Long hearing on literacy bill divides educators and bilingual advocates; higher‑ed alignment, teacher preparation are focal points

House Education Committee — Senators and the Public Education Department presented Senate Bill 242, the Advancing the Science of Reading Act, proposing statutory expectations that educator preparation programs teach the science of reading and structured literacy, require parental notification for students showing signs of dyslexia, and align teacher preparation with New Mexico’s literacy framework.

Deputy Secretary Amanda DeBell (Public Education Department) described the measure as the next step in the state’s literacy work and told committee members that the bill would require educator‑preparation programs (EPPs) and alternative routes to include coursework in the science of reading, use high‑quality instructional materials and eliminate discredited balanced‑literacy practices from teacher preparation. “It is our intention that this bill will ensure that future teachers [learn] exactly what they need in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension instruction,” DeBell said.

Proponents included superintendents, principals, reading specialists and nonprofit groups who testified that districts implementing structured literacy and LETRS training had measurable improvements in early reading scores. Multiple witnesses representing Albuquerque Public Schools, Gadsden ISD and Roswell schools cited improved K‑2 proficiency after adopting structured‑literacy programs and training for teachers. “We are meeting the expectations of Yazzie Martinez by providing improving outcomes for our students,” Nancy Lopez Elementary’s principal said during testimony describing strong gains in English‑learner groups.

Opponents voiced two main concerns: (1) that a narrow statutory approach risks sidelining bilingual‑education best practices and translanguaging methods and (2) that mandating specific instructional methods could impinge on higher‑education academic freedom and local instructional judgement. The Association of Bilingual Education and the Bilingual Multicultural Education Act Advisory Council urged tabling the bill for interim study, saying existing structured‑literacy module materials needed review for biliteracy alignment. The New Mexico Bureau of Law and Poverty (counsel for the Yazzie plaintiffs) likewise urged caution, noting previous court findings that New Mexico must provide effective language instruction programs for English learners and arguing that an outright ban on balanced‑literacy methods could harm English learners if it excluded proven bilingual practices.

Committee members asked how higher‑education programs would be supported and monitored. Deputy Secretary DeBell said PED has been meeting with educator‑prep deans, that some faculty are already in LETRS training and that the department intends rulemaking and alignment work with universities and alternative‑licensure programs; she said funding lines exist for some elements and that some student‑teacher stipends already cover supervised field hours. Some members asked for a later effective date and additional funding for college coordinators and field supervision; a PED representative said the department would work with campuses and suggested the colleges could designate coordinators from existing faculty.

The hearing included extensive public testimony from teachers, reading specialists, principals and parents who provided classroom and district-level data and personal accounts of student improvement under structured‑literacy approaches; supporters repeatedly cited LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) and district gains in Istation/IMSa scores.

Opponents included university representatives, the Association of Bilingual Education, Transform Education NM, Albuquerque Teachers Federation and other groups who asked for amendments to protect bilingual/biliteracy methods, to preserve faculty academic freedom and to allow additional interim study and stakeholder review. Several committee members asked the sponsor and department to work on technical and clarifying amendments; the chair signaled willingness to remove language that would categorically ban balanced‑literacy terminology following member concerns.

Ending: The committee did not record a final vote on SB 242 in the transcript. Sponsors and the department agreed to pursue rulemaking and to discuss amendments requested by members; committee leadership asked the sponsor to bring agreed language back in committee or to consider interim study.