Committee retains bill that would require public education to meet a strict "evidence-based" definition; department warns of wide impact

The Finance Committee’s Division II retained HB 129 on Jan. 29, a bill that would require “all methods delivering public education” to meet a strict definition of “evidence based.” The motion to retain the bill passed on a recorded voice roll call; the committee did not adopt the measure into law and left it on the table for further work.

The Department of Education cautioned members that the bill’s proposed definition is more restrictive than federal standards and could require local districts to rework curricula, training and other materials. Melissa White, division director for learner support at the Department of Education, told the committee the draft definition demands “reproducibility in multiple well designed studies within a single discipline” or “an independent confirmation by well designed studies across multiple disciplines,” and said that standard would be difficult to apply broadly.

Why it matters: The committee heard that applying a narrow, single-definition requirement across K–12 could affect long-standing local practices and recently adopted statewide efforts. White told members HB 129 could sweep beyond intervention programs and reading supports into areas such as civics curriculum, handwriting and other courses that do not fit the bill’s strict criteria. She said, “This would mean a complete overhaul of everything that is being taught in a school.”

What the department told lawmakers: White explained the bill diverges from the federal framework, which divides evidence into four tiers (strong, moderate, promising and rationale-level evidence) and is reflected in national clearinghouses such as the What Works Clearinghouse. White said some targeted programs — for example, certain dyslexia reading interventions — meet strict scientific-evidence criteria and could fit the bill’s language, but many other activities commonly provided or required by statute would not.

Committee members repeatedly pressed the department on fiscal and operational consequences. Representative Hacken Phillips cited the bill’s fiscal note and read the department’s estimate that a new position to implement the proposal would cost about $118,000 in fiscal 2026, $123,000 in fiscal 2027 and $127,000 in fiscal 2028. Members also asked whether federal grants (for example, Title I funds) might be at risk if state law’s definition conflicts with federal rules; White said the state’s federal pass-throughs would probably be manageable but warned the department would need to “restructure how we are evaluating the activities they submit to us for their grant programs.”

A number of lawmakers noted potential local costs that would not appear on the bill’s fiscal note. Committee members pointed to teacher hires, curriculum purchases and other local expenses that local school districts would bear if curriculum or training must be replaced or revalidated as “evidence based.” White said the department believes implementing the bill as written would be a “very heavy lift” and likely require at least one new position at the department to carry out the review and compliance tasks.

Committee action and next steps: Representative Popovich moved to retain HB 129; the motion passed by recorded roll call (seven yeas, zero nays). The committee retained HB 129 to give members time to address technical conflicts with federal definitions and to quantify state and local fiscal impact. Retention is not a final decision on the bill’s merits; it leaves the bill on the committee’s docket for further work or amendment.

Context and background: Committee discussion cited the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and federal evidence tiers as important comparators, and referenced the What Works Clearinghouse as a common national catalog of research evidence used by districts. Lawmakers said they want clearer learning about how the proposed statutory definition would interact with federal requirements and existing state laws that currently mandate some curriculum elements.

Looking ahead: The department and lawmakers agreed the bill needs further technical work on the definition, clarity on which programs would be covered, and an estimate of local fiscal impacts. Committee staff and members said they intend to review the bill’s language and the department’s fiscal estimates before deciding whether to advance, amend or kill the proposal.