Senate subcommittee hears bill to expand early-literacy coaches, training and screening but takes no vote

A Senate subcommittee on Appropriations heard testimony on House Bill 1193, the Georgia Early Literacy Act of 2026, which seeks to expand statewide early-literacy services by adding roughly 1,313 school-based literacy coaches paid through QBE and establishing new review and governance structures; no vote was taken at the hearing.

The bill sponsor told senators the measure aims to get more third graders reading on grade level and to align classroom instruction to the “science of reading,” arguing that early mastery of reading will improve lifetime outcomes and the state’s economic prospects. “Reading helps us dream big,” the sponsor said while outlining the bill’s goals.

Provisions and funding The bill would direct approximately $31.2 million in QBE funds in fiscal year 2027 as a first-year allocation to support school-based literacy coaches, which sponsors described as a down payment toward a statewide complement of about 1,313 coaches. A presenter for the bill provided a line-item breakdown that repurposes roughly $18.4 million already appropriated, and included smaller allocations: $150,000 for professional learning through the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (GOSA), $330,000 to support review of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM), $96,000 for screener review, and an additional ~$527,000 to the Professional Standards Commission (PSC) to add program-approval staff. The presenter summarized a House-version total of about $60.9 million for FY27.

Sponsors said coaches would be funded in QBE like other state-paid positions (a base salary figure of about $54,000 was cited as an approximation for modeling purposes), with local districts responsible for employer-side fringe costs (retirement, FICA). “We fully fund this,” the bill sponsor said, while acknowledging employers would pick up standard fringe contributions.

How coaches would work Sponsor and presenters described the coach role as job-embedded support: coaches are expected to spend roughly 70% of their time inside classrooms, modeling instruction, working directly with struggling students and coaching teachers. Coaches would be hired and evaluated by local principals and coordinated regionally by leadership literacy coaches and a state director of literacy the bill would authorize. Sponsor testimony emphasized that the plan includes screeners, unified literacy plans created by each school, and a task force to recommend HQIM and screener standards that align to the science of reading.

Committee questions and points of debate Committee members pressed sponsors on several fronts: how the $31.2 million translates into sustainable staffing across the state, whether hiring coaches will exacerbate local teacher shortages, how English‑learner (ESOL/ESL) students will be supported, and how parents participate in promotion and retention decisions. On ESOL, sponsors pointed to state ESOL endorsements for teachers, state-provided training and district-level unified literacy plans intended to tailor supports locally. On placement, sponsors said the bill creates a principal/teacher/parent review team and an appeal process for placement decisions.

Public testimony and equity concerns Several local educators testified in favor of the bill while urging targeted supports for high-poverty communities. Kenneth Dyer, superintendent of the Doherty County School System, said persistent poverty correlates with lower reading proficiency and urged adding a targeted poverty weight to funding so resources follow high-need schools. Dyer presented district data from three schools that received coaches and wraparound supports and reported double-digit gains in students reading at or above grade level over multi-year periods.

Jaylene Hunter, a district board chair and member of a literacy council, described district investments in literacy training and coaches that produced measurable gains and allowed the district to reduce coach headcount over time once teachers were trained. Beth Haynes of Decoding Dyslexia stressed that task-force expertise and strong state guidance will be essential because many districts lack resources to implement screeners and HQIM correctly and to identify dyslexia and other needs early.

Next steps Committee leadership reiterated that the hearing was for fact‑finding; no committee action or vote was taken. Sponsors said the measure will next be presented to the regular appropriations committee for further consideration.

Questions and clarifications that remain include how hiring and long‑term costs will scale beyond the initial appropriation, the mechanics of the proposed poverty weight requested by some witnesses, and how the state will ensure consistent use of screeners and HQIM across districts.

Ending The subcommittee adjourned after public testimony; sponsors and witnesses said they will continue discussions with stakeholders and legislative colleagues as the bill moves through the appropriations process.