Senate Education Committee advances bill to require universal dyslexia screening for K–3 after hours of testimony

The Colorado Senate Education Committee voted unanimously late Thursday to advance Senate Bill 200, a measure that would require universal screening for characteristics of dyslexia for students in kindergarten through third grade and strengthen follow-up services for students who screen at risk.

Sponsors said the bill is intended to catch students earlier so they receive targeted interventions rather than waiting until they fall behind. “When a student has dyslexia, a generalized reading intervention doesn’t work for that student,” sponsor Senator Dylan Mullica said in opening remarks, describing personal experience as a parent. “We’re trying to make sure that if a student is identified with a reading deficiency that we dig a little deeper.”

Why it matters: Colorado reading scores remain below desired benchmarks and advocates testified that identifying dyslexia early can change long-term outcomes. Supporters said universal screening and better follow-up will reduce long-term academic and social harms; critics and some committee members sought safeguards about how screening is implemented and how results interact with existing assessments.

What the bill and amendments do - Core requirement: SB 200 requires universal dyslexia screening for students in grades K–3. The bill directs the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) to set standards for valid, reliable screeners and data-driven follow-up. - Amendment L001 (adopted): preserves the universal screening requirement but clarifies a screener may be administered either within an approved interim assessment or as a separate dyslexia-specific screener. Sponsors said the change preserves district flexibility and accommodates districts that already use separate screeners. - Amendment L003 (adopted): removes language in the bill that would have altered the statutory requirements for the kindergarten readiness assessment; sponsors and witnesses said the bill will continue to rely on other statutory authority for readiness reporting and that the readiness assessment language did not belong in this bill.

Court of public testimony: The committee heard from more than 60 witnesses over multiple panels. Students and parents described delayed identification and the effects on confidence and mental health. Fifteen students and many parents told the committee earlier identification — and access to evidence-based, multisensory phonics instruction — made the difference between falling behind and thriving.

Representative quotes (from the transcript): - Student Winston Unger: “Knowing that I was dyslexic gave me a new insight to how I could learn… it doesn’t mean that I’m stupid.” - Student Caden Forche: “My goal for this bill is to get multisensory phonics instruction into every school… if dyslexic kids get diagnosed, they can do really cool things.” - Parent Lindsey Drakos, cofounder of CoKID: “When we started advocating for dyslexia screening, only a handful of states required it. Now 43 states require dyslexia screening and Colorado is still not one of them.” (testimony attributed) - Rachel Arnold, International Dyslexia Association Rocky Mountain branch: cited NAEP 2024 reading scores and warned that early intervention is more effective than delayed intervention, and linked literacy outcomes to later social and fiscal costs.

Implementation and fiscal questions: witnesses and members probed whether universal screening would create large additional workloads for districts and how many students would be identified. Boulder Valley School District representative Michelle Kazi described the district’s experience: universal kindergarten screening since 2020 identified roughly 9–17% of kindergarteners as at risk in different years and did not substantially increase special education referrals but gave teachers actionable information. Vice Chair Marchman raised questions about funding and long‑term sustainability; one witness noted the state currently spends on other education funding streams and that scaling interventions will require investment.

Committee action and next steps: After adopting L001 and L003, the committee voted to move SB 200, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. Committee staff recorded the motion to advance the bill and the vote outcome as 6–0 in favor. Sponsors said the bill is a starting point, not a final solution — the bill sets standards for screening and data-driven follow up while leaving implementation details to CDE and local districts.

What the bill does not do: SB 200 does not itself prescribe specific instructional programs (for example, it does not mandate Orton‑Gillingham or other named curricula). It does not create an entitlement to private testing; several parents described paying out-of-pocket for private evaluations when schools did not diagnose their children.

Sources and authorities referenced in committee: witnesses and members cited the Read Act and the state’s kindergarten readiness work (the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids / CAP4K, 2008) and federal/state literacy research. Advocates repeatedly referenced the “science of reading” and Orton‑Gillingham/multisensory phonics as evidence‑based approaches, and speakers cited National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2024 reading proficiency figures when arguing urgency.

Ending: The committee’s unanimous vote advances SB 200 to the Senate floor process. Sponsors and advocates asked the full Senate to consider the measure quickly so districts can plan screening and intervention timelines; supporters also urged additional state investment to scale evidence‑based follow‑up instruction and professional development for teachers.