Advisory council and education advocates urge keeping Act 139 focused on K-3 while lawmakers weigh S.15 changes

Lawmakers and education experts debated whether S.15 should expand the states early-literacy law, Act 139, to require the same universal screening and supplemental interventions for students in grades 4 through 12 during a joint Education/GovOps committee hearing.

The Advisory Council on Literacy and advocacy groups told the committee that Act 139 was deliberately designed as a K-3 policy and that broadening its screening and data requirements to older grades could create confusion, duplicate existing supports and impose new costs on districts. "I would wait," Jay Nichols, executive director of the Vermont Principles Association, told senators when asked whether changes should be made now. He said the state should focus on resourcing implementation and on recommendations from the advisory council rather than making immediate statutory changes.

The advisory councilchair, Wayne Carmelie, director of curriculum in Qualchester, said the councilhas concentrated its work on evidence-based K-3 screening and intervention; he said those tools and screeners are age-appropriate for early grades but not for middle or high school. "The most important thing from the council's point of view is that Act 139 ... stay as a K-to-3 bill," Carmelie said, adding older students are typically served through the state's Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) and Individualized Education Program (IEP) processes.

Why it matters: Act 139 added universal screening, parental notification, professional learning and data-collection requirements targeted at kindergarten through third grade. S.15 would alter statutory language that some witnesses and legislators fear could be read to extend those K-3-specific screening requirements into higher grades. Committee members said the issue raises practical questions about which screeners to use, who would provide interventions and where districts would find funding.

Most substantive points from the hearing

- Purpose and original design of Act 139: Witnesses and council members said Act 139 was crafted around early-grade screeners (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and early comprehension) appropriate for K-3 instruction. Wayne Carmelie said those same measures are not suitable for older students, who are better assessed with grade-level reading passages and targeted diagnostic tools.

- Existing K-12 supports: Several witnesses and senators pointed to MTSS (statute cited in discussion as 2902) and existing school plans and interventions that apply to older students. Carmelie and others described MTSS and IEP/504 processes as the statutory structures that already require tiered and individualized supports across grades.

- Resource and staffing concerns: Jay Nichols and other participants told the committee that extending Act 139requirements could require new hires, additional professional learning and substitute coverage to release teachers for training. Participants noted uneven capacity across districts; some middle and high schools have reading specialists and intervention blocks, while others may not.

- Risk of confusion and duplication: Council members warned that altering Act 139's language to cover additional grades could unintentionally require universal K-3 style screeners for older students, which would be inappropriate and confusing. They suggested that if lawmakers want to address K-12 reading supports, a separate, research-informed bill for grades 4-12 would be cleaner than amending Act 139.

- Local variability: Witnesses repeatedly described uneven implementation across districts. Some principals and school systems tightened practices and improved parent communication under Act 139; others are still building capacity. Several senators cited concerns about districts facing budget pressures while being asked to absorb new responsibilities.

Quotes and attributions in this article are taken from the hearing transcript and limited to listed speakers. No committee votes were recorded during the portion of the hearing on S.15.

Ending: Committee members did not reach a decision during the hearing. Witnesses recommended pausing statutory changes to Act 139 during the current biennium, focusing instead on implementing the advisory council's recommendations, resourcing professional learning and, if needed, drafting a separate bill that addresses screening, staffing and evidence for grades 4 through 12.