Committee hears testimony on bill to expand early‑literacy classrooms, fund retrofits and let districts partner with community providers

Representative Becky Edwards, sponsor of House Bill 654, told the House Education Committee on Oct. 12 that the bill expands the early‑literacy work enacted in 2023 and targets barriers faced by rural districts and families. “This is a bill that takes the hard work that legislators achieved in the 2023 session towards more classroom based early school, early literacy intervention for Montana 4 year olds and expands it to address concerns from especially our rural communities like limited space, staffing shortages, and start up costs,” Edwards said.

The bill would (1) clarify that school districts may contract with community‑based providers to administer early‑literacy classroom programs, (2) allow districts to receive A&B funding in the first year when expanding early‑literacy classrooms, and (3) create an Early Literacy Intervention Boost Grant Program that provides a one‑time grant to retrofit classrooms and buy supplies. Proponents testified that the measure aims to remove three common barriers: available classroom space, upfront start‑up costs and staffing shortages. Rob Watson of the Coalition of Advocates for Montana’s Public Schools said the bill “provides a one‑time only grant of $1,000 per kid for retrofitting the room and to purchase supplies” and that the bill also advances A&B funding in year one so districts do not have to wait a year to receive state funding.

Educators and early‑childhood advocates urged support. Kim Popham, director of public policy and research for the Montana Federation of Public Employees, said, “MFPE rises in support of House Bill 654,” and argued early intervention changes long‑term outcomes for students. Caitlin Jensen, executive director of 0 to 5 Montana, called the bill a way to meet infrastructure needs and noted the bill’s explicit option for districts to partner with Head Start or other community programs while keeping instruction aligned with district standards. Parent Alex Du Bois, testifying as a private citizen, described his son’s participation in a district early‑literacy classroom and said the program helped his child: “My 4 year old was screened and qualified to participate in the program and let me tell you he was so excited to go to school with his big brother. Fast forward to now he has been in the program for 8 months and he has learned so much.”

Office of Public Instruction staff and the bill’s fiscal note described how the proposed funding mechanics work and the risks if enrollment projections do not materialize. Paul Taylor of OPI summarized that the bill would allow budget amendments so districts could receive A&B funding in the first year, but he cautioned about later reconciliation: “There is a callback provision in statute so that if the students did not materialize, adjustments would be then made later on.” Taylor said the fiscal note assumes enrollment growth for the program and noted that if projected students do not appear, districts could face budget adjustments or shortfalls.

Committee members pressed on the fiscal note’s assumptions. Witnesses and committee discussion referenced a proposed appropriation of $2,000,000 from the state school facilities and technology account to fund the boost grants, and proponents said the boost is intended primarily for modest retrofit and supply costs rather than major construction. The committee also heard testimony — including reference to studies by economists such as James Heckman cited by proponents — about long‑term returns on early investments, and informational witness Dr. Gigi Weisenfeld (NEAR, Rutgers) joined the hearing remotely to discuss research on state‑funded programs for 4‑year‑olds.

The hearing closed after sponsor remarks; Edwards asked the committee for a do‑pass. The committee did not take a final vote on HB 654 during this session.