House panel hears hours of testimony on substitute for HB 1295 requiring evidence-aligned K–4 literacy instruction

The House Education Committee took extensive public testimony on the proposed substitute to House Bill 1295, which would require evidence-aligned instructional practices in reading and writing for public elementary students in kindergarten through grade 4 and update related educator endorsements.

Megan Wargaghi, counsel to the committee, summarized the substitute: districts must provide annual screening and multi-tiered supports; students showing below-grade reading or indications of dyslexia must receive evidence-based multisensory structured literacy interventions delivered by trained educators; the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) would provide technical assistance and publish an educator training program and dyslexia handbook within available resources; the Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) must adopt revised endorsement competencies and require teacher preparation programs to update coursework within two academic years after adoption.

Representative Pollet (prime sponsor) said the bill reflects longstanding neuroscience about how children learn to read and cited Washington reading data, arguing the substitute would align instruction with the five elements in the U.S. Department of Education guidance. “For over 35 years, there has been absolute scientific consensus over how children universally in any language learn to read,” Pollet said, and called structured literacy an equity measure that some districts have already implemented with measurable gains.

Parents, teachers, school-district staff and advocates offered mostly pro testimony. Sarah Buto (Decoding Dyslexia Washington) described advocacy and practitioner experience supporting evidence-aligned instruction for students with dyslexia. Gina Vincent, assistant director for teaching and learning in the Puyallup School District, gave district outcome data: after adopting evidence-aligned literacy, her district’s cohort saw the percentage of grade 2 students not at risk rise from 63% to 71% in one year, with several schools exceeding 80% not at risk.

The Washington Education Association and PESB staff offered cautious, technical support while asking for clearer bill language on how PESB would approve additional educator training programs and noting potential burdens from new renewal requirements.

Several witnesses opposed or raised concerns about the substitute. Tara Gessler and Dee Tadlock testified that programs such as Read Write — which Tadlock said she developed and which she described as having strong, decades-long results — could be sidelined by a statutory emphasis on particular evidence-aligned approaches. Rhonda Stone urged head-to-head research comparing methods and cautioned against assuming older phonics-based models are uniformly correct or incorrect.

Committee members pressed on implementation details, costs and local control. Sponsor Pollet acknowledged that several sections were removed from the substitute because they could incur cost during a current budget deficit, and PESB and OSPI staff noted the bill leverages work already under way but asked for clarifying amendment language where the substitute directs board action.

The committee suspended and later resumed the public hearing to hear additional panels and closed the hearing after more public testimony, preserving time for continued consideration and amendment drafting.

Next steps: No formal committee vote on the substitute was recorded in the transcript; members were reminded to submit amendments to staff ahead of subsequent executive-session work.