[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6055979,"mediaKeyId","3313217-5fc36f97afca64bd87d8cc1a6422ad85","parentId",3313217,"title","Michigan education officials outline $87 million formula grant, $10 million literacy competition and vendor-ranking timeline","audioSeconds",1217,"startMs",1672000,"endMs",2889000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3313217-5fc36f97afca64bd87d8cc1a6422ad85&start=1672&end=2889","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3313217-5fc36f97afca64bd87d8cc1a6422ad85/thumbnail_1672000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6055979/Michigan/Michigan-education-officials-outline-87-million-formula-grant-10-million-literacy-competition-and-vendor-ranking-timeline","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6055979-ff2d8c431ce682f2662785983ea15671/orig.mp4?Expires=1770840799&Signature=TATBx--2-ErVvw62yOky5-bXhnrAKjEuXMe-rgXam-BC1n~AbSRu7SZK0ekOJzTMZTciNIE2oo061uh~4yYuRzgbg4RjcNjd7eS9OBejkNmGYde6wfgXi3QNVJz4vfqa3fqDFs0yj8BwTiNrQeZdx6feq3k3ZqMesvgMhJirt3ssZ2DwpnPBhfpXbPfZR6NbjLeJHlmNs-qLgc~ZRZdWvaIE1tiihqFgc9dhEKMOgWSTrM~hDWA~A0sam629otuAOhiqm-N3n8Mke7ib8s3n9v-eSb5EE1NJ9sWZlLNEw83y76UkaGGMOQ1Q2Y8YhIXTpcZiI~fNifDCP8qbbEo-Pw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Michigan House of Representatives","date","2025-05-13T00:00:00Z","article","The Michigan Department of Education told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on School Aid and the Department of Education that it expects to publish a committee-curated ranking list of literacy materials and open applications for an $87,000,000 formula grant known in the meeting as Section 35 MS, with awards planned for October and an accompanying $10,000,000 competitive Reading Excellence and Advancing District Innovation Competition (35 N).

Dr. Sue Carnell, chief deputy superintendent at the Michigan Department of Education, said the law creates “a Committee for Literacy Achievement that will critically evaluate” three categories—literacy series and materials, literacy professional development, and literacy tools and services—and that the committee “will create and maintain a ranking list” districts can review before applying for grant funds.

Why it matters: the formula grant is designed to let local education agencies select materials and services from a state-reviewed list; the competitive grant provides startup funds and awards to districts with demonstrated impact. MDE officials said the process is intended to align purchases with the “science of reading” research and reduce the variation in materials districts currently use.

Key details provided by MDE officials:
- Funding and type: Section 35 MS is an $87,000,000 formula grant for districts and LEAs; 35 N is a $10,000,000 competitive grant to support district innovation and scale promising approaches.
- Timeline: the Committee application process ran in November–December; study and vendor review occurred January–May; MDE anticipates publishing the ranking list in early June (Committee comments in the hearing named June 2 as the target); district application webinars will follow; review of applications is planned for August–September; awards are planned for October.
- Eligibility and use: districts may apply for items on the ranking list; MDE noted districts that purchased materials after Oct. 1, 2024, remain eligible provided the items are on the published list.
- Review process: MDE said vendors were required to submit proposals and participate in vendor webinars; evaluations consider evidence and research of impact and look at the demographics and settings in which materials were previously used.

MDE presenters at the subcommittee—Denisha Raul Smith (literacy unit manager, office of educational support), Dr. Jen Sailor (assistant director, office of educational support), and Dr. Kim St. Martin (director, myMTSS TA Center)—told members that Public Act 146 focuses on in‑service teacher supports and Public Act 147 focuses on pre‑service teacher preparation, both building on Read by Grade 3.

Committee scope and guardrails: MDE staff emphasized that the initial published list will reflect only those vendors that submitted materials meeting the stated criteria, and that the list may grow over time as vendors provide additional evidence. “So we see that over time, the list, if it starts off with 5, then it might grow to 10, then it might grow to 20,” an MDE official said.

What MDE is asking of districts: once the ranking list is published, districts will review items in the three categories, select those that best meet local needs, and apply for funding. MDE said it will provide webinars to guide districts through the application process.

What the subcommittee asked for: members pressed for the number of approved assessments or curricula currently on any existing lists; MDE said it would provide more precise counts and pointed lawmakers to the committee’s upcoming public materials and the published evaluation criteria on the department’s website.

Discussion vs. decisions: the hearing recorded committee direction and a published timeline from MDE but no formal legislative action or vote on these grants during the meeting.

