Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Early Childhood Literacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs pilot early-literacy program; raises questions about funding and vendor choice
Summary
The House Education Committee voted unanimously to recommend passage of a bill that would allow the state to support a short, daily early‑literacy program for preschoolers, but members pressed state officials about past sole‑source contracting, how the program was funded during the COVID period and whether future procurement should be competitive.
Get email alerts on the Early Childhood Literacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CONCORD — The House Education Committee on Tuesday voted 18-0 to recommend House Bill 671, authorizing a state‑supported early‑literacy program aimed at 4‑ and 5‑year‑olds and modeled on a short, daily interactive curriculum that was piloted during the COVID era.
Supporters said the program is a low‑time, supplemental approach intended to improve readiness for kindergarten; opponents and several committee members pressed state officials over costs, procurement and whether the program would be limited to nonprofit vendors.
Representative Freeman (sponsor), who moved the “ought to pass” recommendation, said the program’s 15‑minute daily sessions are “another tool in the toolbox for our youngest learners” and that the committee had vetted questions raised at earlier hearings. “Given the 15 minutes that it entails, it won't be a long shot to keep their attention,” Freeman said.
Melissa White, division director for learner support at the Department of Education, told the committee the department used American Rescue Plan ESSER III funds to contract with Waterford, a literacy vendor, in fiscal years 2022 and 2023 — about $400,000 (part of FY22) and $600,000 (FY23). White said Waterford provided reports to the department as part of invoicing, but the department did not receive personally identifiable information and that the state could not run pre/post assessments for impact with the data it received: “There was no way for us to measure that,” she said, explaining the limits of available outcome data.
Committee members repeatedly asked whether Waterford was the only viable provider and whether future procurement would require a competitive process. White said the original contract was awarded during the COVID emergency and was sole‑source at that time; she recommended an RFP for future contracts and noted that without an appropriation the department could not execute a contract even if the bill passed. “With the dollar allocation, if it were to pass, I wouldn't be able to do anything,” she said.
Several members raised a separate question about a nonprofit requirement written into the bill: Representative Woodcock asked if limiting providers to registered nonprofits would exclude proven for‑profit providers that might deliver similar services. The sponsor and other supporters said the nonprofit language was intended to make the program more attractive to philanthropic partners who often prefer to fund nonprofits. “Foundations prefer nonprofits,” said a supporter, adding that foundation money can help expand capacity.
Lawmakers also asked if equipment and internet connectivity remain with families after the pilot. White said Waterford provided equipment and covered the internet connection while children were enrolled under the pilot contract, but she could not confirm whether internet service was paid indefinitely by the vendor.
The bill’s fiscal note and testimony indicated the state would need roughly $600,000 per year to implement statewide at the level used during the pilot, and committee members noted the bill’s one‑dollar placeholder appropriation would require Finance to amend the request. Several committee members said they supported the concept but wanted clearer cost estimates and a competitive procurement process written into implementing steps.
Vote: The committee recorded 18 yays and 0 nays on the “ought to pass” recommendation.
Why it matters: The measure seeks to scale up an early‑literacy intervention that the department piloted with federal COVID relief funds. If enacted and funded, the program could reach preschool‑age children statewide; the committee debate focused on how to ensure appropriate procurement, independent evaluation, and clarity on ongoing costs for families and the state.
What’s next: The bill was recommended “ought to pass” by the committee and will proceed to the House calendar; committee members requested follow‑up information from the department on past program participation and vendor reporting.

