationally normed screeners (around the 20th–25th percentile) — as those who should receive intensive supplemental instruction. Chelsea Myers, executive director of the Vermont Superintendents Association, said she had been briefed on the compromise language and that the association supports the amended wording as presented.

Committee members pressed for clarity on how identified students would be served. Witnesses described common practice as providing a second, targeted lesson during the school day — often 30–50 minutes, multiple days per week — and noted state and district variation in how services are delivered. Some districts screen students three times per year (fall, winter, spring) and use diagnostic assessment to group students by skill gaps and deliver targeted small‑group instruction.

Points of contention and next steps Senators asked whether the bill should specify a single test or numeric cut score. Several witnesses advised against embedding a specific assessment or fixed cut score in statute, saying assessments and their norms change over time. Byers and others recommended authorizing AOE guidance to define the operational thresholds so districts and assessments that meet validity and reliability expectations can be used. One senator suggested language such as “as defined by the Agency of Education” to clarify who determines the operational meaning of “significantly below.” St. James and witnesses warned that if the committee legislates a highly detailed technical definition it may constrain future adjustments that AOE would otherwise make by guidance and practice.

No formal motion or roll‑call vote on S.15 occurred at the hearing; the committee paused to let the parties present their negotiated language and to invite further consultation between legislative staff, AOE, and education stakeholders. Witnesses requested that the committee include the provision in a miscellaneous education vehicle such as H.480 if the committee wished to move the change forward. The hearing record shows committee members intend to continue discussion and to hear additional testimony from parties who negotiated the amendment.

The committee did not make a formal decision at the April 1 hearing; staff indicated they would circulate the draft amendment and the parties would return to present how they reached agreement.