Ending: MDE officials asked legislators to monitor the published criteria and to expect the Committee for Literacy Achievement’s ranking list and application materials in early June, with awards scheduled for October.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Appropriations - School Aid and Department of Education | Tuesday, May 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Michigan Department of Education told the House Appropriations Subcommittee that it will publish a committee-ranked list of approved literacy series, professional development and tools in early June and open applications for an $87,000,000 formula grant (Section 35 MS); a separate $10,000,000 competitive grant (35 N) will follow.","taxTitle","Appropriations - School Aid and Education, Appropriations, House of Representative, Committees\t\t\t\t\t, Legislative, Michigan","taxId",30768,"location","Michigan","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6055969,"Institute for Multisensory Education tells subcommittee its Orton‑Gillingham training produced local gains and seeks inclusion on state vendor list",144,3166000,3310000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3313217-5fc36f97afca64bd87d8cc1a6422ad85&start=3166&end=3310","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3313217-5fc36f97afca64bd87d8cc1a6422ad85/thumbnail_3166000.jpg","/articles/6055969/Michigan/Institute-for-Multisensory-Education-tells-subcommittee-its-OrtonGillingham-training-produced-local-gains-and-seeks-inclusion-on-state-vendor-list","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6055969-8c48e2e722a9a5016945bf9560cb7a25/orig.mp4?Expires=1770840799&Signature=BA4umppwBlCpNz0aQqymjhdLJfmafQZzzf02EOjgqjvsvP7Cppb725Q9kZjDSqjzolIzAnwRWdgXCISflSnhmkYyP26OGYRGXntsMBg9h2sa9Mkf9T1L4Ajv~ZdCWvKgIoYWi7rqnMiCXX38OOSg2mr211VxNdVnVndWtIZdGw9cphJe78KqOjjNwBVMdDKym6qEW~mo7VndJkZhrJ9IBaE308KH7LYOEcIhC6npHwFBNWbvcOvkaV2CplQkRFP53QIVXyjay7SLvzNy2EGDDU1uwGXByPNzb9AIuJVBrwkvF5apHdMqw~96jPfFUxy2mwjxewaQ7OJFk5zlox1T1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Institute for Multisensory Education (IMSI) told the House Appropriations Subcommittee that its Orton‑Gillingham‑based structured literacy training has been used in Michigan districts and that the provider has applied to the Michigan Department of Education’s vendor review for inclusion on the upcoming ranking list.

“IMSI is not a tool. It’s the toolbox,” said the presenter (identified in the hearing materials as Jean Jupp, CEO and founder, joined by Janelle Norton) while summarizing the organization’s training, assessments and coaching model.

Why it matters: the committee is preparing a state‑ranked list of literacy series, professional learning and tools that districts will use when applying for Section 35 MS funds. Vendors accepted to the list will be eligible for district purchases under the formula grant; the vendor presentations inform legislators about evidence and implementation supports available to districts.

IMSI testimony and claims presented to the committee:
- IMSI said it has trained more than 10,000 teachers in Michigan overall and that, using a 35 D grant, Michigan educators trained since 2020 numbered “over 2,800.”
- The provider described a 30‑hour Orton‑Gillingham Plus course for K–2 (OG Plus) and a Morphology Plus course for grades 3 and up, and said it is accredited by the International Dyslexia Association for its 30‑hour courses.
- The vendor cited a district efficacy study (Kent State/Pinkney) showing higher gains on AIMSweb oral reading fluency for the intervention group across grades studied; IMSI presented local examples (Petoskey Schools) and claimed improved DIBELS and oral‑reading results after implementation.
- IMSI said its OG Plus materials hold ESSA badges at specified evidence levels for particular modules and that the organization is “perpetually getting our materials reviewed for additional practice.”

Questions and vetting: committee members and MDE staff asked about vendor evidence, whether vendors had applied to the state review and how vendor studies compare. IMSI confirmed it submitted materials for MDE review and noted ESSA efficacy badges and independent district studies in other states.

Discussion vs. decisions: IMSI’s presentation was informational; the subcommittee did not vote to add any vendor to a list. MDE reiterated that the published ranking list will include only vendors that submit materials and meet the department’s criteria.

