Commissioner warns SB 220 would create large new costs and admin demands as committee weighs statewide reading plans
Loading...
Summary
Department of Education staff told the committee SB 220 would expand required individual reading plans and high‑dosage tutoring to tens of thousands of students (an estimated 108,000), but cautioned districts lack the staffing and funding to implement it immediately. Lawmakers asked for cost estimates and phased implementation.
The Connecticut Department of Education told lawmakers on Feb. 26 that Senate Bill 220, a proposal to expand individual reading plans, high‑dosage tutoring and state‑level literacy interventions beyond the earliest grades, would touch far more students than some lawmakers realize and likely require substantial new personnel and funding. Commissioner Russell Tucker and her literacy staff said the bill’s proposed criteria would mean roughly 108,000 students in grades beyond K–3—across Alliance and non‑Alliance districts—could be eligible for formal reading plans and interventions, based on recent assessment results.
Department witnesses urged the committee to proceed cautiously. ‘‘If the legislation as drafted becomes law based on the 2024 results alone, there’s an additional 108,000 students in grades 3 through 8 who would require new individual reading plans,’’ Commissioner Tucker said, noting those plans require staff time, assessment and follow‑up. Literacy center staff described evidence‑based elements (structured literacy, diagnostic assessment, 45–60 minute intervention lessons) and warned that many districts currently lack the trained personnel to deliver that level of intervention at scale.
Lawmakers pressed for costs and sequencing. Representative Zepkes asked whether the proposal was an ‘‘unfunded mandate.’’ The commissioner said districts would need additional resources to meet the proposed requirements and that the department had not yet completed a cost estimate. Committee members asked for district‑level data, the number of students per district who would be affected, and whether the state could phase the law to allow time for educator training. The department agreed to provide further numbers and to work with appropriations staff on funding scenarios.
Supporters at the hearing urged broad coverage, arguing that limiting interventions to the lowest performers risks leaving many behind. Opponents and some superintendents said the bill should be tightened, with clearer funding and an implementation timeline tied to teacher training and the rollout of the State’s structured‑literacy competencies. Several witnesses urged that any plan explicitly exclude students covered already by IEPs from redundant mandates, or offer a clear waiver process.
Next steps: The Department said it will supply the district‑level counts and an implementation timetable for the committee. Lawmakers signaled interest in revising the bill to phase in requirements, clarify accountability and identify a sustainable funding path before final passage.
