Kansas education officials outline plan to boost reading skills, require veteran teachers to certify by 2028

Kansas education officials told the Legislature’s Committee on Education that a state-led push to improve literacy combines teacher training, regular screening and assessment, and incentives for educators — and will require veteran elementary teachers who teach reading to meet a new certification requirement by 2028.

Commissioner Randy Watson of the Kansas State Department of Education said the state has more than 8,000 teachers currently enrolled in research-based training programs and about 3,000 teachers who have completed such training. “We should start to see results of that starting with this cycle this spring,” Watson said, summarizing the department’s progress in a committee hearing.

The push centers on three items: (1) teacher training recognized by the state board — including LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling), AIM’s Pathway to Proficient Reading and Keys to Literacy — (2) use of universal screeners and diagnostic assessments to identify students needing additional help, and (3) incentives and potential centers for advanced training and intensive interventions. The state is also using federal COVID relief funds — Watson said up to $25 million has been dedicated to training — to pay for some training costs.

Officials told committee members the state board’s “blueprint for literacy,” passed last year, asks that veteran teachers who teach reading either complete approved training with at least 80% competency or pass an approved exam by 2028. Watson said the requirement applies to educators who teach reading in preschool and elementary settings, reading specialists, school psychologists who test for reading disabilities, and elementary principals and assistant principals. He said other staff such as physical education and music teachers would not be required to meet the reading certification unless they teach reading directly.

Frank Harwood, deputy commissioner for KSDE, described how the department expects districts to use assessments in a tiered approach: universal screeners (administered three times a year, K–8), diagnostics for students flagged by screeners, and progress monitoring for students receiving interventions. “Screeners do a couple of different things,” Harwood said. “They will talk about whether a student is at high risk, medium risk, or low risk of being behind with reading.” He noted that some districts have adopted FastBridge as their screener; KSDE is currently underwriting part of FastBridge’s cost but those funds are planned to end in 2026.

Committee members pressed officials on capacity, cost and evidence of effectiveness. Representative Chauncey asked whether the current training and assessment cadence — and the proposed centers — are sufficient to reach statewide goals. Watson said the state has already seen modest improvements but expects gains to accelerate as more teachers are trained and curricula are aligned to structured literacy approaches. Representative Steele raised concerns about the time demand on teachers and related district costs; Watson replied that some districts used professional development days or remaining federal relief funds to cover training time, and that funding and implementation vary by district.

The committee discussed the approximately 18,000 educators statewide who teach reading-related content and the department’s goal of moving a large share out of the bottom proficiency category. Watson said 2,649 educators had already received the state “seal of literacy” as of the prior Friday and that 184 educators had taken the required exam (most were college students). He said the department expects the list of approved trainings to expand over time and that the state will cover the cost of a state-approved exam one time per teacher.

Members also asked about the proposed “reading centers” described in the blueprint and in separate task force proposals. Representatives asked whether existing district training activities and university student-teaching placements could serve the same function. Watson said reading centers are intended to provide ongoing, advanced training and support for severe cases and for continuous professional development beyond initial training; he agreed university student teachers could gain experience by working alongside local staff who have completed LETRS training.

On assessments, Harwood provided a taxonomy the committee requested: universal screeners (brief, classroom-level risk flags, e.g., FastBridge), diagnostics (short, targeted assessments to identify student needs), progress monitoring (frequent checks tied to a specific intervention), formative assessments (teacher-used checks to inform daily instruction), interim/benchmark assessments and summative/state assessments (used for system-level reporting). He said the state assessment program is a “balanced system” of mini-tests, interim benchmarks and a summative spring assessment; KSDE’s view is that summative tests are better for system monitoring than day-to-day instructional adjustments.

Committee members also asked about funding and costs. Harwood told the committee that the state’s summative assessment program costs roughly $7 million annually, about $1.4 million of which is state general fund money and the remainder federal funds. Members cited other figures discussed in committee: that FastBridge had been used in roughly 190 districts covering about 330,000 students in earlier reports and that the state previously covered part of the per-student FastBridge fee (about $6 of roughly $12 per student in one earlier arrangement). Watson and members agreed that some proposed new spending — including centers with a referenced $40 million figure in task force proposals — is meant to extend supports beyond the initial federally funded training window.

What happened next: committee members asked KSDE to provide additional materials the committee requested, including: summaries or scope-and-sequence materials from LETRS, data on districts that have completed training (KSDE cited Shawnee Heights as a district that had trained all staff and said the department would track outcomes there), and follow-up analyses tying district-level implementation to spring assessment results. Watson and Harwood said they would share requested documentation and sample assessment reports with committee members later in the year.

Votes at a glance: At the meeting’s start several bills were introduced by unanimous consent. The committee recorded introductions without formal debate: 25RS0552 (school-bus camera/arm cameras), 25RS0553 (allowing an additional 2 mills for capital outlay for safety and ADA compliance), 25RS0782 (raising the bid threshold from $20,000 to $50,000), and RS0699 (renewal of a low-income tax-credit scholarship/HOPE scholarship-related tax-credit). The introductions were noted by the chair with no recorded objections.