Ending: IMSI asked the committee to consider provider capacity for training, coaching and fidelity supports as MDE and districts implement the new literacy requirements.","The Institute for Multisensory Education told the subcommittee it has trained thousands of Michigan teachers in an Orton‑Gillingham‑based structured literacy model, reported local case gains and said its materials hold ESSA efficacy badges; the vendor said it has applied to MDE’s review process.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6055973,"EPIC researchers tell subcommittee Michigan elementary classrooms use hundreds of literacy resources; many lack strong evidence",168,282000,450000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3313217-5fc36f97afca64bd87d8cc1a6422ad85&start=282&end=450","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3313217-5fc36f97afca64bd87d8cc1a6422ad85/thumbnail_282000.jpg","/articles/6055973/Michigan/EPIC-researchers-tell-subcommittee-Michigan-elementary-classrooms-use-hundreds-of-literacy-resources-many-lack-strong-evidence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6055973-24080f82e9b6a0f8c95115e24d8ac369/orig.mp4?Expires=1770840799&Signature=Udk9mvNaq161c5BuYh~YdlMq5NcsxAdIb49oASMAex64kjvrqlaetmLMkbIbYEW~HF-cSnyEMc~fTcXaUvmnNc~XetwA9sCYi4X2n339l23axOG4CxbJz59KK1yN3cj7ixU35x1Hsu0Qu09Ro~TBYW3YcsNMQQGv3U6-UcSFlvl-CG70ZVxVHiS1OiKeawEleKDZTfUOZlI4MOCxF2WkGMFohzjWNWg1jBvrxqfR0KInKh7oqD9zPHQOVCnRZ8T-RT5IhS1Vy4IYkePaU-oqoKz1ZCkzFeMlePC2N~9u8NlSXjWQ8316grp74KOcjb8vCmtQd5MJioIe9iitfhuthw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Researchers from the Education Policy Innovation Collaborative (EPIC) told the House Appropriations Subcommittee that literacy curriculum use in Michigan elementary classrooms varies widely, with teachers using a large pool of core and supplemental resources and many of those materials lacking strong independent evidence of effectiveness.

“Elementary LA curriculum across Michigan varies widely,” said Emily Moore, managing director at EPIC. Moore summarized results from EPIC’s multi‑year study with Michigan State and the University of Michigan, noting that the state surveys tracked curriculum use and that many commonly used resources lack independent ratings from sources such as What Works Clearinghouse or Evidence for ESSA.

Why it matters: wide variability in instructional materials raises equity concerns because students in different classrooms may receive substantively different literacy instruction. EPIC researchers said increased professional development and coaching are important complements to materials selection, especially in districts with lower ELA performance.

Key findings presented:
- EPIC reported that the total number of resources reported used in 2019 was 464 across elementary ELA (EPIC used statewide surveys collected from 2020–2023 as part of a larger study tied to Read by Grade 3).
- The research team found many teachers were supplementing core curricula with professional texts, assessments and materials from teacher marketplaces; EPIC reported that teachers increasingly used supplemental phonics, writing and spelling resources to fill instructional gaps.
- “More than two thirds of teachers still use curriculum resources that are either unrated or do not meet expectations according to Ed Reports,” Moore said.
- EPIC said the majority of commonly used resources do not have ratings from What Works Clearinghouse or Evidence for ESSA, creating a knowledge gap about their effectiveness.
- EPIC documented increased professional development focused on curriculum implementation in districts with low ELA performance and higher shares of economically disadvantaged students, but noted rural educators received less support than suburban and urban counterparts.

Dr. Adria Truckenmiller, associate professor of special education at Michigan State and an EPIC research affiliate, told the committee that curriculum markets and limited diagnostic assessments complicate statewide implementation. “There’s this persistent history in education that curriculum is typically driven by the market as opposed to what is shown to work in scientific studies,” she said, and she noted that only one of the top‑ten programs used statewide had been examined in a controlled research study.

On assessments, Truckenmiller said many commonly used screening tools do not provide the diagnostic detail teachers need (phonics, fluency, language comprehension) and that combining complementary measures (for example, a computer‑adaptive screener plus a curriculum‑based fluency measure) can improve accuracy for intervention decisions.

Discussion vs. decisions: EPIC presented evidence and policy recommendations—evaluate curriculum resources, promote consistency while preserving teacher judgment, and expand curriculum‑aligned professional development and coaching—but the subcommittee did not take formal action on those recommendations at this meeting.

Ending: EPIC asked MDE and legislators to use evidence and the committee process to guide materials and coaching investments and to address rural professional‑development disparities.","EPIC researchers told the House Appropriations Subcommittee that Michigan elementary classrooms use a large number of ELA resources and that more than two-thirds of teachers rely on materials that EDReports rates as unrated or not meeting expectations; researchers urged consistent evaluation and expanded professional development.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Michigan education officials outline $87 million formula grant, $10 million literacy competition and vendor-ranking timeline

Institute for Multisensory Education tells subcommittee its Orton‑Gillingham training produced local gains and seeks inclusion on state vendor list

EPIC researchers tell subcommittee Michigan elementary classrooms use hundreds of literacy resources; many lack strong evidence