Kansas blueprint for literacy proposes seven regional reading centers; $10 million appropriated

Dr. Lane (presenter) told the Committee on Education that the Kansas Board of Regents' Blueprint for Literacy recommends seven regional reading centers to provide ongoing professional learning in structured literacy, diagnostic and formative assessments, and family supports, and that the initiative is backed by a $10,000,000 FY2025 appropriation now included in the Board of Regents' FY2026 budget submission.

The plan, Dr. Lane said, aims to train 100% of the elementary teaching workforce in structured literacy by 2030 and to raise student outcomes so that 90% of Kansas students score at Level 2 or higher on the state reading assessment, with 50% at Levels 3 and 4. "Reading is the most important skill we develop as a human being," Dr. Lane said, describing the centers as a higher-education–led partner to K‑12 that will provide teacher training, coaching, and family-facing evaluations and plans.

Why it matters: Committee members said they support the shift to structured literacy and LETRS-aligned training but repeatedly pressed for more detail on implementation, accountability and timelines. Lawmakers and Regents staff discussed how the centers will operate across large catchment areas, how universities will rework teacher-preparation curricula, and how the advisory committee will vet and approve university plans before any grant awards are made.

Key details from the plan and hearing

- Funding and budget: Dylan Deer (staff member) said the $10,000,000 appropriation was made last year for FY2025 "as a single item appropriation inside of a policy bill" and that the governor's recommendation for related expenditures was included in the FY2026 Board of Regents budget submission. Dr. Lane confirmed the Regents consider that appropriation part of the base request and that the centers and related work will be considered through the Regents' budget and the higher-education appropriation process.

- Centers and catchment model: The advisory committee recommended seven centers (the bill authorized six), citing an existing Center for Reading at Pittsburg State University with 30 years of evaluation experience. The plan lays out catchment areas that assign responsibility for outreach and services; centers are required to demonstrate how they will share university expertise statewide and to establish hubs or partner locations so services reach rural areas such as Hays' catchment.

- Required components and timeline: The plan defines required elements for each center (pre‑service course alignment, in‑service training/coaching, diagnostic assessment capacity, family supports, and partnerships). Universities that submitted proposals must revise them to align with the advisory committee's required elements; those revised plans are scheduled for review beginning the week after the hearing. Dr. Lane said centers will not receive final authorization or grants until those revisions are approved by the advisory committee.

- Teacher preparation and LE TRS: The plan directs universities to reshape undergraduate courses (Science of Reading 1 and 2 reworked around structured literacy) and to develop a "foundations in structured literacy" course for practicing teachers. Dr. Lane said the course led by Rachel Rubio (senior associate director for the blueprint) is on schedule to go before the state board in March and be offered in June.

- Scale and costs: The plan's appendix estimates roughly 18,700 educators statewide in scope; staff told the committee that approximately 5,237 teachers remain to be trained under the structured-literacy credential needs analysis. Committee members and Regents staff noted the FY2025 appropriation equates to roughly $1,800–$2,000 per untrained teacher if allocated to tuition and coaching for the newly developed course.

- Accountability and progress monitoring: Committee members repeatedly asked for interim benchmarking beyond state summative tests. Dr. Lane said the plan includes required use of diagnostic and formative assessments and that the advisory committee is discussing performance metrics for staff qualifications and student-level benchmarking; the task force will return more detailed accountability proposals and program-review materials in the coming months.

- Simulations and coaching: The plan uses a "continuum" term sometimes described as simulation; Dr. Lane said the advisory committee intends the term to mean structured, coached practice (faculty-guided practice, classroom coaching, or observation-based critique), not AI-generated or artificial children. The advisory committee suggested clarifying the term in statutory language and will provide a refined definition.

- Implementation process and next steps: Universities that submitted plans must realign to the advisory committee requirements; review meetings with each lead university begin next week. Dr. Lane and Blake Flanders (CEO, Kansas Board of Regents) said the advisory committee will monitor implementation, and the committee chair asked that more granular "how" details be returned to the Committee on Education — for example, how field experiences, student teaching, and credit-hour structures will be used so pre‑service candidates gain sustained practice in structured literacy.

Votes, procedural items and other business

- Committee draft request: The Committee added a request for a committee draft for 25RS0489, "on behalf of Phillips Fundamental Learning Center," by unanimous consent after Chair Estes asked whether there were any objections. The transcript records no recorded roll-call vote.

- Guests introduced: Representative Steele introduced the Flint Hills Regional Leadership Group (five counties) that was attending the Capitol; the chair thanked the group for attending.

What the committee members emphasized

Lawmakers who spoke repeatedly supported structured literacy and praised the plan's goals but called for clearer interim benchmarks, stronger clarity on staff qualifications at centers, more specifics about the "how" of teacher preparation and coached practice, and assurances that the investment produces measurable student progress before long-range targets (2030/2033) are used as the only measures. Several members asked for program-review materials and revised university plans to be returned for Committee review in April.

Ending

Dr. Lane and Regents staff left the Committee with a request to provide more-detailed implementation plans, program-review data and accountability metrics. The Committee scheduled further literacy testimony from the State Board of Education (Commissioner Watson) at the next meeting to align K‑12 assessment and accountability with the Regents' center-based implementation plan.