Three years after Connecticut’s Right to Read law redefined literacy instruction for grades K-3, state lawmakers are considering expansive new requirements to help students struggling to read in grades 4-9. Senate Bill 220 would require that schools adopt an individual reading plan for every s tudent in grades 4 through 9 who does not meet the achievement standard for reading on annual exams. Last year, that amounted to 49.7% of students statewide, according to data from EdSight. Individual plans would include what are known as “Tier 2” interventions, such as high-dosage tutoring and summer instructional programming, based on each student’s needs. The bill was raised at a remote hearing before the Education Committee Monday and drew extensive public comment — written and live. Advocates and state education officials expressed broad appreciation for the intent of the bill, which would help children who are past the age when it’s easiest to develop foundational reading skills. But many said implementation would be a challenge, particularly because schools already struggling to keep pace with overall costs.  “The Department notes that districts will likely require significant new resources, which are not included in the Governor’s Budget, to implement this new mandate,” Education Commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker said in written testimony. (The governor’s proposed budget does include $4.5 million for a statewide literacy coach program, but for grades K-3, not 4-9.) Russell-Tucker also noted that over 108,000 students would require individual reading plans under the proposed legislation. That’s how many current fourth to ninth graders scored at Level 1 or 2 on the statewide assessment in the 2024-2025 school year. Education Committee ranking member Rep. Lezlye Zupkus, R-Prospect, asked Russell-Tucker during the hearing whether the department had an estimate for how much the additional interventions laid out in the bill would cost. Russell-Tucker replied that it did not. Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents Executive Director Fran Rabinowitz said in written testimony that the state should fully fund any new mandates issued under S.B. 220. Otherwise, she warned, “these well‐intended requirements would place considerable financial and operational strain on local and regional school districts.” Rabinowitz told the committee that her association has been hard at work training education leaders on how to implement curricula aligned with what’s known as the science of reading, which Connecticut now requires for grades K-3 under the 2023 Right to Read law. She said she isn’t opposed to literacy plans for students in higher grades but she thinks the focus should remain on the younger age group. [RELATED: CT’s Right to Read law faces criticism. The state is pushing back] Reading experts say it is significantly easier to identify and remediate reading delays at younger ages. “If you’re going to do four through nine, then … you’ve got to give us the funding,” Rabinowitz said. “But it’s not just about the funding. It’s about the personnel and the reading teachers and getting them in place in many of our most challenged districts.” In written testimony, Eric Protulis, executive director of the Regional Education Service Center EASTCONN, said, “I have to be candid about the logistics. S.B. 220 asks a lot.” Stacie Tie, a special education advocate with Special Education Equity for Kids, said she appreciates the bill’s focus on grades 4-9. “Many of the districts who are following Right to Read … when they move to fourth grade and beyond, they go back to the flawed curriculum that has been scientifically debunked,” Tie told the committee.  However, she agreed with other advocates that funding is a “major issue.” The bill instructs the education commissioner to establish a competitive grant program to help schools implement high-dosage tutoring, but Tie said that’s not a good approach. “Competitive grants often disadvantage districts with fewer administrative resources,” she wrote in prepared testimony. Connecticut Association of Boards of Education President Meg Scata concurred. “In the interests of equity these resources should be available to all eligible students,” Scata wrote. Some advocates questioned the wisdom of deciding who gets a reading plan based on a statewide assessment. Joslyn DeLancey, a fifth grade teacher and vice president of the Connecticut Education Association, told the committee that the information teachers get from these assessments is often limited. “They might let us know that students have a literacy problem, but they don’t necessarily dig into what’s causing those issues: What barriers were there? Is this a learning disability? Is this access to certain curricula or programming?” DeLancy said. Tie concurred. In her written testimony, she explained that such assessments “are not designed to diagnose reading deficits and cannot identify the underlying skill gaps that struggling readers actually have.” She suggested the state instead base intervention on screeners designed to diagnose specific reading problems. Tie said that would also help detect reading issues in high-scoring students. “Many of our struggling readers are very bright, and they have developed inappropriate compensation skills and they can beat these standardized tests,” she said. Commissioner Russell-Tucker acknowledged that state assessment scores aren’t a clear measure of reading ability. But she said it’s clear that students who score at Level 1 “will likely need significant support to become proficient.” Russell-Tucker suggested limiting requirements to additional plans to students at Level 1, which would also reduce the burden on schools — though the number of students receiving plans would still be significant. Even if the legislation were limited to students who scored at Level 1 in grades 3-5 and excluded English learners and students who already have IEPs, there would still be over 13,000 students statewide in need of an individual reading plan, she said in written testimony. Education Committee co-Chair Rep. Jennifer Leeper, D-Fairfield, said the the bill would be revised based on some of the suggestions heard during Monday’s hearing, and the committee will release a new draft with substituted text. It remains unclear how much funding would be required to implement the legislation. ...read more read less