House committee introduces literacy RS to align instruction with "science of reading" and fund interventions

Representative Barbara Ehart presented RS32615 on behalf of Representative Wendy Horman and asked the committee to introduce the measure for further hearings. Ehart said the RS directs state resources to close Idaho’s literacy gap by aligning instruction with the science of reading, allowing districts to choose reading assessments that fit local needs, funding a curated list of digital interventions, and establishing intensive turnaround supports for lowest‑performing schools.

"This legislation directs state resources to close Idaho's literacy gap," Ehart told the committee. She said Idaho has spent tens of millions on literacy efforts but that statewide K–3 reading proficiency remains a concern: "we've got, like, over 40 percent of our students have not met reading goals in K through third grade," she said.

Committee members raised procedural and technical questions about the RS’s definitions, costs and procurement approach. Representative Mathias asked whether the RS conflated summative and formative assessments and whether the draft should define "formative assessment"; Mathias and others also raised fiscal concerns after reading the fiscal note. Representative Sauter and others objected to language that would guarantee a $100,000 per‑school payment to external "literacy experts" without a competitive procurement process. Several members asked whether outside experts would be Idaho residents or out‑of‑state consultants; the bill text refers to "independent literacy experts" and the sponsor said the detailed questions would be best handled by the bill’s sponsor at a full hearing.

Representative Sauter offered a substitute motion to return the RS to the sponsor so Representative Horman could appear and answer technical questions. The committee took a roll call on the substitute motion; the substitute failed by a recorded vote of 5 to 9. The committee then voted to introduce RS32615; the motion to introduce carried and the RS will be printed for a future hearing.

Members who spoke during the discussion voiced a mix of support for the goal of improving K–3 reading and concern about implementation details. Representative Garner said she was "concerned" that multiple assessments could produce apples‑to‑oranges comparisons across districts; Representative Nelson warned against changing state approaches while some districts are performing well with existing programs. Representative Sauter and Representative Mathias sought stronger procurement language and clearer definitions. Ehart and other proponents said Representative Horman would be present to answer technical questions at a formal hearing.

The RS does not itself appropriate funds; the draft’s fiscal note — discussed in committee — outlines potential program costs and options that members repeatedly asked the sponsor to clarify at the printed‑bill hearing. The committee’s action to introduce the RS advances it to the normal bill‑printing and hearing process where proponents, opponents and technical staff will be able to provide detailed cost estimates and drafting fixes.